Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mangilal vs Murti Shri Ram Mandir Nalkheda Through ... on 18 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790
1 SA-404-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2026
SECOND APPEAL No. 404 of 2017
MANGILAL AND OTHERS
Versus
MURTI SHRI RAM MANDIR NALKHEDA THROUGH NEXT FRIEND
JAGDISHPRASAD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harsh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants / LRs.
JUDGMENT
This is the defendants' appeal against judgment and decree dated 19.05.2017 passed in Regular Civil Appeal Nos.22/2015 and 23/2015, whereby the findings and conclusions recorded by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.82-A/2013 with respect to issue No.1 were affirmed vide judgment and decree dated 24.04.2015.
2. The facts relevant for the purposes of the present appeal are that respondents No.1 to 3 filed suit in representative capacity in terms of Order I Rule 8 of the CPC for declaration of title, consequential relief for declaration that the sale deed dated 07.07.1982 is not binding, along with restoration of possession with mesne profit.
2.1 It was stated in the plaint that agricultural land bearing Survey No.2563 admeasuring 2.29 Aare is situated in Village Modi, Tehsil Susner, District Shajapur and is recorded in the name of plaintiff No.1 namely Murti Shri Ram Mandir, Nalkheda in the revenue records. It was further stated that Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 2 SA-404-2017 the settlement of lands in Tehsil Susner has taken place on three occasions :
first, in Samvat 1966, when the suit property was given Survey No.1272; second, in Samvat 1981, when it was given Survey No.1478; and third, in Samvat 1996, when it was given Survey No.2563. In the settlement records of Samvat 1966 and 1981, the suit property is recorded as :
"नाम माफ अितये सरकार तथा का तकार माफ ी राम मं दर बांके नलखेड़ा व अहतमाम पुजार दे व थान"
2.2 Thus, the property belonged to Devasthan (Deity) since beginning, indicating that interest of public at large is involved; thus, the suit was filed in representative capacity.
2.3 It was further pleaded in the plaint that late Sitaram had earlier filed Civil Suit No.157-A/1979 before the Civil Judge, Class I, Susner for declaration of title. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 07.07.1982. However, the said judgment and decree were reversed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.08.1983 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.279/1982. In challenge to the said appellate decree, this Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.01.2003 passed in Second Appeal No.304/1983 set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.08.1983 of the first appellate Court on the ground that the first appeal was barred by limitation. Thus, the merits of the case were not examined by this Court.
2.4 It was averred in the plaint that late Sitaram and defendant No.1 Karan Singh obtained the decree by concealing facts. Plaintiff No.1 being the owner of the suit property was not impleaded as party respondent. Thus, the decree obtained by late Sitaram and defendant No.1 is not binding upon the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 3 SA-404-2017 plaintiff i.e. Devasthan (Deity).
2.5 It was further averred that the Pujari of the temple was only its guardian and had no right to alienate the suit property by way of Patta (lease). Thus, even if any such Patta had been granted by the erstwhile Pujari, the same would not culminate into any rights on the defendants.
Based on such Patta, the defendants cannot get the status of Mourusi Krushak o r Pakka Krushak. As Sitaram has died, his legal heirs have been made defendants in the suit.
3. The present appellants / defendants filed their written statement in denial of pleadings in the plaint. It was stated that the land in question was given for the service of the Devasthan (Deity) at Shri Ram Mandir, Nalkheda and was given to the ancestors of Devadas son of Dhuladas by the Jamindar of the erstwhile State of Gwalior. Thus, in the settlement of Samvat 1981, entry was recorded as :
"माफ अितय जमींदार पुजार दे वादास आ मज ओंकार दास"
3.1 It was further stated that Devadas son of Dhuladas had even prior to the said settlement given the suit land on Patta to the grandfather of defendant No.1. Thereafter, the land was given on Patta to Sitaram, who was the father of defendant No.1. In lieu thereof, Sitaram transferred his land bearing Survey No.202 situated in Village Antraliya, Tehsil Susner to Dhuladas.
3.1 It was also averred in the written statement that upon completion of period of Patta, Dhuladas used to issue fresh Pattas. In was further contended that since the defendants came into possession of the suit property by operation of law, they became Bhumiswami of the same after abolition of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 4 SA-404-2017 the Jamindar.
4. Based on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed nine issues. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of the Devstahan (Deity), plaintiff No.1, holding that it is the owner and title holder of the suit property. However, all other issues were decided against the plaintiffs / respondents No.1 to 3.
