Supreme Court Upholds Hereditary Pujari Rights in Century-Old Temple Dispute -- Bombay Public Trust Act Jurisdiction Clarified -- Ancestral Religious Rights Recognized

Nature of Litigation: Civil dispute over hereditary pujari rights at Amogasidda temple spanning over a century

Remedy Sought

Respondents sought declaration as ancestral wahiwatdar pujaries with permanent injunction against interference

Filing Reason

Appellants allegedly obstructed puja activities at the temple since March 1982

Previous Decisions

Original Suit No. 88 of 1944 dismissed -- Original Suit No. 347/1967 dismissed for non-prosecution -- Original Suit No. 56 of 1982 partly decreed by Trial Court -- First Appellate Court decreed in favor of respondents -- High Court initially allowed appeals but Supreme Court remanded -- High Court after remand dismissed appeals

Issues

Whether civil courts have jurisdiction under Section 80 of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 in disputes over hereditary pujari rights Whether respondents established their claim as hereditary pujaries of Amogasidda temple

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants contended O.S No. 88/1944 was withdrawn with liberty and reliance on non-est decree is contrary to law -- Appellants relied on decree in O.S No. 287/1901 establishing their hereditary rights -- Appellants argued revenue records cannot form basis for decreeing respondents' suit Respondents supported impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of appeals

Ratio Decidendi

Civil courts retain jurisdiction in disputes over hereditary religious rights despite Section 80 of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 -- Continuous exercise of religious rights and historical evidence establish hereditary pujari claims -- Withdrawn suits and non-prosecution dismissals do not negate substantive rights established through other evidence

Judgment Excerpts

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 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 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

Procedural History

1944: Original Suit No. 88 filed by appellants' predecessor -- 1945: Trial Court dismissed suit -- 1946: First Appeal withdrawn with liberty -- 1967: Original Suit No. 347 filed by respondents, later dismissed for non-prosecution -- 1982: Original Suit No. 56 filed by respondents -- 1986: Trial Court partly decreed suit -- 1990: First Appellate Court decreed in favor of respondents -- 1992: High Court allowed second appeals -- 2003: Supreme Court remanded matter -- 2012: High Court after remand dismissed appeals -- 2016: Present appeals before Supreme Court