The Supreme Court has upheld the hereditary Pujari Rights and dismissed the appeals in the century-old Amogasidda temple dispute.
The Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K. Vinod Chandran on February 25, 2026, upheld concurrent findings of the lower courts and declined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The dispute revolved around competing claims to ancestral pujari rights at the temple dedicated to Saint Amogasidda, whose samadhi is situated at Mamatti Gudda in Jalgeri village, Arkeri, Karnataka. Both families claimed the exclusive hereditary right to perform daily puja, conduct annual jatra celebrations, and receive offerings from devotees.
The litigation history dates back to 1901, when the appellants’ predecessor allegedly secured a decree recognizing pujari rights. However, in 1944, the same predecessor instituted a fresh suit seeking possession of the temple and assertion of puja rights. That suit was dismissed in 1945. Although an appeal was filed, it was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit in 1946. Notably, no fresh suit was filed for over three decades thereafter.
In 1982, the present respondents filed a suit before the Principal Munsiff at Bijapur seeking declaration of their status as hereditary pujaris along with permanent injunction. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, recognizing both parties as pujaris in certain proportions. On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed this finding and declared the respondents as the sole hereditary pujaris. The High Court initially allowed the second appeals on jurisdictional grounds under Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, but the matter reached the Supreme Court, which in 2003 remanded the case for decision on merits.
Upon remand, the High Court dismissed the appeals of the appellants and upheld the decree in favour of the respondents. This led to the present round of civil appeals before the apex court.
The Supreme Court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 136, particularly where concurrent findings of fact exist. It noted that both the First Appellate Court and the High Court had carefully evaluated documentary and oral evidence before concluding that the respondents had established continuous performance of puja and hereditary rights.
A key factor that weighed with the Court was the conduct of the appellants’ predecessor. The Bench observed that if the appellants had indeed been in possession pursuant to the 1901 decree, there would have been no occasion to file a suit for possession in 1944. The very institution of that suit amounted to an admission that possession was not with them at that time. Furthermore, after obtaining liberty to file a fresh suit in 1946, the failure to pursue any remedy for over 36 years was seen as indicative of acquiescence.
The Court also took note of revenue records reflecting grants made by the British Government in lieu of service to the temple, which recorded the names of the respondents’ ancestors. Significantly, the appellants’ own witness admitted during cross-examination that temple lands were being cultivated by the respondents, thereby strengthening their claim.
Critically examining the pleadings, the Court found the written statement of the appellants lacking in material particulars. It held that a party asserting hereditary rights must specifically plead how and when such rights were exercised and how possession was maintained or lost. Mere reliance on a century-old decree without foundational pleadings was deemed insufficient.
Concluding that there was no perversity in the High Court’s appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals as devoid of merit. No order as to costs was made.
Case Details
Case Title: OGEPPA (D) Versus SAHEBGOUDA
Citation: JURISHOUR-110-SC-2026
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7181-7182 OF 2016
Date: 25/02/2026
Read More: Criminal Proceedings Can’t Be Used to Settle Purely Civil Contract Disputes: Supreme Court
