Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Maintainability of Suit — Suit filed by Pujari (priest) in his own name for declaration of his rights over temple land — Competency of — Held, a temple building is not a legal entity, whereas the Deity is a juridical person — A Pujari has no independent legal right to file a suit for personal or management rights over temple property without properly impleading the Deity as a plaintiff or showing proper authorization — Plaint liable to be rejected.

advocatemmmohan

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Maintainability of Suit — Suit filed by Pujari (priest) in his own name for declaration of his rights over temple land — Competency of — Held, a temple building is not a legal entity, whereas the Deity is a juridical person — A Pujari has no independent legal right to file a suit for personal or management rights over temple property without properly impleading the Deity as a plaintiff or showing proper authorization — Plaint liable to be rejected.

(Para 8, 10, 15)

(B) Hindu Law — Religious Endowment — Status of Pujari — Nature of Appointment — Distinction between Pujari and Shebait — Performance of worship for generations — Effect of — Held, a Pujari is merely appointed to conduct worship and does not acquire the status of a Shebait (legal custodian) — Longstanding performance of rituals across generations does not confer independent proprietary rights or an absolute right to continue in office — Priests have no locus standi in the management of temple properties.

(Para 4, 12, 13, 14)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 & Civil Revision — Trial court dismissing application for rejection of plaint where Pujari sued for personal control over deity's agricultural land — Collector being the legal manager — High Court in revision set aside the trial court's order, allowed the application, and rejected the plaint as being barred by law.

(Para 1, 7, 15)