4.1 As the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.04.2015, dismissed the suit, however, issue No.1 was decided in favour of plaintiff No.1. / Devasthan (Deity), both, i.e. the plaintiffs as well as the defendants filed separate regular civil appeals. The plaintiffs' appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No.22/2015 and the defendants' appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No.23/2015.
4.2 The first appellate Court after re-appreciating the entire evidence, recorded elaborate findings, dismissed the appeal of the present appellants / defendants and allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs. Thus, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2017 of the first appellate Court, the present second appeal has been filed by the present appellants / defendants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants while arguing the case mainly emphasised on the earlier judgment and decree dated 07.07.1982 passed in Civil Suit No.157-A/1979 in favour of Sitaram and defendant No.1 Karan Singh. He has contended that earlier judgment and decree shall operate as res judicata and in view of the same the title of the appellant has become absolute. He also repeated the stand taken in the W.S. in as much as the erstwhile pujari had given the land in question on Patta.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the question of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 5 SA-404-2017 admission and perused the record.
7. The trial Court considered the aforesaid aspect in paras 6 to 9 of its judgment. It found that since the year 1966, the land in question has been recorded in the revenue records in the name of the Devsthan (Deity).
7.1 In para 9, the trial Court recorded finding that no document had been placed on record to establish who had allotted the land for the service of the Devsthan (Deity) or under whose authority the name of the Collector, Shajapur came to be recorded in the revenue records of the suit land. The Court specifically noted that there was no document at all to prove the same.
7.2 The Court based on documents in Exs. P-1 to P-5 found that the Devsthan (Deity) is the owner of the suit property. This finding of the trial Court was then considered by the first appellate Court in paras 23 to 29. The first appellate Court found that since Samvat 1966, the land is recorded in the name of Deity.
8. As regards the claim of the appellants / defendants that the land was given by the State of Gwalior through its Jamindar to the erstwhile Pujari, who in turn leased it to the appellants / defendants, no documents have been placed on record and there is complete absence of proof in this regard. These findings have been recorded by the first appellate Court in para 25 of its judgment.
8.1 In para 29, the first appellate Court further recorded that in Samvat 1966, the land was recorded in the name of Devasthan (Deity) Shri Ram Mandir, Nalkheda and its pujari was shown as Devadas son of Dhuladas. The Court held that he was only Pujari of the temple and thus, had no right or Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 6 SA-404-2017 authority to transfer the title of the land in any manner to any person.
8.2 Thus, even if it is accepted that the Pujari had granted Patta to Sitaram, the same would have no effect on the title of the Devasthan (Deity) in respect of the suit property.
9. In the considered view of this Court, the findings recorded by the first appellate Court in para 23 are in accordance with law and based on cogent reasoning and the evidence available on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchaniya (Mst) v. Shiv Ram , 1992 Supp (2) SCC 250 held as under :
5. We will first examine the question as to the nature of right of Vasudev Rao in the land in dispute and whether he was competent to grant a lease in favour of Malkhan in respect of the said land.
For that purpose it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the "Kawaid Maufidaran" and "Qanoon Mal" of the former Gwalior State.
6. Maufi grants for Devasthan lands were governed by Section 13 of Kawaid Maufidaran. The said provision, as translated in English, was as under:
"13. Where, on enquiry or at the time of mutation, a Devasthani Maufi land is found to have been derived from Nagis (Defective) Sanad, it shall be deleted from Maufi category and shall be entrusted to the Aukaf Department for management of Devasthan, and entry of such land shall be made in the Patwari Papers as follows:
'Government property, under management of the Aukaf Department relating to Devasthan.' The Maufidar shall be deemed to be holding the land as Pujari or manager Devasthan and, in lieu of service, he shall have the right of a Mourushi Kashtakar in such land for which a rent-free patta shall be granted to him by the Aukaf Department:
Provided that in the event of the services being not rendered satisfactorily by the Pujari or manager the Aukaf Department shall have the authority to dispossess such Mourushi Kashtakar and appoint another Pujari or manager in his place and grant him patta for such land."Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 7 SA-404-2017
7. The expression 'Kashtakar Mourushi' was defined in clause (29) of Section 2 of the 'Qanoon Mal' which provision, as translated in English, was as follows:
"Kashtakar Mourushi.--Kashtakar Mourushi is one whose rights being heritable, the Malguzar cannot evict him without order of the Court, nor can he enhance the rent without his consent or without an order of the Court:
Provided that in case a Pujari or manager who has mourushi rights under Section 13 of Kawaid Maufidaran Jazve Arazi and Naqdi does not render his services properly, the Aukaf Department shall have the authority to dispossess him without an order of the Court."
