2018 INSC 0889
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL     NO. 7843 O F  2009   
C HAIRMAN , B OARD   OF  T RUSTEE ,                    … A PPELLANT (s)
S RI  R AM  M ANDIR  J AGTIAL
K ARIMNAGAR  D ISTRICT , A.P
V ERSUS
S. R AJYALAXMI  (D EAD ) & O RS .                …R ESPONDENT ( S )
  
J U D G M E N T   
N.V. R AMANA , J.   
1.   The   present   appeal   arises   out   of   the   impugned   judgment   dated
18 th
  November   2006,   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at
Hyderabad   in   Appeal   Suit   No.   1964   of   1993   wherein   the   High
Court   allowed   the   appeal   preferred   by   the   respondents   and   set
aside  the   order   of  the   Subordinate   Judge  in   O.S.   No.69  of  1987,
thereby decreeing the suit in favour of the respondents­ plaintiffs .
1 REPORTABLE

2. A brief reference to the facts may be necessary for the disposal of
the   present   case.   The   original   plaintiff   no.1   (predecessor­in­
interest of respondent nos. 1 to 6  herein )  and original plaintiff no.2
( respondent   no.7   herein)   preferred   a   suit   against   the   defendants
(appellant   and   respondent   no.8,9   and   10   herein)   seeking   a
declaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule ‘A’ house
bearing H. No. 5­6­69 (old), 6­1­7 (old), reassigned new nos. 6­1­
81   and   6­1­81/1   situated   at   Brahminwadi,   Jagtial.   The   original
plaintiffs had also prayed for a declaration that the suit schedule
‘B’ properties are not  in  existence and the said properties do not
belong   to   the   temple.   Lastly,   they   also   sought   a   consequential
relief   of   permanent   injunction   against   the   defendants   from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
property.
3. The   respondents­ plaintiffs   claimed   to   be   the   owners   of   the   suit
schedule   “A”   house   and   further   contended   that   they   have   been
residing   in   the   suit   property   since   the   time   of   their   ancestors.
Hence   it   is   recorded   in   their   name   and   they   have   been   paying
taxes   to   the   municipality   with   respect   to   the   same.   A   Ram
Mandir, situated to the west of the suit property bearing H.Nos.5­
6­70   (old)   &   6­1­8   (old)   corresponding   to   H.No.6­1­82   (new),
2

which   is   shown   as   Endowments   property   by   the   Endowments
department.   Plaintiff   no.1   has   stated   that   the   eastern   and
southern boundaries of the temple are shown  to be the house  of
the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also brought to the notice of the court,
the   permission   dated   14.10.1977,   granted   in   their   favour   by   the
municipality, for re­roofing. The original plaintiff no.1   and plaintiff
no.2 effectuated an oral partition of the suit schedule ‘A’ property
on 27.6.1983.
4. The   cause   of   action   in   the   present   suit   arose   when   respondent
no.9   ( defendant   no.2­   Deputy   Commissioner   of   Endowments
Department )   allegedly   passed   an   ex­parte   order   on   24.10.1986
declaring   the   suit   schedule   ‘A’   house   and   movable   properties
shown   in   schedule   ‘B’   and   other   properties   belonged   to   the   Ram
Mandir, Jagtial in O.A. No.70 of 1985. Pursuant to the same, the
appellant   ( defendant   no.4 ­ Chairman   Board   of   Trustee   Sri   Ram
Mandir)   filed a Petition in the court of Judicial Magistrate, under
Section  93(2)  of  A.P.  Charitable  and  Hindu  Religious  Institutions
and   Endowments   Act   1966   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   Act”)
for   the   delivery   of   possession   of   suit   schedule   ‘A’   and   the   suit
schedule   ‘B’   properties   alongside   other   properties   of   the   Ram
Mandir in Cr. M. P No. 173 of 1987.
3

