Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 191
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7181-7182 OF 2016
OGEPPA (D) THROUGH LRS.
AND OTHERS
…. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SAHEBGOUDA (D) THROUGH
LRS. AND OTHERS
…. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1) The present lis before us is a protracted dispute spanning over a
century, wherein the respondents/plaintiffs and the appellants/defendants
lay competing claims to the ancestral pujari rights and the right to perform
puja of the deity Amogasidda – a saint who passed away 600 years ago and
his Samadhi was built as a reverence at the temple situated in Mamatti
Gudda, Jalgeri, Arkeri, Karnataka. The core controversy centres on who
amongst these feuding families constitutes the hereditary wahiwatdar pujari
entitled to conduct the religious ceremonies, receive the offerings from
devotees, and hold the annual Jatra celebrations at the said temple. For
convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their original status
before the Principal Munsiff at Bijapur in Original Suit No.56/1982.
2) The trail of facts before us unfolds as thus: The genesis of this long-
Signature Not Verified
standing dispute dates back to 1944, when deceased Ogeppa
Digitally signed by
NISHA KHULBEY
Date: 2026.02.25
16:54:31 IST
Reason:
Biradar/predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/defendants along with
others filed Original Suit No. 88 of 1944 for possession of the suit temple
Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 1 of 10
and other properties, contending that the plaintiffs had entered into
possession of the temple property by force and had asserted the right to
perform puja. The Trial Court dismissed the above suit vide judgment and
order dated 28.03.1945. The appellants/defendants preferred First Appeal
in Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1945, but during its pendency, they filed an
application to withdraw the said suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, to which
the plaintiffs/respondents’ counsel consented. The Appellate Court
accordingly set aside the judgments of the Trial Court vide order dated
15.06.1946 and permitted the withdrawal.
3) In 1967, it was alleged by the respondents/plaintiffs that the
appellants/defendants started obstructing the puja in the suit temple and
consequently, the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit being O.S No.347/1967
for permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from
interfering with the respondents/plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property as pujaries and pujariki rights. In the said
suit, an ex-parte decree was granted in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.
However, the said suit was later dismissed for non-prosecution.
4) Later, on 24.03.1982, the present respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S. No.
56 of 1982 before the Court of the learned Principal Munsiff at Bijapur for a
declaration that they are the ancestral wahiwatdar pujargi possessing puja
rights at the suit temple, along with consequential prayers for permanent
injunction.
5) The respondents/plaintiffs asserted their status as ancestral
wahiwatdar pujaries with pujariki rights to perform puja of the deity
Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 2 of 10
Amogasidda, with respondent/plaintiff No. 1 possessing eight annas of such
rights whilst the remaining rights were distributed amongst the other
respondents/plaintiffs and exercised in rotation. They claimed continuous
performance of puja at the Samadhi, constructed approximately 600 years
ago and receipt of offerings from devotees during the year — round puja and
the annual jatra held at chaity amavasya. Having sought to register the
temple as a public trust with the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum
(enquiry No. 321/1980), plaintiffs/respondents alleged that since
20.03.1982, the appellants/defendants with police assistance obstructed
daily puja, attempted forcible night entry, removed puja articles,
necessitating a police complaint for trespass and a suit seeking declaration
of their rights as the pujaris of the suit temple.
6) The appellants/defendants denied any puja rights of the
respondents/plaintiffs, relying instead on O.S No. 287/1901 wherein their
ancestors obtained a decree conferring puja rights on Gurappa S/o
Manigeppa Poojari. They contended they are the successors of the plaintiff
in O.S. No.287/1901, whilst the present respondents/plaintiffs are the
descendants of the defendants therein. The appellants/defendants
contended that they continuously exercised pujarki rights as wahiwatdars,
conducted jatra celebrations, and received offerings from the devotees. The
appellants/defendants also claimed to have possession of the suit temple
and the religious buildings attached thereto.
