High Court and First Appellate Court's Findings Affirmed; Claims Based Solely on Old Decrees Rejected
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the concurrent judgments of the High Court and the First Appellate Court, resolving a long-standing dispute over hereditary pujari rights at the Amogasidda temple in Karnataka. The case, which has its roots in a century-old conflict, involved competing claims between two feuding families, each asserting the right to perform religious ceremonies and receive offerings at the temple.
The appellants, descendants of the original defendants, had relied heavily on a decree from 1901, which they claimed conferred upon them the hereditary rights to perform puja at the temple. However, the Supreme Court, led by Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K. Vinod Chandran, found that the appellants' claims could not rest solely on this old decree, especially given the lack of consistent documentary evidence and the conduct of the parties over the years.
The respondents, who are the original plaintiffs, presented a case supported by continuous documentary evidence, revenue records, and admissions made by the appellants' own witnesses. The High Court had previously found that the appellants' reliance on the 1901 decree was undermined by their predecessor's actions in 1944 when they sought possession of the temple through a separate suit, which was ultimately dismissed.
The Supreme Court noted the importance of specific pleadings in such cases, emphasizing that oral evidence cannot substitute for foundational pleadings. The appellants' failure to provide concrete evidence of uninterrupted possession and the exercise of puja rights significantly weakened their case.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that its jurisdiction under Article 136 should be exercised sparingly, particularly in cases involving concurrent findings of fact by lower courts. The Court found no manifest perversity in the decisions of the High Court and the First Appellate Court, which had both ruled in favor of the respondents.
The ruling brings to a close a protracted legal battle, affirming the respondents' status as the hereditary pujaris of the Amogasidda temple. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the need for clear and consistent evidence when asserting hereditary rights, particularly in disputes involving religious and cultural practices.
Statutory provision(s): Article 136 of the Constitution of India
Ogeppa (D) v. Sahebgouda (D), (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2858502
