Ogeppa(D) Thr Lrs vs Sahebgouda (D) Thr Lrs

2026 INSC 191 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7181-7182 OF 2016

OGEPPA (D) THROUGH LRS. …. APPELLANT(S) AND OTHERS VERSUS

SAHEBGOUDA (D) THROUGH …. RESPONDENT(S) LRS. AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1) The present lis before us is a protracted dispute spanning over a

century, wherein the respondents/plaintiffs and the appellants/defendants

lay competing claims to the ancestral pujari rights and the right to perform

puja of the deity Amogasidda – a saint who passed away 600 years ago and

his Samadhi was built as a reverence at the temple situated in Mamatti

Gudda, Jalgeri, Arkeri, Karnataka. The core controversy centres on who

amongst these feuding families constitutes the hereditary wahiwatdar pujari

entitled to conduct the religious ceremonies, receive the offerings from

devotees, and hold the annual Jatra celebrations at the said temple. For

convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their original status

before the Principal Munsiff at Bijapur in Original Suit No.56/1982.

2) The trail of facts before us unfolds as thus: The genesis of this long-

Signature Not Verified standing Digitally signed by dispute dates back to 1944, when deceased Ogeppa NISHA KHULBEY Date: 2026.02.25 16:54:31 IST Reason:

Biradar/predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/defendants along with

others filed Original Suit No. 88 of 1944 for possession of the suit temple

Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 1 of 10 and other properties, contending that the plaintiffs had entered into

possession of the temple property by force and had asserted the right to

perform puja. The Trial Court dismissed the above suit vide judgment and

order dated 28.03.1945. The appellants/defendants preferred First Appeal

in Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1945, but during its pendency, they filed an

application to withdraw the said suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, to which

the plaintiffs/respondents’ counsel consented. The Appellate Court

accordingly set aside the judgments of the Trial Court vide order dated

15.06.1946 and permitted the withdrawal.

3) In 1967, it was alleged by the respondents/plaintiffs that the

appellants/defendants started obstructing the puja in the suit temple and

consequently, the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit being O.S No.347/1967

for permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from

interfering with the respondents/plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the suit property as pujaries and pujariki rights. In the said

suit, an ex-parte decree was granted in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.

However, the said suit was later dismissed for non-prosecution.

4) Later, on 24.03.1982, the present respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S. No.

56 of 1982 before the Court of the learned Principal Munsiff at Bijapur for a

declaration that they are the ancestral wahiwatdar pujargi possessing puja

rights at the suit temple, along with consequential prayers for permanent

injunction.

5) The respondents/plaintiffs asserted their status as ancestral

wahiwatdar pujaries with pujariki rights to perform puja of the deity

Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 2 of 10 Amogasidda, with respondent/plaintiff No. 1 possessing eight annas of such

rights whilst the remaining rights were distributed amongst the other

respondents/plaintiffs and exercised in rotation. They claimed continuous

performance of puja at the Samadhi, constructed approximately 600 years

ago and receipt of offerings from devotees during the year — round puja and

the annual jatra held at chaity amavasya. Having sought to register the

temple as a public trust with the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum

(enquiry No. 321/1980), plaintiffs/respondents alleged that since

20.03.1982, the appellants/defendants with police assistance obstructed

daily puja, attempted forcible night entry, removed puja articles,

necessitating a police complaint for trespass and a suit seeking declaration

of their rights as the pujaris of the suit temple.

6) The appellants/defendants denied any puja rights of the

respondents/plaintiffs, relying instead on O.S No. 287/1901 wherein their

ancestors obtained a decree conferring puja rights on Gurappa S/o

Manigeppa Poojari. They contended they are the successors of the plaintiff

in O.S. No.287/1901, whilst the present respondents/plaintiffs are the

descendants of the defendants therein. The appellants/defendants

contended that they continuously exercised pujarki rights as wahiwatdars,

conducted jatra celebrations, and received offerings from the devotees. The

appellants/defendants also claimed to have possession of the suit temple

and the religious buildings attached thereto.