7) The Trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 18.11.1986, partly
decreed the suit. The Trial Court declared that both, the
Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 3 of 10
respondents/plaintiffs and the appellants/defendants, are pujargies of the
suit temple and shall perform puja and jatra in a certain proportion, whilst
rejecting the prayer for injunction.
8) Aggrieved, the appellants/defendants filed Regular Appeal No. 97 of
1
1986 on 10.12.1986 before the Additional Civil Judge , whilst the
respondents/plaintiffs filed Regular Appeal No. 98 of 1986 on 12.12.1986.
The First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.07.1990
allowed R.A. No. 98 of 1986 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and
dismissed R.A. No. 97 of 1986 filed by the appellants/defendants, decreeing
the suit as prayed for by holding that the respondents/plaintiffs are the
hereditary pujari of the suit temple.
9) The appellants/defendants being aggrieved by the judgment passed by
the First Appellate Court preferred Regular Second Appeal Nos. 708 and 709
of 1990 before the High Court. By its judgment dated 24.07.1992, the High
Court allowed both the second appeals, setting aside the judgment dated
05.07.1990 passed by the First Appellate Court and reversing the decree in
favour of the appellants/defendants. The High Court further held that the
Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur has no jurisdiction to entertain the regular
appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs as the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court is barred under Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
10) Against the High Court's judgment dated 24.07.1992, the
respondents/plaintiffs preferred special leave petitions before this Court
which were later converted into Civil Appeal Nos. 1352-1353/1993. This
1
For short, “The First Appellate Court”
Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 4 of 10
Court vide judgment dated 28.03.2003 while allowing the said Civil Appeals,
remanded the matter back to the High Court. This Court held that the bar
of Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act did not apply and the matter
required decision on merits.
11) After remand, the appeals preferred by the appellants/defendants
were heard on merits by the High Court and vide its judgment and order
dated 04.10.2012, the appeals were dismissed thereby decreeing in favour of
the respondents/plaintiffs. It is against this judgment of the High Court
dated 04.10.2012 that the present Civil Appeals come before us.
12) The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that the
O.S No.88/1944 was withdrawn with liberty and the Court’s reliance on a
non-est decree is contrary to settled law. To bolster his submissions, the
learned counsel for the appellants/defendants placed reliance on decree in
O.S No.287/1901 whereby the appellants/defendants’ hereditary
rights/puja rights were decreed in their favour.
13) Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted
that the revenue records produced on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs
cannot form basis of decreeing the respondents/plaintiffs suit.
14) Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
supported the impugned judgment and prayed for the dismissal of the Civil
Appeals.
15) Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
material available on record. It thus falls upon us to examine the
correctness of the impugned judgment.
Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 5 of 10
16) It is neither novel nor uncertain that this Court in catena of
judgments has held that the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India should be used sparingly. More particularly when
dealing with concurrent findings of fact. Unless and until the findings
rendered by the courts below are manifestly perverse, this Court should be
reluctant to intervene in the same.
17) In the present lis before us, both, the High Court as well as the First
Appellate Court, have rendered concurrent findings on the aspect of the
pujari rights over the subject temple and held in favour of the
respondents/plaintiffs.
18) The appellants/defendants contend that the pujarki rights of the
Amogasidda temple lie with them, as their predecessor has a decree in this
regard in his favour in O.S No.287/1901. Both, the First Appellate Court
and the High Court, while dealing with this particular issue have held that
though the appellants/defendants claim that they have a decree in their
favour, they seem conspicuously silent on the fact that they have filed a suit
seeking possession and pujariki rights in OS No.88/1944. Though the Trial
Court in this suit has decreed against the appellants/defendants, the
considerable factor is that the suit was filed for possession of the suit
temple. On the one hand, the appellants/defendants claimed that the
previous suit instituted by their predecessor was in their favour and they
have been granted the possession of the subject temple and pujariki rights
and on the other, they filed a suit seeking the same relief in 1944. If the
appellants/defendants had a decree of possession in their favour, the
Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 6 of 10
question arises as to how and when they lost possession of the subject
premises. This fact has been considered by both the Courts below and it
also manifests that the written statement of the appellants/defendants is
silent on this aspect.