5. The   respondents­ plaintiffs ,   apprehending   abrupt   interference   in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property, preferred this suit
for   declaration   of   title   and   perpetual   injunction   concerning   suit
schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties in O.S. no.69 of 1987. 
6. The   appellant   ( defendant   no.4)   resisted   the   suit   on   multiple
grounds.   Although   the   appellant   ( defendant   no.4 )   admitted   that
the   ancestors   of   the   plaintiffs   were   performing   “Annasatram”   at
the Ram Mandir, he particularly denied that the ancestors of the
plaintiffs   had   constructed   the   suit   schedule   ‘A’   house   about   100
years back along with H. No. 6­2­21. The suit schedule ‘A’ house
was constructed from the funds donated by the devotees.   It was
further   alleged   that   the   plaintiff   no.1   had   filed   O.A   no.2   of   1973
under   Section   77   of   the   Act   before   the   Deputy   Commissioner
Endowments   Department   Hyderabad   (defendant   no.2)   for
declaration   that   the   Ram   Mandir   is   not   an   endowment   property,
but   the   same   was   dismissed   by   the   Deputy   Commissioner   vide
order dated 26.12.1976.  The Deputy Commissioner held that the
temple   is   a   public   institution   which   is   registered   and   entered   in
the   book   of   endowments.   Aggrieved,   the   plaintiff   no.1   had
preferred   O.S.   no.134   of   1977   under   Section   78   of   the   Act,
seeking   to   set   aside   the   earlier   order   passed   by   the   Deputy
4

Commissioner.   This   suit   was   also   dismissed   on   19.08.1981   and
has now attained finality. However, the plaintiffs being the priests
got the suit property mutated in their favour during the pendency
of   the   proceeding.   Since,   plaintiff   no.1   was   the   pujari   and   was
looking   after   the   affairs   of   the   temple,   he   misrepresented   the
matter   before   the   Assistant   Commissioner   of   the   Endowments
Department   ( defendant   no.3 )   at   the   time   of   preparing   the   list   of
properties of the Ram Mandir and got his name illegally recorded.
The plaintiff no.1 had also concocted several documents, such as
municipal   permission   for   re­roofing.   Further,   all   the   mutations
and entries made or done in the municipality  are in his capacity
of   being   a   Pujari   and   custodian   of   the   temple,   and   not   as   the
owner   of   the   property.   The   appellant   further   submitted   that   the
Schedule  B  properties  are  in  existence  and   are  in  the  custody  of
the   plaintiff   no.1   itself,   who   supressed   this   fact.   Lastly,   the
appellant ,   submitted   that   the   plaintiffs   have   exhausted   all
remedies   and   have   filed   the   suit   to   prolong   the   litigation   and
hence is liable to be dismissed.
7. The   trial   court,   taking   into   consideration   the   aforesaid
submissions   of   the   parties   and   the   dispute   in   the   present   case,
framed the following issues:
5

i. Whether   the   plaintiffs   are   entitled   for   the   declaration
that   the   suit   property   are   belonging   to   them   and   the
schedule   “B”   properties   are   not   in   existence   and
whether they are not the properties of the Ram Mandir?
ii. Whether   the   plaintiffs   are   entitled   for   the   permanent
injunction?
iii. Whether the suit is barred by the res judicata?
iv. Whether the court fee paid is not correct?
v. To what relief?
8. The   trial   court,   after   perusing   both   oral   and   documentary
evidence   on   record,   dismissed   the   suit   preferred   by   the
respondents­ plaintiffs.  The trial court held that the instant suit is
not barred under the principle of res­judicata, as the earlier suit
in O.S. No. 134 of 1977 was dismissed only for the default of the
plaintiff   no.1.   However,   as   the   respondents­ plaintiffs   failed   to
prove the source of their title they will not be entitled to claim the
relief of permanent injunction.
9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal of the suit, the respondents­
plaintiffs   preferred   an   appeal   before   the   High   Court   in   Appeal
Suit no. 1964 of 1993. The High Court set aside the order of the
trial court stating that the same was passed without considering
the   facts   and   law   in   the   correct   perspective.   Thereby,   the   High
Court   vide   order   dated   18.11.2006   allowed   the   appeal   preferred
by the respondents­ plaintiffs   and decreed the suit in their favour
by placing reliance on the documentary and oral evidence placed
6