7) The Trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 18.11.1986, partly

decreed the suit. The Trial Court declared that both, the

Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 3 of 10 respondents/plaintiffs and the appellants/defendants, are pujargies of the

suit temple and shall perform puja and jatra in a certain proportion, whilst

rejecting the prayer for injunction.

8) Aggrieved, the appellants/defendants filed Regular Appeal No. 97 of

1986 on 10.12.1986 before the Additional Civil Judge1, whilst the

respondents/plaintiffs filed Regular Appeal No. 98 of 1986 on 12.12.1986.

The First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.07.1990

allowed R.A. No. 98 of 1986 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and

dismissed R.A. No. 97 of 1986 filed by the appellants/defendants, decreeing

the suit as prayed for by holding that the respondents/plaintiffs are the

hereditary pujari of the suit temple.

9) The appellants/defendants being aggrieved by the judgment passed by

the First Appellate Court preferred Regular Second Appeal Nos. 708 and 709

of 1990 before the High Court. By its judgment dated 24.07.1992, the High

Court allowed both the second appeals, setting aside the judgment dated

05.07.1990 passed by the First Appellate Court and reversing the decree in

favour of the appellants/defendants. The High Court further held that the

Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur has no jurisdiction to entertain the regular

appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs as the jurisdiction of the Civil

Court is barred under Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

10) Against the High Court's judgment dated 24.07.1992, the

respondents/plaintiffs preferred special leave petitions before this Court

which were later converted into Civil Appeal Nos. 1352-1353/1993. This

1 For short, “The First Appellate Court”

Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 4 of 10 Court vide judgment dated 28.03.2003 while allowing the said Civil Appeals,

remanded the matter back to the High Court. This Court held that the bar

of Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act did not apply and the matter

required decision on merits.

11) After remand, the appeals preferred by the appellants/defendants

were heard on merits by the High Court and vide its judgment and order

dated 04.10.2012, the appeals were dismissed thereby decreeing in favour of

the respondents/plaintiffs. It is against this judgment of the High Court

dated 04.10.2012 that the present Civil Appeals come before us.

12) The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that the

O.S No.88/1944 was withdrawn with liberty and the Court’s reliance on a

non-est decree is contrary to settled law. To bolster his submissions, the

learned counsel for the appellants/defendants placed reliance on decree in

O.S No.287/1901 whereby the appellants/defendants’ hereditary

rights/puja rights were decreed in their favour.

13) Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted

that the revenue records produced on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs

cannot form basis of decreeing the respondents/plaintiffs suit.

14) Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs

supported the impugned judgment and prayed for the dismissal of the Civil

Appeals.

15) Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

material available on record. It thus falls upon us to examine the

correctness of the impugned judgment.

Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 5 of 10

16) It is neither novel nor uncertain that this Court in catena of

judgments has held that the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India should be used sparingly. More particularly when

dealing with concurrent findings of fact. Unless and until the findings

rendered by the courts below are manifestly perverse, this Court should be

reluctant to intervene in the same.

17) In the present lis before us, both, the High Court as well as the First

Appellate Court, have rendered concurrent findings on the aspect of the

pujari rights over the subject temple and held in favour of the

respondents/plaintiffs.

18) The appellants/defendants contend that the pujarki rights of the

Amogasidda temple lie with them, as their predecessor has a decree in this

regard in his favour in O.S No.287/1901. Both, the First Appellate Court

and the High Court, while dealing with this particular issue have held that

though the appellants/defendants claim that they have a decree in their

favour, they seem conspicuously silent on the fact that they have filed a suit

seeking possession and pujariki rights in OS No.88/1944. Though the Trial

Court in this suit has decreed against the appellants/defendants, the

considerable factor is that the suit was filed for possession of the suit

temple. On the one hand, the appellants/defendants claimed that the

previous suit instituted by their predecessor was in their favour and they

have been granted the possession of the subject temple and pujariki rights

and on the other, they filed a suit seeking the same relief in 1944. If the

appellants/defendants had a decree of possession in their favour, the

Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 6 of 10 question arises as to how and when they lost possession of the subject

premises. This fact has been considered by both the Courts below and it

also manifests that the written statement of the appellants/defendants is

silent on this aspect.

