Temple Ownership Dispute: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Inquiry into Endowment Status

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a long-standing dispute over the ownership of a temple, deciding whether it was a private place of worship or a public shrine. The case involved a legal battle between Vijendra Kumar & Ors. (appellants) and the Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Religious Institutions & Endowment Department (respondents). The Supreme Court set aside the previous rulings and ordered a fresh inquiry into the matter.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around a temple that the appellants claimed as their private place of worship. The dispute dates back to 1893 when the appellants’ grandfather, Ram Harak Tiwari, purchased the land and installed a silver idol of Shri Hanuman Ji for exclusive family worship. The appellants maintained that the temple was never intended to be public and was managed solely by their family.

However, the respondents argued that the temple was a public endowment and had been registered as such in the Books of Endowment as early as 1933. The dispute escalated when, in 1965, the Endowment Department asked the appellants to submit an account of the temple’s finances, claiming that it was a public institution.

Legal Proceedings

Case Before the Deputy Commissioner

In 1975, the appellants filed an application under Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, seeking a declaration that the temple was private. This application was transferred to the Deputy Commissioner, Guntur, under Section 92 of the Act and was numbered as OA 66 of 1975.

The Deputy Commissioner ruled against the appellants in 1977, holding that the temple was a public place of worship.

Trial Court Proceedings

Following the adverse ruling, the appellants filed a suit (OS 58 of 1977) in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Section 78 of the Act. They sought a declaration that:

• The Deputy Commissioner’s order was null and void.
• The entry in the Register of Endowments regarding the temple’s public nature was incorrect.

The appellants argued that the temple was built using family funds, municipal taxes were paid by them, and no donations were collected from the public.

The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the temple was public and that the appellants’ family were merely priests (Pujaris) managing it on behalf of the devotees. They submitted evidence, including the 1933 entry in the Register of Endowments, proving that the temple was listed as a public endowment.

High Court Rulings

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the appellants, declaring the temple private. However, the High Court reversed this decision, holding that:

• The temple was visited by a large number of devotees.
• There was no evidence that the family had dedicated extensive personal funds for its maintenance.
• The entry in the Register of Endowments, published in the Official Gazette, was a valid and authoritative record of its public status.
• Under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, official records enjoy a presumption of correctness.

The appellants then filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench, which upheld the High Court’s ruling.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, consisting of Justices N.V. Ramana and Amitava Roy, examined the evidence and noted several inconsistencies. The Court found that the official registration of the temple as a public endowment was crucial, but it was also necessary to ensure that due process was followed in making the entry.

On the Validity of the Register of Endowments Entry:

“If this document is admissible in law with all its probative worth, it would determinatively clinch the issue in favor of the respondents.”

However, the Court noted that DW5, the government witness who introduced the document, was unaware of how the registration was made. Additionally, the appellants claimed that their father never received notice of the registration, which was a procedural requirement.

On Public Access to the Temple:

“The evidence established that the members of the public do visit the temple as a matter of right with no restriction to their access at any point of time.”

On the Need for a Fresh Inquiry:

“We are of the considered opinion that it would be in fitness of things that an opportunity be granted to the parties to adduce all evidence, oral and documentary, at their disposal to finally and conclusively determine as to whether the temple had been endowed.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the previous judgments and directed the concerned authority under the Endowment Act to conduct a fresh inquiry. The Court ordered:

• The appellants must file a representation before the concerned authority within four weeks.
• The authority must issue notices to both parties and allow them to present all relevant evidence.
• The issue of whether the temple was private or public must be decided within six months.
• The status quo of the property must be maintained until the final decision.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness in determining whether a temple is public or private.
• Official records, such as the Register of Endowments, are presumptively valid but can be challenged if due process was not followed.
• The presence of public worshippers alone does not automatically make a temple public.
• The case highlights the importance of following proper legal procedures in temple endowment matters.

The ruling ensures that both parties have an equal opportunity to present their claims and prevents arbitrary declarations regarding temple ownership.

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

Download Judgment: Vijendra Kumar & Ors vs The Commissioner, A. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-12-2017.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 Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by Amitava Roy
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2017
See all petitions in 2017 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