on   record.   The   High   Court   observed   that,   the   alleged   suit
property was not included in the book of endowments, moreover,
the   plaintiffs   have   been   paying   taxes   in   regard   to   the   suit
property in their name. Therefore, the defendants in the guise of
a   certificate   cannot   claim   the   suit   premises.   Aggrieved,   by   the
aforesaid order  of the High Court decreeing  the  suit in favour  of
the   respondents­ plaintiffs,   the   appellant   (defendant   no.4)   has
preferred the present appeal.
10. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties. 
11. The counsel on behalf of the appellant ( defendant no.4)  submitted
that the High Court gravely erred in decreeing the suit in favour
of the respondents­ plaintiffs  by merely relying on the entry in the
book   of   endowments   as   to   the   boundaries.   Further,   the   counsel
averred   that,   the   plaintiff   no.1   manipulated   the   record   showing
himself   to   be   the   owner   of   the   suit   property,   whereas   he   was   a
pujari   acting   as   a   custodian   of   the   temple.   Lastly,   the   counsel
rested his argument by stating that since the certificate issued by
the Deputy Commissioner in O.A. No. 70 of 1985 is still valid, the
plaintiffs   are   not   entitled   to   a   decree   restraining   the   defendants
from   dispossessing   them   from   Schedule   ‘A’   property   and
recovering Schedule ‘B’ property.
7

12. On   the   contrary   the   counsel   on   behalf   of   the   respondents­
plaintiffs  submitted that, the suit property was never recorded as
an   endowment.   On   the   contrary,   the   suit   property   was   earlier
recorded in the name of the ancestors of the plaintiffs and now it
devolves in the name of plaintiffs. The permission granted by the
municipality   on   14.10.1977,   to   construct   the   re­roofing
strengthens the presumption in their favour. Therefore, the High
Court was correct to decree the suit in their favour by relying on
the documentary and oral evidence placed on record.
13. At   the   outset   it   is   pertinent   to   peruse   few   significant   evidences
adduced by both the parties.
14. The   plaintiffs   had   examined   P.W.3   (Purohith)   to   prove   that   the
suit   property   was   partitioned   in   the   year   1914   vide   Arbitration
Award dated 21.12.1914. But this document was never placed on
record in the earlier rounds of litigation. On the contrary, plaintiff
no.1 in the earlier litigation in O.A. No. 2 of 1973 had stated that,
the suit property was not a Mandir but a house which was built
by his father after obtaining due permission from the local tehsil
in   1927.   The   aforesaid   contradiction   draws   suspicion   as   to   the
credibility   of   the   witness,   as   regards   to   the   building   of   the   suit
8

house   and   temple   in   1927   and   fact   of   partition   pursuant   to   the
arbitration agreement in 1914, which are inconsistent. 
15. D.W.2,   who   was   once   acting   as   the   fit   person   on   behalf   of   the
trust   of   Ram   Mandir   stated   that,   even   the   suit   schedule   ‘A’
property was a part of the endowment property.
16. D.W.3,   further   clarified   the   status   of   the   suit   schedule   ‘A’
property   by   stating   that   it   was   used   as   lodging   by   the   pilgrims
and pujaris, it was also used to cook food for distribution. D.W.3
also   contended   that,   the   name   of   the   plaintiffs   got   recorded   as
the owners as they were the pujaris of the temple. 
17. The plaintiffs in order to substantiate their claims furthers placed
on   record   documentary   evidences   comprising   of   permissions
granted by the municipality, property tax assessment papers, tax
receipts and extract of the Book of Endowments of Ram Mandir.
After   perusing   evidence   on   record,   we   observe   that,   the
respondents­plaintiffs in order to prove their title has relied upon
several permissions of the municipality and tax receipts to prove
his   title.   But   while,   the   aforesaid   documents   might   imply
possession   but   they   cannot   be   relied   to   confer   title   upon   the
holder.   Further,   the   respondents­plaintiffs   have   strongly   relied
upon the book of endowments as maintained by the Endowment
9