8. The following four categories of tenants were specified in Section 249 of the Qanoon Mal:
(i) Ex-proprietary tenant;
(ii) Mourushi or Dakhilkar, i.e., Occupancy Tenant;
(iii) Gair Mourushi or Gair Dakhilkar, i.e., Non-occupancy Tenant; and
(iv) Sub-tenant.
9. In Section 265 of Qanoon Mal, it was provided that dakhilkar right is transferable by way of sale or mortgage subject to the conditions laid down. One of the conditions prescribed in the second proviso to Section 265 was that dakhilkar right acquired by a Pujari or a manager under Section 13 of the Qanoon Mal could not be subject to sale or mortgage.
10. The aforesaid provisions in Section 13 of the Kawaid Maufidaran and Section 265 of the Qanoon Mal have been considered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Panchamsingh case [AIR 1972 MP 14 : 1971 MP LJ 745 : 1971 Jab LJ 588] wherein also the Maufi grant in respect of a temple had been resumed and a Parwana had been granted to the Pujari of the temple in accordance with Section 13 of Kawaid Maufidaran and the Pujari had granted a sub-lease and the question was whether the Pujari was competent to grant the sub-lease. In that context, the High Court has also referred to Section 110 of the Land Records Manual of the former Gwalior State wherein it was provided that a Pujari should be recorded as a Kashtakar Dakhilkar Bila Lagani, i.e., with no right or interest, and to circular No. 4 of Samvat 1991 of the former Gwalior State which required that :
"The entry of such land in the Jamabandi should be made in the Patti of Milkiyat Sarkar under the management of the Aukaf Department in the column of 'owner' and the Pujari or Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 8 SA-404-2017 Mujavir should be entered in ziman 4 as Mourushi Bila Lagani."
11. In Panchamsingh case [AIR 1972 MP 14 : 1971 MP LJ 745 :
1971 Jab LJ 588] the learned Judges have also set out the terms of the Parwana (as contained in the printed form) which is granted by the Aukaf Department in accordance with Section 13 of Kawaid Maufidaran. In the said Parwana, it is mentioned that in accordance with Slection 13 of Kawaid Maufidaran the land which was earlier entered in the Maufi Register has been deleted from the said Register and has been handed over to the Aukaf Department and the said land is now being given by the Department to the grantee 'bila lagani' in lieu of service for the purpose of worship of Devasthan and it shall be under the control of the Aukaf Department. The grantee shall keep the Devasthan in a proper condition and shall make proper arrangement for worship from the income of the land by cultivating the same personally or getting it cultivated through somebody else. So long as the grantee and his heirs properly manage the Devasthan, till then only they would be entitled to enjoy the land. If any defect or mismanagement in the worship of Devasthan on the part of the grantee or his heirs is found, proceedings for removal will be initiated and another person would be appointed from amongst the heirs, if found fit for conducting the worship or otherwise another proper person would be appointed to manage the Devasthan and the land would be delivered to him. It was clearly mentioned in the Parwana that as a result of cancellation of the maufi the grantee, as Maufidar, does not have any right in the same and now this land would be entered in the Register and other papers of the Patwari as a government property under the control of the Aukaf Department for the management of the Devasthan.
