The Supreme Court has determined that mere management or oversight of a temple does not equate to ownership of its property, overriding the decisions made by the Rajasthan High Court and a trial court in Kota regarding a legal dispute that has persisted for nearly 50 years.

A panel comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta examined a civil appeal brought forth by the heirs of Kishan Chand, contesting a ruling from the Rajasthan High Court dated September 28, 2007.

The Supreme Court remarked that the legal separation between the management of a religious institution and the ownership of its assets is well established, emphasizing that the two concepts should not be confused. The Court thus upheld the appeal and rejected the original lawsuit.

In its ruling delivered on April 9, 2026, the Supreme Court noted that the plaintiffs included a registered society and its members, who claimed that the temple belonged to the Gurjar Goud Brahmin Rampura Society in Kota. This society argued that it had maintained administrative control over the temple and had the authority to appoint caretakers or pujaris responsible for managing religious activities and properties associated with the temple.

The property in question encompassed the temple, its idols, ornaments, agricultural land, and adjacent shops. The plaintiffs contended that on October 28, 1926, Gordhan Ji was appointed as the caretaker following the resignation of Ganga Bishan Ji. Subsequently, on June 24, 1951, Kishan Chand took over the caretaker position after Gordhan Ji cited age and health concerns.

The society maintained that Kishan Chand acted solely as a custodian, receiving compensation from the income generated by temple shops and lacking any ownership rights over the property.

The conflict intensified in November 1976 when Kishan Chand allegedly began to assert ownership of the temple property. In response, the society issued a legal notice and filed a civil lawsuit on October 3, 1977, seeking his removal and the restoration of their control over the temple’s assets.

The Rajasthan High Court had previously affirmed a decree from 1988 in favor of Gautam Gaur Hitkarak Sabha, Kota, which sought Kishan Chand’s removal as pujari and the restoration of possession of the “Moorti Swarup Shri Govardhan Nath Ji” temple located in Rampura Bazar, Kota.

Following the trial, the additional district and sessions judge in Kota ruled on January 6, 1988, mandating that Kishan Chand relinquish possession of the temple property to the plaintiffs.

In 2007, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed his first appeal and upheld the decree, imposing costs of Rs 2,000. Both lower courts heavily referenced documents indicating that Kishan Chand and his predecessors had been appointed by the society as pujaris or managers, concluding that they did not hold independent ownership rights.

The lower courts also determined that the defendant failed to convincingly establish the claimed lineage and hereditary succession.

By allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court invalidated the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment from September 28, 2007, and dismissed the original civil suit brought by Gautam Gaur Hitkarak Sabha, Kota.

The Court noted that the plaintiffs did not provide any admissible legal evidence to substantiate their claim of title, leading to the dismissal of the lawsuit filed by the Kota-based religious society seeking control over an ancient temple and its associated properties.

Pending applications related to the case were also resolved.

Vineet Upadhyay serves as an Assistant Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in coverage of the Indian judicial system.

With extensive experience in legal reporting, Vineet focuses on clarifying complex Supreme Court judgments and legal matters. His reporting spans a wide array of topics, including constitutional rights, criminal justice, and consumer and environmental laws.

Before joining The Indian Express, he was a Principal Correspondent and Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant positions at The New Indian Express, reporting from key legal jurisdictions such as Delhi and Uttarakhand.