Ogeppa D Through LRs & Orsv.Sahebgouda D D Through LRs & Ors

Synopsis

This Supreme Court judgment brings a final resolution to a century-old dispute concerning hereditary pujari rights at the Amogasidda temple in Karnataka. The appellants challenged a High Court decision that affirmed the respondents' status as hereditary wahiwatdar pujaris. The Supreme Court, exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136, declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The Court held that the appellants' own conduct—specifically, their predecessor filing a suit for possession in 1944—contradicted their claim of continuous possession based on an 1901 decree. Upholding the respondents' claim, which was supported by consistent revenue records, an admission from the appellants' own witness, and the testimony of independent witnesses, the Court dismissed the appeals.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Civil Appeal Nos. 7181-7182 of 2016 – Ogeppa (D) Through LRs. and Others vs. Sahebgouda D (D) Through LRs. and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 191

Court: Supreme Court of India

Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Article 136)

Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra (Author) and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Nature of Bench: Division Bench (Two Judges)

Date of Judgment: February 25, 2026

2. Governing Legal Framework & Key Precedents

The judgment is rooted in civil procedure, the law of evidence, and the principles governing judicial review.

• Primary Legislation & Rules:
  Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
  Order XXIII Rule 1: Deals with the withdrawal of suits and the liberty to file a fresh suit. The Court considered the effect of a withdrawal with such liberty and the subsequent inaction for decades.
  Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  The Court applied principles regarding the weight of oral evidence, the importance of pleadings, and the evidentiary value of admissions and revenue records (RTC extracts).

• Key Legal Concepts:
  Hereditary Rights / Wahiwalatdar Pujari Rights: The substantive right in dispute—the right to perform religious ceremonies at a temple and receive offerings, passed down through generations.
  Concurrent Findings of Fact: The principle that the Supreme Court, under Article 136, is extremely reluctant to interfere with findings of fact that have been concurrently affirmed by the trial court, first appellate court, and the High Court, unless they are shown to be "manifestly perverse" or based on no evidence.
  Principle of Pleadings: A party must specifically plead its case. Evidence cannot be led on a matter not pleaded.
  Admissions: An admission made by a party's own witness can be highly damaging and can clinch an issue.

3. Relevant Facts of the Case

• The Subject: A temple dedicated to the saint Amogasidda in Karnataka, where two families have disputed hereditary pujari rights for over a century.

• The 1901 Decree: The appellants' ancestors obtained a decree in O.S. No. 287/1901, allegedly conferring puja rights on them.

• The 1944 Suit (O.S. No. 88/1944): Crucially, the appellants' predecessor filed this suit seeking possession of the temple and pujari rights. This was dismissed by the trial court. An appeal was filed, but the appellants' predecessor sought and obtained permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. No fresh suit was filed for over 35 years.

• The Present Suit (O.S. No. 56/1982): The respondents filed this suit in 1982, claiming to be the hereditary wahiwatdar pujaris. The appellants contested, relying on the 1901 decree.

• Trial Court: Partly decreed the suit, holding that both families had joint puja rights.

• First Appellate Court: Allowed the respondents' appeal and decreed the suit in their favour, holding them to be the sole hereditary pujaris.

• High Court (First Round): Allowed the appellants' second appeal, holding the civil court lacked jurisdiction under the Bombay Public Trust Act.

• Supreme Court (First Round): Set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter for a decision on merits.

• High Court (Second Round - Impugned Judgment): After remand, the High Court dismissed the appellants' appeals, affirming the First Appellate Court's decree in favour of the respondents.

4. Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, which held the respondents to be the hereditary pujaris of the suit temple, were so perverse or based on no evidence as to warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution?

2. Whether the appellants' claim, based on an 1901 decree, could be sustained in light of their own predecessor's subsequent conduct in filing a suit for possession in 1944 and then abandoning it?

5. Ratio Decidendi & Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the concurrent findings. The core reasoning is as follows:

• Limited Scope of Interference under Article 136: The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be "manifestly perverse" or based on no evidence. The appellants failed to make such a showing.

• Appellants' Own Conduct Contradicts Their Claim: The Court found the appellants' case to be fundamentally flawed. If, as they claimed, they were in continuous and uninterrupted possession as pujaris based on the 1901 decree, there was no reason for their predecessor to file a suit for possession in 1944 (O.S. No. 88/1944). A party in settled possession does not sue for possession. This act was a "categorical admission" that possession was not with them at that time.

• Effect of Withdrawal with Liberty: The appellants' predecessor withdrew the 1944 suit with liberty to file a fresh suit but took no action for over 35 years. This inaction was held against them. The liberty to file a fresh suit does not keep a claim alive indefinitely; it must be pursued diligently.

• Strong Evidentiary Basis for Respondents' Claim: The Court noted the consistent evidence supporting the respondents:
  Revenue Records (RTC): The names of the respondents' ancestors were recorded in connection with lands granted for service to the temple. The appellants' names were absent.
  Admission by Appellants' Own Witness (D.W.1 Ogeppa): He admitted that lands were granted to the Amogasidda temple at Jalageri (the suit temple) and that those lands were being cultivated by the respondents. This admission was crucial.
  Testimony of Independent Witnesses (Devotees): They corroborated that the respondents had been performing the puja.