12. Construing the terms of the Parwana in the light of Section 13 of Kawaid Maufidaran, the High Court has held :
"The Parwana must be read in the context of Section 13 of the Kawaid Maufidaran. The deed must be read as a whole in order to ascertain the true meaning of its several clauses. Strict legal language having been used in the Parwana, it must receive its legal meaning. Under the terms of the Parwana, the former Pujari had no other status than that of a manager. He could get the lands cultivated either himself or through servants, but he had no right to alienate the same in any manner. It cast a duty upon him to keep the lands under cultivation so that the income derived therefrom could be applied towards the Puja and the upkeep of the temple. He was under the direct control of the Aukaf Department. The Parwana expressly stated that the grant shall be resumed for breach of any of the conditions or upon the death of the former Pujari. The maufi lands all the while belonged to the Government. The former Pujari was, therefore, not a Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 9 SA-404-2017 Kashtakar Mourushi or a government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the maufi lands, but was merely holding them on behalf of the Aukaf Department for purposes of management." (p. 16)
13. Referring to the definition of "Mourushi Kashtakar" contained in clause (29) of Section 2 of the Qanoon Mal, the High Court and observed:
"On a plain reading, the definition excludes a Pujari. The former Pujari was, therefore, not a Kashtakar Mourushi of the maufi land, but was merely holding them on behalf of the Aukaf Department for purposes of management." (p. 16)
14. Rejecting the contention that every Mourushi Kashtakar had the right to sublet and that though a Pujari had no right to transfer by mortgage or sale there was no restriction on subletting, the High Court has laid down:
"It would be repugnant to the nature of the grant itself to clothe such a person with a right to transfer of any kind. The whole purpose of the grant, which was for upkeep of the temple, would be frustrated if the maufi lands were allowed to be sub-let by the Pujari and new rights created in favour of a stranger. Where a grant of land is made in consideration for service to be rendered by a grantee, in lieu of wages, it is an implied condition of the grant that if the services are not performed or are not required, the grant can be resumed. The Parwana expressly stated that the grant in favour of the former Pujari was resumable for breach of any of the conditions set out therein, or upon his death or removal. The death of the former Pujari was, in the instant case, the terminal point. That being so, the grant lapsed with his death. As the grant created no interest in favour of the former Pujari, whatever rights the petitioner's father, Thakur Murlidharsingh had also lapsed and he became a rank trespasser." (p. 17)
15. Shri Shiv Dayal has submitted that the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court were in error in holding that a Pujari was not a Kashtakar Mourushi of the maufi land and that the said finding is contrary to the language of Section 13 of Kawaid Maufidaran wherein it is clearly stated that the Pujari would have the rights of a Kashtakar Mourushi. According to Shri Shiv Dayal the only limitation on the rights of the Pujari as a Kashtakar Mourushi was that contained in Section 265 of the Qanoon Mal whereby he was precluded from selling or mortgaging the maufi lands but there was no provision restricting his right to create a lease for cultivation of the lands. We are unable to agree. Although under Section 13 of Kawaid Maufidaran, the right of a Kashtakar Mourushi have been Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 10 SA-404-2017 conferred on the Pujari and under Section 265 of the Qanoon Mal, the restriction on his right was with regard to sale and mortgage only but it cannot be ignored that under Section 13 of Kawaid Maufidaran the right of a Kashtakar Mourushi which have been coneferred on the Pujari is subject to the overriding condition that in case he does not perform his duties properly, he can be removed and another Pujari can be appointed and a patta could be issued in his favour. This is also borne out by definition of the expression 'Kashtakar Mourushi' in Section 2(29) of the Qanoon Mal which imposes the condition that the Aukaf Department would be entitled to dispossess, without an order of the court, the Pujari who obtains the right of Kashtakar Mourushi on the basis of Kawaid Maufidaran and who does not render his services properly. The matter is further made clear by the prescribed form of the Parwana which is issued to the Pujari wherein it is also clearly mentioned that Pujari does not have any right in the land and his status is that of a manager and that he could get the land cultivated either himself or through others so that the income derived therefrom could be applied towards worship and upkeep of the temple and that the grant would be resumed for breach of any of the conditions or upon the death of the former Pujari. In other words, the rights of the Pujari do not stand on the same footing as those of a Kashtakar Mourushi in the ordinary sense who was entitled to all rights including the right to sell or mortgage. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Panchamsingh case [AIR 1972 MP 14 : 1971 MP LJ 745 : 1971 Jab LJ 588] that a Pujari had no other status than that of the manager functioning under the control of the Aukaf Department and he had no right to transfer, either by way of sale or mortgage or by lease, the land entrusted to him. In that view of the matter, it must be held that the patta granted in favour of Malkhan by Vasudev Rao, father of Respondent 1, was not valid and did not confer any right or interest on Malkhan in the land covered by the said patta.
16. Once it is held that Vasudev Rao was not competent to grant a lease in respect of the land in dispute and the patta granted by him in favour of Malkhan was invalid and no rights were conferred on Malkhan in the land as a result of the said patta, the claim of the appellants that they have acquired Bhumiswami right on the land in dispute cannot be sustained. The said claim is based on the provisions of Sections 185, 189 and 190 of the Code.
