1 Second Appeal No.401/2011 25.11.2011 Shri Anuj Bhargava, Advocate for the appellants. Heard on the question of admission. O R D E R This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment & decree dated 30.3.2011, passed by the VIth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ujjain in Civil Regular Appeal No.5-A/11, whereby the judgment & decree dated 4.1.2011, passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Ujjain in Civil Suit No.39-A/09 has been affirmed in appeal, by which the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. 2. It is not in dispute that there exists a temple in the name of Shri Vyankatesh Balaji Mandir, situated at Jogipura, Ujjain. The Pujari in the said temple is appointed by the State. 3. According to the plaintiffs they have been offering worship and maintaining the temple since generations. The said temple is a private temple and the Government has no right to interfere in its management. The temple was established and constructed by their ancestors and in the resent past, for the maintenance of the temple spent Rs.1 lac from their own pocket. There exists land in village Badiokaji, tehsil Ghatiya, district Ujjain ad-measuring 9.79 hectares in total, which was given to the ancestors of the plaintiffs during erstwhile Gwalior State, around 70 years back, as gift for the maintenance of the temple. Since then the said land had been in possession of the plaintiffs and their ancestors. In the revenue records, the said land is recorded in the name of 'the temple'. After coming into force of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue & Tenancy Act, the plaintiffs have acquired Bhumiswami rights in the land in question. The Government is trying to interfere in the management of the temple and is taking steps for auctioning 2 the land on lease and, therefore, a suit was filed for declaration to declare them as Bhumiswami of the land and also prayed for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the respondent from interfering with their possession. 4. The respondent/defendant filed its written statement and stated that the temple is a public temple and the Pujari is appointed by the State and the agricultural land had been given by way of maufi, for the temple by the ruler of the former Gwalior State. The 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 the plaintiffs are not the Bhumiswami of the land. The former Pujari was, therefore, not Kashtkar Mourushi of the maufi land, but was merely holding them on behalf of Aukaf Department for the purposes of management. It is also alleged that as per record of former Gwalior State the temple in question is recorded in the list of Devasthan of district & tehsil Ujjain at Serial No.5883 having 'Pat' No.299. The land is recorded as 'Malkiyat Sarkar' (government land) Aukaf temple land. As per document dated 24.8.39, an amount of Rs.25/- in cash and the land in question towards worship and upkeep of the temple. As per Ex. P/11, which is the document of Commissioner, Maufi & Aukaf, Gwalior dated 18.8.39, the land is recorded as government land. 5. In the case of Mst. Kanchaniaya & Ors. v/s. Shiv Ram & Ors., 1992 Revenue Nirnay 194, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the rights and duties of a Pujari and the status of the land dedicated for charitable and public purposes. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has laid down the law on the point on the following terms :- “Although under Section 13 of the Kawaid Maufidara, the right of a Kashtakar Mourushi have been conferred on the 3 Pujari appointed by the Aukaf Department in respect of Devsthani Maufi grant which has been resumed and under S.265 of the Qanoon Mal, the restriction on his right was with regard to sale and mortgaged only but it cannot be ignored that under S.13 of Kawaid Maufidaran, the right of a Kashtakar Mourushi which have been conferred on the Pujari is subject to the overriding condition that in case he does not perform his duties property, he can be removed and another Pujari can be appointed and a patta would be issued in his favour. This is also borne out by definition of the expression 'Kashtakar Mourushi' in S.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. Thus, 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.” 6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that if the land has been dedicated to the deity and managed by a Pujari, the Pujari had no right to transfer the land in any way. The appellants-plaintiffs by cogent evidence have failed to prove that the temple in question is a private temple nor they filed any document to prove that the land was their private land. 7. Both the Courts below after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and the provisions of 'Kawaid Maufidaran' and 'Qanoon Mal' of the former Gwalior State came to the conclusion that the Pujari had no other status then that of a manager. He had no right to alienate the same in any 4 manner. The Maufi lands all the while belong to the government. The former Pujari was, therefore, not a Mourushi Kashtkar or a government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the Maufi lads, but was merely holding them on behalf of the Aukaf Department for the purpose of management and dismissed the suit. 8. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (P.K. Jaiswal, J.) rcs*