19) The First Appellate Court rightly noticed that if the

appellants/defendants were indeed in continuous and uninterrupted

possession of the suit temple and had been discharging their duties as

wahiwatdar pujaries thereunder, there was no conceivable reason for their

predecessor to have instituted O.S. No. 88 of 1944 seeking possession and

injunction. A party in settled possession does not sue for possession. The

very institution of that suit is a categorical admission by the

appellants/defendants' predecessor that possession of the suit temple was

not with them at the relevant point in time. This inference drawn by both,

the First Appellate Court and the High Court, is legally sound.

20) The matter does not rest there. The predecessor of the

appellants/defendants, having lost the said suit on merits before the Trial

Court vide judgment dated 28.03.1945, preferred Civil Appeal No. 118 of

1945. Critically, instead of pursuing the appeal, an application was moved

seeking withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. Such liberty

was granted by order dated 15.06.1946. Thereafter, for over three and a half

decades, no fresh suit was instituted. The appellants/defendants have

offered no explanation, either in their pleadings or in their evidence, as to

what transpired during this long interregnum. As the High Court correctly

observed, when a party obtains liberty to file a fresh suit and consciously

Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 7 of 10 refrains from doing so for thirty-six years, the inevitable inference is that the

said party had reconciled itself to the factual reality on the ground. This

conduct speaks louder than any decree of 1901 that the

appellants/defendants seek to wave before this Court.

21) The High Court upon remand examined the documentary evidence in

considerable detail. The Record of Rights (RTC) reflects the names of the

respondents/plaintiffs' ancestors in connection with the lands granted by

the then British Government in lieu of service rendered to the Amogasidda

temple. The names of the appellants/defendants find no mention in these

revenue records whatsoever. The appellants/defendants and their

predecessors have been litigating over this very temple for over a century.

They cannot, in these circumstances, feign ignorance of the revenue records

or claim that such entries carry no evidentiary weight against them.

22) Further, the admission extracted from D.W.1 (Ogeppa) in cross-

examination is of considerable significance. D.W.1, while denying that the

Government had granted lands to the Amogasidda temple at

Mammatigudda, volunteered that the said grant was in respect of the

Amogasidda temple situated in Jalageri village, which is the very suit

temple. He further admitted that the said lands were being cultivated by the

respondents/plaintiffs. This admission coming from the

appellants/defendants' own witness clinches the matter insofar as the grant

and its nexus to the respondents/plaintiffs is concerned.

23) We also find ourselves in agreement with the observations made by

the High Court as regards the written statement filed by the

Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 8 of 10 appellants/defendants. A party setting up a competing claim to hereditary

pujari rights is obligated to plead specifically—when they came into

possession of the suit temple; when they commenced performing puja; when

and how the respondents/plaintiffs began obstructing them; and what

steps, if any, they took to vindicate their rights during the long intervening

period. The written statement of the appellants/defendants is reticent on

each of these material particulars. They contend themselves with a bare

denial and a reference to the 1901 decree. This is wholly insufficient. In the

absence of any foundational plea, the oral evidence of D.W.1 attempting to

fill these gaps must necessarily be disregarded. Oral evidence cannot be a

substitute for pleading, and a case not made out in the pleadings cannot be

erected on evidence alone.

24) 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

Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 9 of 10 appreciation of this entire factual matrix. Hence, we find no perversity in

the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 04.10.2012.

25) Accordingly, the Civil Appeals are sans merit and are dismissed.

26) No orders as to costs.

…………………..........................J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

.………………............................J. (K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 25, 2026.

Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182/2016 Page 10 of 10