Supreme Court Orders Eviction After 59-Year-Long Property Dispute

The Supreme Court of India recently concluded a long-standing legal battle concerning property rights and possession in the case of Bansidhar Sharma (Since Deceased) Rep. by His Legal Representative v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. The dispute, which originated in 1961, revolved around the ownership and management of temple property and attached shops, with the plaintiff claiming hereditary rights over the religious institution.

Background of the Case

The legal battle began when Bansidhar Sharma filed a civil suit on July 15, 1961, before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, seeking possession of the temple, rendition of accounts, and a permanent injunction. The plaintiff contended that his ancestors were the Shebaits (custodians) of the temple and, therefore, entitled to manage its affairs.

The core issues framed in the suit included:

• Whether the plaintiff’s ancestors founded the temple and held Shebait rights.
• Whether the Jaipur State founded, built, and maintained the temple.
• Whether the plaintiff had independent management rights over the temple.
• Whether the temple was handed over to the Dharmarth Vibhag in 1925 for safekeeping.
• Whether the plaintiff was entitled to reclaim possession of the temple and its attached shops.
• Whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Trial Court’s Judgment

On November 26, 1977, the trial court dismissed the suit, concluding that the plaintiff had no rightful claim over the temple and its attached properties. The court ruled in favor of the State of Rajasthan, affirming that the temple was a public religious institution managed by the state.

High Court Proceedings

The plaintiff appealed before the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 86/1979. During the pendency of the appeal, the High Court passed an interim order on January 11, 1978, preventing the plaintiff’s dispossession from the temple premises where he resided.

Subsequently, on October 10, 1996, the High Court issued another order clarifying that the plaintiff could continue residing in the temple premises and perform religious services but did not recognize his proprietary claim.

Final Judgment by the High Court

On April 20, 2018, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal, affirming that he had no legal rights over the temple and its properties. Additionally, the court directed the plaintiff to vacate the premises within two months and pay a litigation cost of Rs. 1,00,000 to the defendants.

The plaintiff challenged this decision before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 13439/2018, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on May 17, 2018.

Post-Judgment Developments

Following the Supreme Court’s dismissal, the State of Rajasthan instructed the plaintiff to vacate the temple premises. However, when the plaintiff failed to comply, the state filed an application under Section 151 read with Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) before the Rajasthan High Court.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Verdict

The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi, ruled that the possession granted to the plaintiff under interim relief should be reversed since the suit had been conclusively dismissed. The Court noted:

“The principle of doctrine of restitution is that on the reversal of a decree, the law imposes an obligation on the party to the suit who received the benefit of the decree to make restitution to the other party for what he has lost.”

The Court further observed that the application under Section 144 CPC was not maintainable, as the possession was granted under an interim order rather than a decree or final judgment. However, the Court upheld the State’s right to recover possession under its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC.

Key Observations

• The plaintiff had no ownership rights over the temple or attached properties.
• The possession granted to the plaintiff under interim relief was legally untenable after the final judgment.
• The application under Section 144 CPC was misplaced but could be considered under the court’s inherent powers.
• The plaintiff was directed to vacate the temple premises within eight weeks.
• Failure to comply would result in contempt proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bansidhar Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan reaffirms the principle that interim reliefs cannot create permanent rights. The judgment ensures that public religious institutions remain under appropriate management and cannot be claimed based on hereditary assertions. After nearly six decades, this case has reached its final resolution, bringing clarity to the management of temple properties.

Petitioner Name: Bansidhar Sharma (Since Deceased) Rep. by His Legal Representative.
Respondent Name: The State of Rajasthan & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 05-11-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Bansidhar Sharma (Si vs The State of Rajasth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-11-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category