Continuous Possession and Revenue Records Overcome Century-Old Decree in Establishing Hereditary Pujari Rights

The dispute concerns hereditary *pujari* (priestly) rights and the right to conduct the annual *Jatra* at the Amogasidda temple in Karnataka

Although the appellants cited a 1901 decree in their favor, their predecessor filed O.S. No. 88/1944 for possession of the temple, which was dismissed on merits in 1945

Upon appeal, the suit was withdrawn in 1946 with liberty to file a fresh suit, but no such suit was filed for 36 years

In 1982, the respondents filed O.S. No. 56/1982 for a declaration of their ancestral *pujargi* rights

The Trial Court granted joint rights

the First Appellate Court and the High Court (on remand from the Supreme Court regarding a jurisdictional bar under the Bombay Public Trust Act) decreed the suit entirely in favor of the respondents

1. Whether the respondents established their status as ancestral *wahiwatdar pujaries* through continuous possession and performance of religious ceremonies

2. Whether the appellants’ reliance on a 1901 decree was vitiated by their subsequent conduct and the institution of a possessory suit in 1944

3. Whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of revenue records and oral admissions under second appeal jurisdiction

The Court primarily applied the principle governing the discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that concurrent findings of fact should not be disturbed unless "manifestly perverse"

It also applied fundamental principles of civil pleading and evidence, specifically that oral testimony cannot substitute for a lack of foundational pleadings

the doctrine of acquiescence/adverse inference arising from the failure to exercise a court-granted liberty to file a fresh suit for over three decades

The Court reasoned that the appellants' institution of O.S. No. 88/1944 seeking possession was a "categorical admission" that they were not in possession of the temple at that time, contradicting their claim of uninterrupted hereditary service

Their failure to file a fresh suit for 36 years after withdrawing the 1944 litigation suggested they had reconciled with the factual reality of the respondents’ possession

Furthermore, the Record of Rights (RTC) consistently named the respondents' ancestors in relation to lands granted for temple service, a fact bolstered by the admission of Appellant witness D.W. 1 during cross-examination that the respondents cultivated these lands

The Court found the appellants' pleadings "reticent" regarding the timeline of their alleged possession, concluding that a case not made in pleadings cannot be built through oral evidence alone

The Court held that the respondents successfully proved their hereditary *pujari* rights through consistent documentary evidence and revenue records, whereas the appellants’ claim, based on a century-old decree, was invalidated by their own subsequent conduct and admissions

No order as to costs was made