Shahzad Kunwar (Smt.) Deceased and After... vs Raja Ram Karan Bahadur and Ors

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Appeal (civil) 350 of 1958

Decision Date: 16 December, 1963

Coram: B.P. Sinha, A.K. Sarkar, M. Hidayatullah, K.C.D. Gupta, N.R. Ayyangar, Das Gupta

In the appeal titled Shahzad Kunwar (Smt.) Deceased & After Her LRS. versus Raja Ram Karan Bahadur & Ors., which was decided on 16 December 1963, the Supreme Court of India sat as a bench comprising Chief Justice B.P. Sinha, Justices A.K. Sarkar, M. Hidayatullah, K.C.D. Gupta and N.R. Ayyangar. The case was listed as Appeal (Civil) 350 of 1958, and the petitioner was Shahzad Kunwar (Smt.) Deceased, represented by her legal representatives, while the respondents were Raja Ram Karan Bahadur and others. The judgment was delivered by Justice Das Gupta, who began by describing the religious setting of Brindaban in northern India, a place noted for its many Vaishnava temples. Among these temples stood a shrine dedicated to Thakur Radha Manoharji, which had been constructed by a devout lady known as Rani Mata Bibi of Hyderabad less than a century earlier. The Rani had, after residing in Brindaban for several years, purchased a double‑storeyed brick house together with an adjoining plot of land from a former owner, Gosain Bhajanlal, by means of a registered sale deed dated 30 December 1865. Subsequent to acquiring the property, she erected a temple on the site and installed the idol of Thakur Radha Manoharji within it. On 16 April 1869, the Rani executed a deed of gift transferring the temple to her brother’s son, Raja Indrajit Bahadur, and in that deed she expressed her intention that the donee should take possession of the gifted property and assume the duties of conducting the sevā‑pūjā and raj‑bhog of the deity as its proprietor. The record showed that the initial performance of sevā‑pūjā was carried out by Gosain Jugallal. After Jugallal’s death, his two sons, Chote Lal and Goverdhanlal, continued the worship. Chotelal died around 1913, and after a few years Goverdhanlal also passed away; following their deaths, the responsibility fell to their widows. Eventually, after the death of Goverdhanlal’s widow, the sevā‑pūjā was performed by the widow of Chotelal, namely Shehzad Kunwar. The dispute before the Court concerned whether Shehzad Kunwar herself held the status of Shebait, the legal owner of the deity, or whether, as asserted by the plaintiff, Raja Dharam Karan was the Shebait and Shehzad Kunwar merely acted as his agent and appointed pujari. It was noted that in December 1930 Shehzad Kunwar had executed a will in favour of her daughter, Bishakha, and the daughter’s husband, Ananda Gopal, in which she claimed a proprietary right over the temple of Radha Manoharji while also stating that the management of the temple was exercised under her mutwāliship. Those claims, together with other assertions of title made by Shehzad Kunwar, gave rise to the present litigation. The first plaintiff, Raja Dharam Karan Bahadur, claimed to be the Shebait of the idol Radha Manoharji, while the second plaintiff was the idol itself.

In the suit, the plaintiffs sought two specific remedies. First, they asked that possession of the temple, the ornaments associated with the idol, and all other movable property belonging to the deity be delivered to them. Second, they requested that the idol itself be handed over to the first plaintiff, Raja Dharm Karan Bahadur. The defendants comprised Shehzad Kunwar, her daughter, and her son‑in‑law, all of whom were impleaded in the proceedings. The first defendant, Shehzad Kunwar, contested the suit on her own. She denied the claim of Raja Dharm Karan to the status of Shebait, i.e., the hereditary manager of the deity, and asserted that the idol Thakur Radha Manoharji had been an ancestral object of Jugallalji. According to her, neither Raja Indrajit Bahadur nor any of his descendants had ever become Shebait of the idol. She further maintained that the Shebaitship had continuously rested with Jugallalji and his lineal descendants. The defendant explained that, although Raja Indrajit Bahadur and his successors had made annual payments for the temple’s expenses, such payments did not confer any right to the temple nor did they create a Shebaitship. She alleged that these payments were in fact made by the Nizam of Hyderabad, albeit routed through the Rajas. Additionally, the defendant pleaded that the first plaintiff, or any of his predecessors, had not possessed the temple or held the office of Shebait at any time during the twelve years immediately preceding the filing of the suit, and therefore the plaintiff’s claim was barred by limitation. She further contended that she, as the first defendant, had acquired the right of Shebaitship and title to the temple through adverse possession. Certain other pleas raised by the defendant were noted but not elaborated, as those pleas no longer survived after the lower courts’ decisions.

The Civil Judge of Mathura, after considering the evidence, concluded that the plaintiff was neither a de facto nor a de jure Shebait of the temple. The judge found that the actual de facto Shebait was the first defendant, Shehzad Kunwar. The court further held that the defendant’s possession was not as an agent of the plaintiff or any other party, but rather that she had been in adverse possession of the property for more than twelve years, which rendered the suit time‑barred under the limitation statute. Consequently, the trial judge dismissed the suit. Upon appeal by the plaintiffs, the High Court of Allahabad reversed the findings of the trial court on every contested point. The High Court held that Raja Indrajit Bahadur, followed by his successors Raja Sheoraj and subsequently Raja Dharm Karan, were the rightful Shebaits of the temple, while Jugal Lal, Goverdhanlal, and Chotelal were merely pujaris without any superior title. The High Court also determined that the defendant, Shehzad Kunwar, had never claimed any ownership of the property beyond her role as a pujari prior to 1938, and consequently the suit was not barred by limitation. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the plaintiffs’ appeal in part, declaring that both the movable and immovable properties in dispute were dedicated to the deity Radha Manoharji, who was the owner of the said property. Regarding the movable assets listed at the foot of the plaint, the High Court ordered that the plaintiffs be entitled to recover only the specific articles identified in the list filed by the first defendant on 9 April 1942, and directed that, should the defendant fail to surrender those items, she would be liable to pay their market value.

