Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Thakur vs Mandir Shri Dev Janki Raman Ji on 6 June, 2024
1 CR-557-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
CIVIL REVISION No. 557 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SURESH THAKUR S/O SHRI RAJARAM DANGI THAKUR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE KAKRUA POST OFFICE
MEERKHEDI TEHSIL RAHATGARH POLIC STATION
RAHATGARH DISTIRCT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AADIL USMANI\, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MANDIR SHRI DEV JANKI RAMAN JI THROUGH
MOHATTAMKAR /PUJARI MANDIR SHRI DEV
JANKI RAMAN VILLAGE KAKRUA TEHSIL
R A H A T G A R H PUJARI / MOHATTAMKAR
MUNNALAL DUBEY S/O RANCHARAN DUBEY AGE
55 VILLAGE KAKRUA TEHSIL RAHATGARH
POLICE STATION RAHATGARH DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHIVRAJ S/O POORAN SINGH THAKUR, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KAKRUA TEHSIL
RAHATGARH P.S. RAHATGARH DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR SAGAR SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAVESH NAVERIYA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1)
(BY MS. PRIYANKA JA IN, PANEL LAWyER FOR RESPONDENT
NO.3/STATE)
Reserved on : 03.05.2024
Pronounced on : 06.06.2024
This Civil Revision having been heard and reserved for order,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 07-06-2024
16:03:12
2 CR-557-2023
coming on for pronouncement on this day, Justice Devnarayan Mishra
pronounced the following:
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed being aggrieved with order passed by
7th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sagar in Civil Suit No.367-A/2022, by which
the applicant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has been
dismissed.
2. In nutshell, the plaintiff's case before the trial Court was that the
plaintiff/respondent here has filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction on
the behalf of Mandir Shri Dev Janki Raman Ji stating himself as a Pujari of
that Mandir against Suresh Thakur, Shivraj Thakur and State of Madhya
Pradesh through Collector.
3. In that suit, the plaintiff has prayed for the relief as under:
1 3 - ;g fd] okn izkFkZuk djrk gS fd mlds i{k esa rFkk o f[kykQ
izfroknhx.k ds fuEu ?kks"k.kk ok LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh vkKfIr ikfjr djus dh
d`ik dh tkos%&
¼v½ ?kksf"kr fd;k tos fd efUnj Jh nso tkudh je.k xzke dd:vk
rglhy jkgrx< ftyk lkxj dk eqgRredkj@iqtkjh oknh eqUukyky nqcs
gSa rFkk uanyky dh e`R;q mijkUr efUnj dh O;oLFkk] iwtk&ikB] /kkfeZd
vuq"Bku rFkk tehu d`f"k dk;Z vkfn O;oLFkk djus dk eqUukyky nqcs dks
gh vf/kdkj izkIr gSA muds }kjk o"kksZa iwoZ ls dh tk jgh O;oLFkk esa
izfroknhx.k ;k vU; fdlh dh n[kyUnkth djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA
¼c½ ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos fd efUnj dh d`f"k Hkwfe [kljk uacj 104 jdok
0-050 gs- rFkk [kljk uacj 113 jdok 8-250 gs- xzke dd:vk efUnj dh
O;oLFkk ok /kkfeZd dk;ksZa ds fy;s yxh gqbZ gS tks oknh ds ekQ~Zr fd;k
tkuk mfpr gSA
¼l½ tfj;s LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk izfroknh dzekad ,d ok nks ij ges'kk&ges'kk
dks jksd yxkbZ tkos fd os efUnj dh oknh eqUukyky
iqtkjh@eqgRredkj }kjk dh tk jgh O;oLFkk rFkk /kkfeZd vk;kstu
vkfn esa fdlh Hkh rjg ls Lo; ;k vius vknfe;ksa ds }kjk ckgqcy rFkk
iSlksa dk nq:i;ksx dj ck/kk mRiUu uk djsa] uk fdlh rjg dh
n[kyUnkth djsaA
¼n½ vU; tks Hkh lgk;rk oknh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gks] mlds i{k
esa ikfjr dh tkosaA
3 CR-557-2023
¼b½ bl okn dk O;; ,oa vU; O;; oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyok;k
tkosaA
vr% okn&i= izLrqr gSA
4. In this suit defendants No.1 & 2/the revisionist filed an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the suit has been filed by
the plaintiff stating himself to the Pujari of Mandir Shri Dev Janki Raman Ji,
Gram Kakrua, Tehsil Rahatgarh, District Sagar as the plaintiff is not
Mohttamkar and he has no cause of action and Munnalal Dubey is not the
Pujari of the Mandir and he has no right over the agricultural land attached to
temple and hence, he is not entitled to file the suit.
