Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ramesh Das (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), filed a civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction claiming that Shri Ram Mandir in Dedla Village was a private temple built by his forefathers and that he was the pujari and owner of the land (Survey No.442). He alleged that the Sub-Divisional Officer issued an auction notice on 29 April 1992, and the Collector rejected his revision on 1 September 1992. The trial court decreed the suit on 14 October 1996, holding the temple as private. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed, and the lower appellate court set aside the decree on 18 May 2001, finding no evidence of private temple. The High Court dismissed the second appeal under Section 100 CPC on the ground that no substantial question of law arose. The Supreme Court considered whether the lower appellate court's assessment of evidence was proper. The Court noted that the plaintiff's own pleading was contradictory: the temple was built before the land was gifted. No document of title was produced; only revenue entries were relied upon. The Court held that revenue entries do not create title. The plaintiff's father's name was entered only as manager, and in 1974, the District Collector was recorded as manager by administrative order, which was not challenged during Laxmandas's lifetime. The Court distinguished the cited case of Narsingh Mandir Chikhalda, where a registered gift deed existed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and High Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court dismissed the second appeal as it did not involve any substantial question of law, affirming the lower appellate court's finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the temple was private. (Paras 1, 4) B) Property Law - Title - Revenue Entries - Revenue entries do not create title; they are only for fiscal purposes. The plaintiff's claim based solely on revenue entries was insufficient without a document of title. (Paras 6, 7) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Private Temple - The plaintiff failed to adduce evidence to prove the temple was private; the lower appellate court correctly reappreciated evidence and set aside the trial court's decree. (Paras 4, 5) D) M.P. Land Revenue Code - Section 115 - Change of Entry - Opportunity of Hearing - While Section 115 requires opportunity before changing revenue entries, the principle does not apply here as the plaintiff had no title and the entry was not in his individual name. (Paras 8, 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate court and High Court correctly held that the plaintiff failed to prove the suit temple is a private temple and that revenue entries alone do not confer title.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgments of the lower appellate court and High Court. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the temple was private and that revenue entries do not create title. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Revenue entries do not create title
- Private temple claim requires documentary proof
- Section 100 CPC requires substantial question of law
- Section 115 M.P. Land Revenue Code requires opportunity before changing entries
