New Delhi, February 25 The Supreme Court on Wednesday ended a century-old dispute over ancestral puja rights at a temple in Karnataka, including the right to perform puja for the deity Amoghasidda and receive offerings from devotees.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K Vinod Chandran upheld the Karnataka High Court's October 2012 verdict and dismissed the appeal by the appellants, who claimed that their claim was based almost entirely on a 1901 decree, which their predecessor had effectively nullified by filing a suit for possession in 1944.
A party in settled possession does not sue for possession, and the suit itself is a clear admission that they did not have possession at the relevant time, the bench said.
"The present dispute before us is a protracted one spanning over a century, wherein the respondents/plaintiffs and the appellants/defendants have competing claims to the ancestral puja rights and the right to perform puja for the deity Amoghasidda – a saint who passed away 600 years ago, and whose Samadhi was built at the temple located in Mamatti Gudda, Jalgeri, Arkeri, Karnataka," the bench noted.
It said the core of the controversy was who among the feuding families constituted the hereditary 'wahiwatdar' pujari entitled to conduct religious ceremonies, receive offerings from devotees, and hold annual Jatra celebrations at the temple.
The bench said the dispute originated in 1944 when the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, along with others, filed a suit for possession of the temple and other properties.
They alleged that the other side had forcibly taken possession of the temple property and asserted the right to perform puja.
Noting the history of the case, the bench said that both the high court and the first appellate court had rendered concurrent findings on the issue of puja rights over the temple and ruled in favor of the respondents.
It noted that the appellants had contended that the puja rights of the temple belonged to them, as their predecessor had a decree in his favor in a 1901 suit.
The bench said that both the first appellate court and the high court, while dealing with this issue, had held that though the appellants claim that they have a decree in their favor, they seem conspicuously silent on the fact that they had filed a suit seeking possession and puja rights in the 1944 suit.
"A party in settled possession does not sue for possession. The very institution of that suit is a categorical admission by the appellants/defendants' predecessor that possession of the suit temple was not with them at the relevant time," the bench said.
It said that a party claiming hereditary puja rights is obligated to specify when they came into possession of the suit temple, when they started performing puja, when and how the respondents began obstructing them, and what steps they took to protect their rights during the intervening period.
"The appellants/defendants' written statement is vague on these material points. They simply deny and refer to the 1901 decree. This is wholly insufficient," the bench said.
It noted that the respondents have established their claim through consistent documentary evidence, revenue records, and others, that they have been performing puja at the temple as hereditary 'wahiwatdar' pujaris.
"The appellants/defendants, on the other hand, rest their claim almost entirely on a century-old decree, the effect of which was demonstrably nullified by their own predecessor's subsequent conduct in filing a suit for possession in 1944," it said.
Finding no flaw in the high court's judgment, the bench dismissed the appeals.