17. Under Section 185(1), every person, belonging to any of the categories specified thereunder, shall be called an occupancy tenant and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon an occupancy tenant by or under the Code. Under Section 190, Bhumiswami rights are conferred on an occupancy tenant in cases where the Bhumiswami, whose land is held by an occupancy tenant, fails to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 11 SA-404-2017 make an application under Section 189(1) within the period laid down therein. The submission of Shri Shiv Dayal is that Malkhan, being in occupation of the land in dispute as a subtenant, became an occupancy tenant under Section 185(1), and since the Bhumiswami of the land in dispute did not make an application under Section 189(1), Malkhan acquired Bhumiswami rights over the same under Section 190 of the Code. This contention proceeds on the assumption that Malkhan was a sub-tenant of the land in dispute on the date of coming into force of the Code. But since we have found that no rights were created in favour of Malkhan under the patta granted by Vasudev Rao, Malkhan cannot claim to be a sub-tenant of the land in dispute on the date of the commencement of the Code and, therefore, the submission of Shri Shiv Dayal that Malkhan had acquired Bhumiswami rights over the land in dispute cannot be accepted.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti , (2021) 10 SCC 222 held in paras 16, 22 to 27 and 30 as under:
16. The Court held that, with respect to the State's right to auction the property of the temple, once the land is vested with the deity/temple, the State cannot have a right to auction the property of the temple.
22. In the present case, the question which is required to be decided is whether a priest can be treated as Bhumiswami under the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act 66 of 1950) and as a consequence under the Code. The reliance of the respondent is on the Gwalior Act. In some of the judgments mentioned above, the provisions of the Gwalior Act have been described as "Regulations" and in some as "Sections".
Since it appears to be issued by the then Ruler of Gwalior, the same has to be treated as a statute, having a force of law applicable in the erstwhile State of Gwalior.
23. This question has already been considered by the courts in Panchamsingh [Panchamsingh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas, 1971 SCC OnLine MP 26], which has further been affirmed by Kanchaniya [Kanchaniya v. Shiv Ram, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 250]. The law is clear on the distinction that the Pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi i.e. tenant in cultivation or a government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the muafi lands but holds such land on behalf of the Aukaf Department for the purpose of management. The Pujari is only a grantee to manage the property of the deity and such grant can be reassumed if the Pujari fails to do the task assigned to him i.e. to offer prayers and manage the land. He cannot be thus treated as a Bhumiswami. The Kanchaniya [Kanchaniya v. Shiv Ram, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 250] further clarifies that the Pujari does not have any right in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 12 SA-404-2017 land and his status is only that of a manager. Rights of pujari do not stand on the same footing as that of Kashtkar Mourushi in the ordinary sense who are entitled to all rights including the right to sell or mortgage.
24. In a judgment reported as Ramchand v. Janki Ballabhji Maharaj [Ramchand v. Janki Ballabhji Maharaj, (1969) 2 SCC 313], it was held that if the Pujari claims proprietary rights over the property of the temple, it is an act of mismanagement and he is not fit to remain in possession or to continue as a Pujari.
25. The contrary view expressed by the High Court in Ghanshyamdas (1) [Ghanshyamdas v. State of M.P., 1995 Revenue Nirnaya (RN) 235], Sadashiv Giri [Sadashiv Giri v. Commr., 1985 RN 317] and Shrikrishna [Shrikrishna v. State of M.P., 1995 SCC OnLine MP 161: (2012) 4 MP LJ 466] does not lay down good law in view of binding precedent of the Division Bench of the High Court in Panchamsingh [Panchamsingh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas, 1971 SCC OnLine MP 26] as also of this Court in Kanchaniya [Kanchaniya v. Shiv Ram, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 250]. All these judgments presenting a contrasting view had not noticed the said binding precedents dealing with the rights of priest under the Gwalior Act.
26. Taking into consideration the past precedents, and the fact that under the Gwalior Act, Pujari had been given the right to manage the property of the temple, it is clear that that does not elevate him to the status of Kashtkar Mourushi (tenant in cultivation).
27. The ancillary question which arises is whether the priest is Inamdar or Maufidar within the meaning of Section 158(1)(b) of the Code. Such provision contemplates that the rights of every person in respect of land held by him in the Madhya Bharat region i.e. area of erstwhile Gwalior and Holkar as a pakka tenant or as a Muafidar, Inamdar or concessional-holder shall be protected as Bhumiswami. The priest does not fall in any of the clauses as mentioned in Section 158(1)(b) of the Code. The muafi was granted to the property of temples from payment of land revenue. Such muafi was not granted to a manager. Even Inam granted by the Jagirdar or the ruler to a priest is only to manage the property of the temple and not confer ownership right on the priest.
