Pujari Is A Servant Of Deity; Cannot Claim Ownership Or Hereditary Management Rights Over Temple Properties: Madhya Pradesh HC
Deity is juristic person and temple land recorded as maufi aukaf department property, Collector to act as manager
The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) has held that a pujari or manager cannot claim ownership or hereditary management rights over temple property, reiterating that the deity is a juristic person and the property vests in the deity, not in the pujari. The temple belongs to Deity and not to the manager or a pujari, as they are the servants of Deity, the Bench noted.
The Bench further observed that the temple and its properties vest in the State Government as part of the Maufi Aukaf Department, and that the Collector shall act as Manager with authority to appoint a pujari (not on succession basis).
Justice G. S. Ahluwalia relying on the judgment in Mandir Murti Shri Radha Vallabh Ji through its Pujari Bhawani Shankar Vs. State of M.P. by order dated 1-7- 2020 passed in W.P. No. 7987 of 2020, noted, “…it is clear that Manager or Pujari is the servant of Deity and property of temple belongs to Deity and not Manager/Pujari. Therefore, even if predecessors of plaintiff were appointed as Pujari or Manager, then plaintiff cannot claim property of the temple as his private property or his predecessors”.
The Bench further observed that, “…Pujari/Manager is not the owner of property belonging to Deity but they are merely servants and have to maintain the property of Deity for the benefit of Deity. Bhalchandra Rao has not filed even a single document to show that how much income was derived from the land surrounding the temple and how much income was spent for renovation, maintenance and prasad of the temple. Thus, it is clear that Bhalchandra Rao has misused the income of temple by converting it for his personal use. Furthermore, in para 4 of plaint, it was claimed that the temple is a private property of Bhalchandra Rao and his predecessors. Thus, interest of Bhalchandra Rao was contrary to the interest of Deity, and therefore, the Courts below should not have allowed Bhalchandra Rao or his successors to continue to manage the affairs of Deity and to offer prayers”.
Advocate Rajendra Jain appeared for the appellant and Advocate Prashant Sharma appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, a suit was filed through one Bhalchandra Rao, claiming to be the Manager and Pujari of the temple, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction over agricultural lands situated in villages Shadora, Pipraul and Nagaukhedi.
It was asserted that the temple, constructed about 200 years ago by Peshji Naro Chimnaji Subedar, had been gifted to his predecessors and that they had been managing it for generations. The State, however, contended that the land was recorded as “Maufi Aukaf Department” property and that the pujari was merely a manager without proprietary rights.
Admitting the appeal on substantial questions of law, the Court examined whether the courts erred in treating the pujari as having succession-based management rights and in failing to appreciate that temple property belongs to the deity.
Referring extensively to the Supreme Court’s decision in M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5 J.) v. Suresh Das (2020) 1 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that a Hindu idol is a juristic person in whom property vests in an ideal sense, and that a pujari is merely a servant appointed to perform worship, not a shebait or owner.
The Court further relied on State of M.P. v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti (2021) 10 SCC 222 to hold that a pujari cannot be treated as a Bhumiswami, Muafidar, or Inamdar under the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act or the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Even if the pujari’s name appears in revenue records, it does not confer proprietary rights.
“…It is not the case of Bhalchandra Rao that temple in question was constructed by his predecessors out of their own personal money. On the contrary, it is the case of Bhalchandra Rao that temple in question was constructed about 200 years back by Peshji Naro Chimnaji Subedar… Furthermore, suit was filed by Temple Shri Ganeshji. Temple is not a legal entity and in fact, Deity is the legal entity and on the date when the so-called license Exhibit P-9 was issued, there was no Deity in the temple as original Idol was already stolen and no new Idol was consecrated. There is nothing on record to show that right to offer prayer and manage the temple or property of the Deity was given on succession basis as original license has not been placed on record in spite of the fact that plaintiff in the plaint has specifically mentioned that original license are in possession of Bhalchandra Rao”, the bench had further observed.
The Court found that the only document relied upon, a translated license (Exhibit P-9C)—did not establish any succession-based right of management. On the contrary, it merely referred to reconstruction of the temple and consecration of a new idol after theft, and did not grant hereditary rights. The Court also noted the absence of pleadings or proof that the temple was constructed by the plaintiff’s predecessors or that it was a private temple.
Allowing a second appeal filed by the State, the Court set aside the concurrent judgments of the trial court and first appellate court which had upheld the plaintiff’s claim of succession-based management rights over agricultural lands attached to Mandir Shri Ganeshji.
Cause Title: State Of M.P. Through Collector v. Mandir Shri Ganeshji Situated And Others [Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:5986]
Appearances:
Appellant: Rajendra Jain, Advocate.
Respondent: Prashant Sharma, Advocate.