Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Trial Court Decree in Temple Possession Dispute; Holds Revenue Entries Alone Insufficient to Prove Private Temple or Hereditary Mohtamimship

Case Name: Nikka Ram and Others v. Birbal Sood and Others

Date of Judgment: 29 December 2025

Citation: RSA-1950-1992

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the second appeal filed by the defendants and set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court, restoring the trial court’s decree dismissing the suit for possession. The Court held that mere revenue entries showing ownership of land and existence of a temple are insufficient to establish that the temple is a private temple or that the plaintiffs had hereditary rights of Mohtamimship. In absence of cogent evidence proving appointment, heredity, or exclusive management of the temple, the suit for possession was held to be not maintainable.

Summary: The plaintiffs instituted a suit for possession of land on which a temple (Shivala) existed, claiming ownership and hereditary Mohtamimship through their predecessor Charanji Lal. They alleged illegal dispossession by the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decree relying primarily on revenue records.

In second appeal, the High Court examined the entire evidence and found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the temple was a private temple or that Charanji Lal had ever been appointed as Mohtamim. No evidence was led to establish that Mohtamimship was hereditary or that the plaintiffs had succeeded to such a right. The Court noted that apart from revenue entries, no independent evidence was produced regarding construction, dedication, or exclusive family control over the temple.

The Court further observed that once a temple exists, the presumption is of a public endowment unless proved otherwise by clear and specific evidence. Witnesses examined by the defendants categorically stated that Charanji Lal never managed the temple affairs. Even the plaintiff witness admitted ignorance regarding the appointment of Mohtamimship. The formation of a management committee by the defendants and the absence of any criminal action for alleged forcible dispossession further weakened the plaintiffs’ case.

The High Court also held that the First Appellate Court had failed to examine all material issues and had confined itself solely to revenue entries, thereby ignoring settled principles governing religious endowments and possession suits involving temples.

Decision: The second appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court were set aside, and the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit for possession were restored. The Court also observed that the State may consider initiating proceedings under Section 92 CPC in respect of the temple.