Therefore, in view of the judgment in Panchamsingh [Panchamsingh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas, 1971 SCC OnLine MP 26] and also of this Court in Kanchaniya [Kanchaniya v. Shiv Ram, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 250] , the priest cannot be treated to be either a Muafidar or Inamdar in terms of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act 66 of 1950) or in terms of the Gwalior Act. Since the priest cannot be treated to be Bhumiswami, they have no right which could be protected under any of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 13 SA-404-2017 provisions of the Code.
30. In the ownership column, the name of the deity alone is required to be mentioned, as the deity being a juristic person is the owner of the land. The occupation of the land is also by the deity which is carried out by the servant or the managers on behalf of the deity. Therefore, the name of the manager or that of the priest is not required to be mentioned in the column of occupier as well. In Ghanshayamdas (2) [State of M.P. v. Ghanshyamdas, 999 RN 25] , it was held that if the name of the Pujari is recorded in Column No. 12 i.e. column of remarks, it will not affect the rights of the Pujari so long as he is performing his functions properly and cultivating the land or getting the land cultivated through servants. Therefore, the name of the Pujari cannot be mandated to be recorded either in the column of ownership or occupancy but may be recorded in the remarks column.
11. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Panchamsingh v. Ramkishandas Guru Ramdas, 1971 SCC OnLine MP 26 : AIR 1972 MP 14 held as under :
5. Section 13 of the Kawaid Maufidaran reads as follows :
''१३. जब दे व थानी माफ आराजी तहक कात से या व दा खल खा रज ना कस सनद पर मबनी पाई जाये तो वह नोइयत माफ से खा रज क जाकर वा ते इ तजाम दे व थान मह मे औकाफ के सुपुद क जायेगी और कागजात पटवार म ऐसी आराजी का इ दराज बतर क जेल कया जायेगा :-
"िमल कयत सरकार वजहतमाम महकमा औकाफ मुतअ लक दे व थान"
माफ दार बतौर पुजार या मुजावर दे व थान मुतस बर कया जावेगा और उसे ऐसी आराजी म बलऐवज ऐसी खदमात के हक का तकार मौ सी हािसल होगा जसका बला लगानी प टा िमन-जािनब महकमे औकाफ उसे दया जायेगा, मगर शत यह है क पुजार या मुजावर क खदमात ठ क तौर पर अदा न होने क सूरत म महकमे औकाफ को यह इ तयार होगा क ऐसे का तकार मौ सौ को आराजी से बेदखल करके उसके बजाय दसू रा पुजार या मुजावर मुकरर करे और उसे ऐसी आराजी का प टा दे "
6. The parwana was in the printed form in the following terms :--
मु त जम जागीरदारान से शन औकाफ वािलयर गवनमे ट Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 14 SA-404-2017 ॥ ी॥ अज महकमे औकाफ रयासत वािलयर जो क कताअज आराजी मु दज पु त जो सा बक म इस दे व थान के पूजन बगैरा के वा ते बतौर मुआफ कायम थी वह मुता बक दफा १३ कवाअद मुआफ । र ज टर मुआफ से खा रज होकर महकमे हाजा के िसपुद हुई है । अब मह मे हाजा से यह आराजी दे व थान के पूजन बगैरा के िलये बल एवज खदमात दे व थान तुमको बला लगानी अता क जाकर व अहतमाम मेहकमा औकाफ तु हारे रखी जाती है । तुमको चा हये क तुम इसक आमदनी से खुद का त करके या कसी द गर से का त कराकर दे व थान क हालत व पूजन बगैरा का इ तजाम ठ क रखो और जब तक तम व तु हारे वारसान इ तजाम दे व थान ठ क रखगे उसी व तक वह इससे मु तफ कद हो सकगे। अगर तु हारे या तु हारे जानशीन क जािनब से कसी क म क खराबी या बदइ तजामी दे व थान के पूजन बगैरा म पाई जायेगी तो फौरन अ हे दगी क कायवाह क जाकर उसके बजाये द गर श स अगर वा रसान म से कोई का बल व लायक पूजन पाया जावेगा तो वह। वना द गर कोई लायक श स दे व थान के वा ते मुकरर कया जाकर उसके क जे म यह आराजी द जावेगी, य क यह आराजी मुआफ से खा रज हो जाने से बतौर मुआफ दार अब इस पर तु हारा कोई हक नह ं रहा और अब इस आराजी का इ ाज र ज टर व कागजात पटवार म िमल कयत सरकार वजहतमाम महकमा औकाफ वा ते इ तजाम दे व थान सदर हुआ करे गा।"
7. The words of a statute are to be interpreted as bearing natural meaning. And if this is plain, there is no scope for rules of construction. The words of Section 13 of the Kawaid Maufidaran are plain and unambiguous. Section 5(4) of the Kawaid Maufidaran defines a Devasthani Maufi as a grant made for the upkeep of a temple. Under Section 13, the Maufidar was treated as a Pujari and the grant lapsed with the death or removal of the Pujari. The Parwana must be read in the context of Section 13 of the Kawaid Maufidaran. The deed must be read as a whole in order to ascertain the true meaning of its several clauses. Strict legal language having been used in the Parwana, it must receive its legal meaning. Under the terms of the Parwana, the former Pujari had no other status than that of a manager. He could get the lands cultivated either himself or through servants, but he had no right to alienate the same in any manner. It cast a duty upon him to keep the lands under cultivation so that the income derived therefrom could be applied towards the Puja and the upkeep of the temple. He was under the direct control of the Aukaf Department. The Parwana expressly stated that the grant shall be resumed for breach of any of the conditions or upon the death of the former Pujari. The Maufi lands all the while belonged to the Government. The former Pujari was, therefore, not a Kashtakar Mourusi or a Government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the maufi lands, but was merely holding them on behalf of the Aukaf Department for Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790