19) The First Appellate Court rightly noticed that if the
appellants/defendants were indeed in continuous and uninterrupted
possession of the suit temple and had been discharging their duties as
wahiwatdar pujaries thereunder, there was no conceivable reason for their
predecessor to have instituted O.S. No. 88 of 1944 seeking possession and
injunction. 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 point in time. This inference drawn by both,
the First Appellate Court and the High Court, is legally sound.
20) The matter does not rest there. The predecessor of the
appellants/defendants, having lost the said suit on merits before the Trial
Court vide judgment dated 28.03.1945, preferred Civil Appeal No. 118 of
1945. Critically, instead of pursuing the appeal, an application was moved
seeking withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. Such liberty
was granted by order dated 15.06.1946. Thereafter, for over three and a half
decades, no fresh suit was instituted. The appellants/defendants have
offered no explanation, either in their pleadings or in their evidence, as to
what transpired during this long interregnum. As the High Court correctly
observed, when a party obtains liberty to file a fresh suit and consciously
Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 7 of 10
refrains from doing so for thirty-six years, the inevitable inference is that the
said party had reconciled itself to the factual reality on the ground. This
conduct speaks louder than any decree of 1901 that the
appellants/defendants seek to wave before this Court.
21) The High Court upon remand examined the documentary evidence in
considerable detail. The Record of Rights (RTC) reflects the names of the
respondents/plaintiffs' ancestors in connection with the lands granted by
the then British Government in lieu of service rendered to the Amogasidda
temple. The names of the appellants/defendants find no mention in these
revenue records whatsoever. The appellants/defendants and their
predecessors have been litigating over this very temple for over a century.
They cannot, in these circumstances, feign ignorance of the revenue records
or claim that such entries carry no evidentiary weight against them.
22) Further, the admission extracted from D.W.1 (Ogeppa) in cross-
examination is of considerable significance. D.W.1, while denying that the
Government had granted lands to the Amogasidda temple at
Mammatigudda, volunteered that the said grant was in respect of the
Amogasidda temple situated in Jalageri village, which is the very suit
temple. He further admitted that the said lands were being cultivated by the
respondents/plaintiffs. This admission coming from the
appellants/defendants' own witness clinches the matter insofar as the grant
and its nexus to the respondents/plaintiffs is concerned.
23) We also find ourselves in agreement with the observations made by
the High Court as regards the written statement filed by the
Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 8 of 10
appellants/defendants. A party setting up a competing claim to hereditary
pujari rights is obligated to plead specifically—when they came into
possession of the suit temple; when they commenced performing puja; when
and how the respondents/plaintiffs began obstructing them; and what
steps, if any, they took to vindicate their rights during the long intervening
period. The written statement of the appellants/defendants is reticent on
each of these material particulars. They contend themselves with a bare
denial and a reference to the 1901 decree. This is wholly insufficient. In the
absence of any foundational plea, the oral evidence of D.W.1 attempting to
fill these gaps must necessarily be disregarded. Oral evidence cannot be a
substitute for pleading, and a case not made out in the pleadings cannot be
erected on evidence alone.
24) Looking at the matter in its entirety, what emerges is this that the
respondents/plaintiffs have established their claim throughout, through
consistent documentary evidence, revenue records, the admission of the
appellants/defendants' own witness, and the testimony of independent
witnesses, including the devotees of the temple, that they have been
performing puja at the Amogasidda temple as hereditary wahiwatdar
pujaries. The appellants/defendants, on the other hand, rest their claim
almost entirely on a century-old decree, the effect of which was
demonstrably undone by their own predecessor's subsequent conduct in
instituting a suit for possession in 1944. The concurrent findings of the
First Appellate Court and the High Court reflect a correct and careful
Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 9 of 10
appreciation of this entire factual matrix. Hence, we find no perversity in
the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 04.10.2012.
25) Accordingly, the Civil Appeals are sans merit and are dismissed.
26) No orders as to costs.
…………………..........................J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
.………………............................J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 25, 2026.
Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 10 of 10