SC brings end to protracted dispute over pujari rights of Amogasidda temple

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday brought an end to a protracted dispute, spanning over a century, related to competing claims to the ancestral pujari rights of the deity Amogasidda, a saint who passed away 600 years ago, and whose Samadhi was built as a reverence at the temple situated in Mamatti Gudda, Jalgeri, Arkeri, Karnataka.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K Vinod Chandran upheld the high court's judgment of October 4, 2012, rejecting an appeal filed by Ogeppa, deceased, through legal representatives and others.

"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 bench said.

However, in the case, the bench said, the written statement of the appellants 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,'' the bench said, emphasizing that oral evidence cannot be a substitute for pleading, and a case not made out in the pleadings cannot be erected on evidence alone.

In its judgment, the court noted that the core controversy centred on who amongst the feuding families constituted 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.

The bench found, in the case, 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.

"It is neither novel nor uncertain that this court in catena of judgments has held that the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution 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,'' the bench said.

The appellants contended that the pujari rights of the Amogasidda temple lied with them, as their predecessor has a decree in this regard in his favour in 1901.

The bench, however, pointed out, it has been recorded, if the appellants 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 another suit 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,'' the bench said.

In the case, the court held the respondents have established their claim throughout, through consistent documentary evidence, revenue records, the admission of the appellants' 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 pujaris.

The appellants, on the other hand, rested 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 court noted.

"The concurrent findings of the first appellate court and the high court reflect a correct and careful appreciation of this entire factual matrix,'' the bench said, finding no perversity in the HC's judgment.