15 SA-404-2017 purposes of management.
8. A similar question arose before the Board of Revenue in Mahant Ramcharan Das v. Mishri, (1969 M.P. Revenue Nirnaya 550). A Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, while interpreting a Parwana in similar terms, stated as follows :
"शासन के आकाफा महकम क ओर से उसने इस भूिम को ा कया है । कवायद माफ दारान क धारा १३ और उ ल खत परवाने से प है क भूिम िम कयत सरकार वजहै तमामा सौगा औकाफ करार द जाकर आवेदक के क जे म 'खुद का त कराकर के या कसी द गर से का त कराकर' उसक आमदनी से दे व थान के पूजन बगैरा का ब ध रखने को द गई थी और पूजन बगैर म खामी या बदइ तजामी होने पर क जा हटाया जायगा । उपरो शत पर शासक य भूिम पर क या आवेदक को दये जाने म यह अथ नह ं िनकलता क भूिम पर उसे कसी कृ षक या खातेदार के अिधकार दये गये थे ब क भूिम पर क जा उसे इस वशेष योजन के िलये दया गया था क भूिम पर कृ ष कराने से जो ाि हो उससे वह सेवा अचा तथा दे व थान का समुिचत ब ध करके अपना िनवाह करे । दस ू रे श द म आवेदक केवल शासन क ओर से िनयु ब धक था।''
9. We are of the same view.
10. The construction of ours proceeds on Section 13 of the Kawaid Maufidaran, Section 2(29), 2nd Proviso to Section 265 of the Qanoon Mai, Gwalior, Circular No. 4 of Samvat 1991, Section 110 of the Land Records Manual, Riyasat Gwalior and Section 54(vii) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950.
11. Section 2(29) of the Qanoon Mal defines Mourushi Kashtakar as follows :
"का तकार मौ सी उसे कहते ह जसका ह क का- बल वरासत होकर उसे मालगुजार बला हु म अदालत बेदखल नह ं कर सकता और न बला रजाब द उसके या बला हु म अदालत के उस पर लगान इं जाफा कर सकता है ।
मगर शत यह है क जस पुजार या मुजावर को कवायद माफ दारान जु वे आराजी व न द रयासत, वािलयर, संवत १९६१, क दफा १३ क से ह क मौ सी हािसल हो उसक जािनब से खदमात म सबी ठ क तोर पर अदा न होने पर मह मे औकाफ को बला हु म अदालत बेदखल करने का इ तयार होगा।"
12. On a plain reading, the definition excludes a Pujari. The former Pujari was, therefore, not a Kashtakar Mourushi of the maufi land, but was merely holding them on behalf of Aukaf Department for purposes of management. Under the 2nd Proviso to Section 365 of the Qanoon Mai, Gwalior, he had no right of transfer. It reads as follows :
"दफा २६५, ह क दखीलकार व जय बय या रहन जमाब द शरायत बाब हाजा का बल इ तकाल होगा ।Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 16 SA-404-2017 **** शत मजीद यह है क ऐसे पुजार या मुजा वर का ह क दखौलकार जो उसे कवाजद माफ दारान जु वे भाराजी व न द । रयासत वािलयर। संवत १९९१, दफा १३ क से हािसल हो, रहन या बय नह ं कया जा सकेगा।"
13. Section 110 of the Land Records Manual, Riyasat Gwalior, Provided that a Pujari should be recorded as a Kashtakar Dakhilkar Bila Lagani, i.e., with no right or interest. Such a person could not, therefore, be recorded as a "Mourushi Kashtakar" or as an ordinary tenant.