Department   which   shows   the   boundaries   of   the   temple.   In   any
case, this document alone is not sufficient to claim the title over
the suit premises as it was only intended to demarcate the temple
premises.
18. On   the   contrary,   the  appellant­ defendant   no.4   has   put   forth   the
earlier   order   dated   26.12.1976   passed   by   the   Deputy
Commissioner   in   O.A.   No.   2   in   1973,   involving   the   same   suit
property. It was categorically held therein, that the suit property is
related   to   the   temple,   and   the   plaintiff   no.1   is   staying   therein   to
perform   his   duty.   The   earlier   order   also   stated   that,   the   suit
property   was   originally   granted   as   Inam   to   the   forefathers   of   the
plaintiffs for the conducting pooja and to feed the brahmins. In the
aforesaid   order,   it   also   noted   that,   the   plaintiff   had   removed   the
idols from the suit temple to meet his personal needs.   Aggrieved,
by   the   aforementioned   order   in   O.A.   No.   2   in   1973,   plaintiff   no.1
thereafter   had   filed   O.S.   No.134/77,   before   the   Chief   Judge,   City
Civil Court which came to be dismissed on 19.08.1981 for default,
hence   has   attained   finality.   Therefore,   the   present   suit   involving
the   same   property   seeking   similar   relief   as   O.S.   No.134/77   is
barred by time. However, the defence has also clearly averred that
since the plaintiffs and their forefathers were working as pujaris in
10

the   Ram   Temple,   the   endowment   department   in   order   to
demarcate  the Ram  Mandir  itself, mentioned the  suit property   as
the   adjoining   premises.   Keeping   in   view   the   aforesaid   facts   and
circumstances,   the   plaintiffs   have   failed   to   produce   any   evidence
to counter the case put forth by the appellant­ defendant no.4.
19. It   is   an   established   position   of   law   that,   the   burden   to   prove
ownership   over   the   suit   property   is   on   the   plaintiff.   ( See
Corporation   of   City   of   Bangalore   vs.   Zulekha   Bi   and   Ors.
(2008) 11 SCC 306). This court in the case of   Parimal vs. Veena
(2011) 3 SCC 545, held that:
19.   The   provisions   of   Section   101   of   the
Evidence Act provide that the burden of proof
of   the   facts   rests   on   the   party   who
substantially   asserts   it   and   not   on   the   party
who   denies   it .   In   fact,   burden   of   proof   means
that a party has to prove an allegation before he
is   entitled   to   a   judgment   in   his   favour.   Section
103   provides   that   burden   of   proof   as   to   any
particular fact lies on that person who wishes the
court   to   believe   in   its   existence,   unless   it   is
provided by any special law that the proof of that
fact   shall   lie   on   any   particular   person.   The
provision   of   Section   103   amplifies   the   general
rule   of  Section   101   that   the   burden   of  proof   lies
on   the   person   who   asserts   the   affirmative   of   the
facts in issue. 
(emphasis supplied)
20. In the present case, the respondents­ plaintiffs failed  to discharge
their   burden   of   proof   by   being   unable   to   furnish   necessary
11

documentary   and   oral   evidence   to   prove   their   claim.   But,   the
High   Court   without   appreciating   the   aforesaid   evidences   and
claims   made   by   the   appellant   ( defendant   no.4) ,   decreed   the   suit
in   favour   of   the   respondents­plaintiffs   by   solely   relying   on   the
entry   made   in   the   book   of   endowments   department   stating   the
boundaries   of   the   temple.   The   aforesaid   judgment   of   the   High
Court   is   untenable   in   law   as   it   is   based   on   erroneous
appreciation of evidence.
21. In light of the aforesaid observations we set aside the judgment of
the   High   Court   decreeing   the   suit   in   favour   of   respondents­
plaintiffs   in   the   absence   of   any   evidence   to   substantiate   their
claim. 
22. Resultantly,   we   restore   the   order   passed   by   the   Subordinate
Judge, Jagtial in O.S 69 of 1987. The appeal is allowed, however,
without any order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
……………………………..J.
( N. V. Ramana )
……………………………..J.
( Mohan M. Shantanagoudar )
N EW  D ELHI ,
D ECEMBER  10, 2018.
12

13