The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the Trial Court’s order dismissing the appeal of the Mahant of Janrai Toriya Temple seeking a declaration of proprietary rights in his personal name, observing that the Mahant cannot seek declaration of temple lands in his personal name.
A bench of Justice Vivek Jain remarked that the Trial Court had rightly denied the Mahant’s suit. “In the present case, what has been sought is the declaration of proprietary rights of property in the personal name of Mahant, which is something which cannot be granted by the Trial Court and has rightly been denied by the Trial Court,” the Court observed.
An appeal was filed by a disciple of Mahant Dharam Das challenging the order of the Trial Court wherein his suit was dismissed. The appellant contended that Janrai Toriya Temple is situated at Chhatarpur, where the mode of succession is the Guru-disciple tradition. The appellant in its plaint contended that he was the Mahant of the temple and wanted to get a declaration as the title holder of the properties of 67 acres.
The State in its written submission argued that the property is not a self-acquired property but the land attached to the public temple. The State argued that the mahant was granted a monthly allowance. It was further argued that being a mahant, he can manage the temple affairs but cannot claim proprietary right over the land.
The Trial Court, after framing the issues, held that the appellant was neither a title holder nor entitled to claim reliefs as he is only a priest of the public temple.
The counsel for the appellant argued that the Trial Court erred in not recognising the right of Temple Mahant, which is at a higher level than the rights of a ‘mere priest’ and more than the rights of a ‘shebait’. The appellant contended that a Mahant is entrusted with overall management of the temple properties and cannot be equated with a mere priest and that it is distinct from a pujari and carries greater legal rights.
Rejecting the submissions, the bench noted that the reliefs sought in the suit were fundamentally misconceived. The bench noted that the appellant did not seek a declaration that he was mahant of the temple or that he was entitled to manage the temple or its properties, but instead sought a declaration of 67 acres in his personal name.
The court observed that the suit would have stood on a different footing if the appellant had sought recognition as Mahant with consequential rights to administer the temple and manage the temple properties in the temple’s interest. However, the present suit was filed to seek ownership of temple lands in his personal name. The bench held that such relief was legally impermissible.
Referring to M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple v. Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1), the bench reiterated that protection of trust property is of pivotal importance and that a shebait cannot claim proprietary interest in the property.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules Mahant cannot seek declaration of temple lands in his personal name; upholds dismissal of Janrai Toriya Temple appeal.
When faith holds the land, even the Mahant is only its custodian.