5. In the case of Public Trust/Private Trust, the District Registrar/ Trust
is entitled to appoint the Manager Mohhtamkar of the Temple and the suit is
only maintainable when the Registrar/Public Trust make reference to the District
Judge and requested that the plaint be rejected.
6. The reply of the application was filed.
7. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has dismissed the application
filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that suit is not
barred by law.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted
that the suit was filed on behalf of the Temple. Temple has no legal entity and
the Deity has legal entity and on that behalf the suit can be filed with the
permission of the competent authority as the Collector is the Manager of the
Temple. He further submitted that the result of the suit is that the Deity will be
affected which is legally minor and the Pujari cannot file a suit against the
Deity.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgments passed
4 CR-557-2023
by this Court in the case of Mohandas Chela of Amardas Mahant Narsingh
Tila Mandir, Datia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others passed in WP
No.4120/2010 on 23/08/2022 and Rakesh Kesharwani and others Vs.
Imam Bada Shahedaan Karbala passed in S.A. No.785/2023 dated
02/05/2023 and submitted that the suit was not maintainable and the trial Court
has wrongly dismissed the application.
10. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the suit
has been filed regarding the property and the Temple is not a Public Trust and
in that situation the Registrar/Public Trust has no power. Munnalal Dubey has
managing the temple and worship of the Deity. The Collector was made the
Manager of the Temple and the Pujari was appointed by the SDO who interfere
in the daily affairs of the management of the temple and worship of the Deity,
hence the suit is filed.
11. The learned Panel Lawyer Ms. Priyanka Jain has supported the
applicant.
12. I have gone through the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Mohandas Chela (supra) held as under:
"This Court in the case of 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 has held as under:
Accordingly, it is held that Pujari has no locus standi or
say the management of the temple property and thus
they have no right to file a writ petition on behalf of the
public trust or on behalf of Deity. Further, there is
nothing on record to suggest that the property belongs
to a public trust. Further no authorization to file the
writ petition by the Pujari on behalf of the said public
trust has been placed on record."
5 CR-557-2023
13. In the same, in the case of Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji, Chimak and
others Vs. State of M.P. passed in W.P. No.160/2017 dated 24/01/2020
held as under:
A Pujari is appointed by the founder or by a shebait to
conduct worship. This appointment does not confer upon
the pujari the status of a shebait. They are liable to be
removed for any act of mismanagement or indiscipline
which is inconsistent with the performance of their
duties. Further, where the appointment of a pujari has
been at the will of the testator, the fact that appointees
have performed the worship for several generations
does not confer an independent right upon the appointee
or members of their family and will not entitle them as
of right to be continued in office as priests. Nor does the
mere performance of the work of a pujari in and of itself
render a person a shebait.
14. The same principal was laid down in the case of Mandir Murti Shri
Radha Vallabh Ji through its Pujari Bhawani Shankar Vs. State of M.P.
in W.P. No.7987 of 2020 DATED 01/07/2020 held as under:
Accordingly, it is held that Pujari has no locus standi or
say in the management of the temple property and thus
they have no right to file a writ petition on behalf of the
public trust or on behalf of Deity. Further, there is
nothing on record to suggest that the property belongs
to a public trust. Further no authorization to file the
writ petition by the Pujari on behalf of the said public
trust has been placed on record.
15. Thus, it is clear that the above principal laid down by the
different judgments of this Court that the Pujari has no legal right to file the
suit for his personal rights over the property without impleading the Deity
as a plaintiff, hence the revision petition is allowed. Application filed by
the defendants is allowed and the plaint is rejected.
6 CR-557-2023
16. Copy of the order be send to the concerned trial Court for
information and compliance.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
RS
