Hereditary Pujari Rights at Amogasidda Temple Upheld; Civil Appeals Dismissed

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K. Vinod Chandran heard appeals challenging rival claims to hereditary pujari (wahiwatdar) rights and the conduct of puja at the Amogasidda Samadhi temple in Mamatti Gudda, Jalgeri, Karnataka. The appeals arose from a long-running family dispute over who was entitled to perform religious ceremonies, receive offerings and hold the annual jatra; the High Court had decreed in favour of the plaintiffs below and the defendants appealed.

The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below and dismissed the Civil Appeals as devoid of merit. It held that the respondents/plaintiffs had established their hereditary pujari rights through documentary evidence, revenue records, admissions and oral testimony, while the appellants/defendants relied largely on a century-old decree and had not discharged the burden of pleading or proving uninterrupted possession. The Court reiterated that "the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India should be used sparingly" when concurrent factual findings were involved, and observed that "a party in settled possession does not sue for possession." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 appreciation of this entire factual matrix. Hence, we find no perversity in the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 04.10.2012." The Civil Appeals were dismissed and no costs were awarded.

Background

The dispute dated back to suits filed from 1901 through the 1980s over possession and pujariki rights at the Samadhi of the saint Amogasidda, approximately 600 years old. The appellants/defendants traced title to a decree in O.S. No. 287/1901, while the respondents/plaintiffs asserted continuous hereditary wahiwatdar rights and produced revenue records and other documentary evidence. In 1944 the predecessor of the appellants filed O.S. No. 88/1944 for possession but the Trial Court dismissed that suit in 1945; the appeal was withdrawn in 1946 with liberty to file a fresh suit, yet no fresh suit followed for decades. In 1967 the plaintiffs earlier obtained an ex parte decree in O.S. No. 347/1967 which later lapsed for non-prosecution. The present suit, O.S. No. 56/1982, sought a declaration of hereditary pujari rights and injunctions; the Trial Court partly decreed and allocated puja rights, the First Appellate Court later decreed in favour of the respondents, the High Court on remand after an earlier order by this Court (Civil Appeals in 1993; remanded in 2003) finally dismissed the appeals in 2012 in favour of the respondents. On review, this Court examined documentary evidence including Record of Rights (RTC), admissions from defence witness D.W.1, and testimony of devotees and independent witnesses. The Court found that the appellants/defendants had failed to plead or prove when they acquired possession, when they performed puja, or what steps they took during the long interregnum; the 1901 decree was insufficient in the face of admissions and contemporary revenue records. The appeals were dismissed; no interim directions were necessary and no costs were imposed.

Case Details:
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7181-7182 OF 2016 (2026 INSC 191)
Case Title: Ogeppa (D) through LRs. and Others v. Sahebgouda (D) through LRs. and Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment
For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 151