• Deficiency in Appellants' Pleadings: The Court held that the appellants' written statement was "reticent" on material particulars—how and when they came into possession, when they started performing puja, and what steps they took to vindicate their rights. Oral evidence cannot fill gaps in pleadings. A case not pleaded cannot be proved by evidence.

6. Legal Principles Established & Clarified

While the judgment largely applies established principles, it provides important clarifications:

• Conduct Over a Century-Old Decree: A century-old decree cannot be the sole basis for a claim if the party's own subsequent conduct (filing a suit for possession, then abandoning it for decades) completely contradicts the assertion of continuous possession and enjoyment of rights under that decree. The Court prioritized the factual narrative of conduct over a bare, dated legal document.

• Inaction After Withdrawal with Liberty is Fatal: The judgment clarifies that obtaining liberty to file a fresh suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC is not an open-ended pass. A party must act with reasonable diligence. Unexplained, decades-long inaction after securing such liberty can be used as strong evidence against the party's claim.

• Primacy of Pleadings Over Oral Evidence: The Court strongly reinforced the rule that a case must be made out in the pleadings. Oral evidence cannot be used to construct a case that was not pleaded. This is a fundamental principle of civil procedure.

• Admission by a Party's Witness is Highly Probative: The admission of D.W.1 (Ogeppa) was treated as a powerful piece of evidence that significantly undermined the appellants' case.

7. Judicial Examination & Analytical Concepts

• Appreciation of Conduct as Evidence: The Court's most significant analytical move was to treat the appellants' own litigation history (the 1944 suit) as a piece of evidence against them. It used the maxim allegans contraria non est audiendus (a person alleging contradictory facts should not be heard) implicitly.

• Interplay Between Old Decrees and Subsequent Conduct: The Court demonstrated how a subsequent act (filing a suit for possession) can be interpreted to show that an older decree was either not acted upon or had lost its effect, thereby neutralizing its evidentiary value.

• Scrutiny of Pleadings: The Court meticulously examined the appellants' written statement and found it lacking in the necessary specific averments. This shows the importance of well-drafted pleadings in establishing a case.

• Doctrine of Laches/ Delay: The 35-year inaction after obtaining liberty to file a fresh suit was a classic application of the doctrine of laches, contributing to the rejection of the appellants' claim.

8. Critical Analysis & Final Outcome

• Final Decision & Directions:
  The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeals.
  It upheld the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 04.10.2012, which had affirmed the First Appellate Court's decree declaring the respondents as the hereditary wahiwatdar pujaris of the Amogasidda temple.
  No order as to costs was passed.

• Significance & Impact:
  End to a Century-Old Dispute: The judgment brings a definitive end to a protracted, multi-generational family feud over religious rights, providing finality and closure.
  Guidance for Similar Disputes: It provides valuable guidance to lower courts on how to evaluate claims based on old decrees when the subsequent conduct of the parties tells a different story. It emphasizes that courts must look at the entire factual matrix, not just isolated documents.
  Reinforces Procedural Fundamentals: It serves as a strong reminder of the importance of proper pleadings and the principle that a party cannot benefit from its own inaction and contradictory conduct.

• Critical Viewpoint: The judgment is a masterclass in judicial restraint and common-sense appreciation of evidence. It wisely refused to be swayed by a single, century-old document and instead focused on the totality of conduct and the overwhelming documentary and oral evidence supporting the respondents. The reasoning that a party in possession does not sue for possession is logically unassailable. By upholding the concurrent findings, the Supreme Court has ensured that the rights of the respondents, which were consistently supported by revenue records and witness testimony, are finally secured.

(MCQs)

1. What was the primary reason for the Supreme Court's reluctance to interfere with the High Court's judgment?
a) The case involved a dispute over religious rights, which is beyond the Court's jurisdiction.
b) The appellants had not filed their appeal within the limitation period.
c) The Court found that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were not "manifestly perverse" and were based on evidence.
d) The respondents had produced a decree from 1901 which was binding on the Court.

2. Which suit filed by the appellants' predecessor was considered by the Court as a "categorical admission" that they were not in possession of the temple at that time?
a) O.S. No. 287 of 1901
b) O.S. No. 88 of 1944
c) O.S. No. 347 of 1967
d) O.S. No. 56 of 1982

3. According to the Supreme Court, what was a key deficiency in the appellants' written statement?
a) It did not mention the 1901 decree.
b) It was not signed by all the appellants.
c) It was "reticent" on material particulars like how and when they came into possession and what steps they took to protect their rights.
d) It admitted to the respondents' claim.

4. Which piece of evidence was considered most damaging to the appellants' case, coming from their own side?
a) The testimony of an independent devotee.
b) The revenue records (RTC) showing the respondents' names.
c) The admission of D.W.1 (Ogeppa) that lands granted for the temple were being cultivated by the respondents.
d) The judgment in O.S. No. 88 of 1944.