14. Circular No. 4 of Samvat 1991 reads as follows :
"The entry of such land in the Jamabandi should be made in the Patti of Milkiyat Sarkar under the management of the Aukaf Department in the column of "owner" and lie Pujari or Mujavir should be entered in ziman 4 as Mourusi Bila Lagani."
15. Admittedly, the former Pujari was never recorded as such Kashtakar Mourusi. On the contrary, he was throughout recorded as Kashtakar Dakhilkar Bila Lagani. He could never become a pacca tenant under Section 54(vii) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950. The expression "pacca tenant", as defined in that section, means a person who had been "lawfully recorded" as a tenant. The maufi lands were always recorded as "Milkiyat Sarkar" under the Aukaf Department.
16. We are, therefore, of the view that the former Pujari had no other status than that of a manager of the lands on behalf of the Aukaf Department. While it is accepted before us that the former Pujari had no right of transfer by mortgage or sale, it is urged that there was no restriction on sub-letting. It is also urged that the terms "Mourushi Kashtakar" and "Dakhilkar Kashtakar Bila Lagani" were synonymous and that, as every Mourushi Kashtakar had the right to sub-let, it necessarily follows that a Dakhilkar Kashtakar Bila Lagani had also a similar right. We are unable to agree with this line of reasoning. It would be repugnant to the nature of the grant itself to clothe such a person with a right of transfer of any kind. The whole purpose of the grant, which was for the upkeep of the temple, would be frustrated if the maufi lands were allowed to be sublet by the Pujari and new rights created in favour of a stranger.
17. Where a grant of land is made in consideration for service to be rendered by a grantee, in lieu of wages, it is an implied condition of the grant that if the services are not performed or are not required, the grant can be resumed. The Parwana expressly stated that the grant in favour of the former Pujari was resumable for breach of any of the conditions set out therein, or upon his Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 17 SA-404-2017 death or removal. The death of the former Pujari was, in the instant case, the terminal point. That being so, the grant lapsed with his death. As the grant created no interest in favour of the former Pujari, whatever rights the petitioners father, Thakur Murlidnarsingh had, also lapsed and he became a rank trespasser.
12. In view of the above quoted settled position of law, if we consider the facts of the present case, then it will come to fore that even the appellant in his WS has come with the case that the erstwhile State of Gwalior had given the land in question for service of the Deity to the pujari of the temple and the pujari had given the said land to the ancestor of the appellant on patta. Once, this fact is pleaded (though there is no documentary proof of the same and it has not been found proved), if we take it as correct then also pujari had no right in him to sublet the property in question to any one, thus this subletting will not create any right in favour of the appellant.
13. The first appellate court, consequent to holding that the land belongs to the Devasthan (Deity), allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs. It was held that the issue of limitation had been incorrectly decided by the trial Court in as much as the plaintiffs were not aware about the impugned judgment and decree. It was only on 01.09.2008, when defendant No.1 informed the next friend of the Devasthan (Deity) that they had purchased the suit property that the plaintiffs came to know about the same. Thereafter, the representative suit was filed.
14. The appellate Court after affirming issue No.1 as framed by the trial Court to the effect that the land belongs to the Devasthan (Deity), concluded that since the Deity was not made as party defendant in Civil Suit No.157-A/1979, the judgment and decree dated 07.07.1982 passed therein Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8790 18 SA-404-2017 are not binding on the plaintiff no. 1 / Deity. Consequently, the appeal filed by the present appellants / defendants No.1 to 3 (Civil Appeal No.23/2015) was dismissed and the appeal filed by the respondents No.1 to 3 / plaintiffs (Civil Appeal No.22/2015) was allowed.
15. On perusal of the record of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court and in view of the above analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the first appellate Court as well as the trial Court on the issue of title and ownership of the suit property are correct and are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The concurrent findings of fact on this issue do not warrant interference, as no perversity is found therein.
16. Also, in view of the findings recorded on issue No.1, the first appellate Court has rightly concluded that the suit was within time and that the decree passed in the earlier suit in favour of Sitaram and defendant No.1 Karan Singh is not binding upon plaintiff No.1 / Devasthan (Deity).
17. As such, this Court does not find any perversity or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree. There is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE Anushree Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2026 16:53:00