The Court noted that the decree issued in the plaint awarded the plaintiffs only the recovery of the articles specifically enumerated in the list filed by the first defendant on 9 April 1942. The Court further ordered that, should the defendant fail to return those items to the plaintiff, she would be required to pay their market value. It was mentioned that Raja Dharam Karan died while the appeal was pending before the High Court and that his heirs and legal representatives were consequently added to the record. All three defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court relying on a certificate that had been granted by the High Court.

The central issue on appeal, as it had been in the earlier stages of the suit, concerned the question of who held the status of Shebait of the deity—whether it was the first plaintiff, Raja Dharam Karan, or the defendant Shehzad Kunwar. The plaintiffs contended that, following the deed of gift made by Rani Mata Bibi, the donee Raja Indrajit became the Shebait of the idol Radha Manoharji; thereafter his son Shearaj Bahadur succeeded as Shebait, and after Shearaj’s death Raja Dharam Karan inherited the estate and was the Shebait at the material date of the suit. Conversely, the defendants asserted that the Shebaitship originally rested with Gosain Jugal Lal, which then passed to his sons Goverdhan Lal and Chotelal. After the deaths of both sons, their widows Brij Rani and Shehzad Kunwar assumed the Shebait role, and upon Brij Rani’s death Shehzad Kunwar became the sole Shebait.

The Court observed that the written statement’s claim—that Thakur Radha Manoharji was the ancestral idol of Gosain Jugal Lal and that its sevā‑puja had been performed by Jugal Lal even before Rani Mata Bibi’s purchase—was not effectively raised by the counsel for the appellants. The Court found it difficult to press this argument in light of the substantial documentary evidence establishing that the idol had been installed by Rani Mata Bibi within the building after she purchased the property in 1865. It was also clear from the evidence that the Raj Estate had regularly provided funds for the idol’s sevā‑puja and for the temple’s upkeep until about 1937. However, the Court held that this financial contribution did not conclusively demonstrate that the Rajas were the Shebaits, because such assistance was not inconsistent with the defence’s claim that the Gosains held that status. The Court further rejected reliance on oral testimony, emphasizing that the decisive inquiry must focus on the parties’ conduct concerning the management of the property and the sevā‑puja of the idol, as reflected in the documentary record. The earliest relevant document was identified as a copy of a Sanad dated 1872, which showed Raja Indrajit Bahadur appointing a pujari for the idol Radha Manoharji in the temple.

In this case the Court examined a series of documents that demonstrated the manner in which the temple and its associated property had been managed. Exhibit 9, dated 1879, was a declaration made by the defendant’s predecessor, Gosain Jugal Lal. In that declaration he stated that he was residing in the temple that had been constructed by Rani Mata Bibi, and that he occupied the premises only with the permission of Raja Sheoraj Bahadur of Hyderabad. He further undertook that, should the Raja ever order him to vacate, he would do so without raising any objection. Exhibit 134, dated 1882, recorded the appointment of a priest for the temple by Raja Sheoraj, indicating the Raja’s involvement in the religious administration of the shrine. In 1886 Gosain Jugal Lal executed another written statement in which he declared that Maharaja Raja Sheoraj Bahadur, a resident of Hyderabad Deccan, owned all the ornaments, clothing and utensils that had been dedicated to Thakur Radha Manoharji and installed by Mata Bibi Saheba. He listed those articles, signed the list, and affirmed that they had remained in his custody. The same declaration contained a further undertaking that, whenever the Maharaja made a demand for any of the listed articles, Jugal Lal would surrender them immediately and without objection. Moving forward to 1926, when a question arose concerning the re‑appointment of a constable attached to the temple, the Executive Committee of Raja Dharam Karan was approached. The Committee ordered the appointment of a person named Mohan Das Brahman to the post, thereby showing that the Raja’s executive body continued to control temple personnel. When these documents were considered together, the Court found little doubt that Raja Indrajit, followed by Raja Sheoraj and subsequently Raja Dharam Karan, had overseen the management of the temple property and had made arrangements for the sevā‑puja in the manner of a Shebait. The documents also made clear that Gosain Jugal Lal plainly admitted that he was merely a pujari and that the custody of the idol’s ornaments was held on behalf of the Raja. Moreover, the will in which Shehzad Kunwar claimed a proprietary interest described the temple as “the temple of Hyderabad,” reinforcing the view that the Rajas regarded themselves as the Shebaits of the deity and acted accordingly in appointing pujaris and maintaining the temple. Nevertheless, counsel for the respondent argued that no legal basis existed for such a claim of Shebaitship. He contended that the deed of gift executed by Rani Mata Bibi could not transfer any interest to the donee because the property was Devottar, which could not be alienated in that manner and could not generate any Shebaiti right in the recipient. As Mata Bibi

The Court observed that because the woman who created the Devottar was herself the founder, the Shebaiti right would, under Hindu law, pass to her own heirs rather than to her brother’s son Indrajit. Furthermore, the Court noted that even assuming the property passed to Indrajit, his own heirs could not acquire Shebaiti status according to the same legal principles. The argument presented by counsel that no interest transferred to Raja Indrajit by the 1869 deed of gift relied on the mistaken premise that the property had already been dedicated as Devottar. The Court found that the record contained no evidence to support that premise and therefore rejected the assumption as unfounded. The Court therefore required the parties to rely on the documentary evidence rather than on unsubstantiated presumptions presented by counsel. Upon examining the documents, the Court concluded that no dedication had occurred before the 1869 gift and that the dedication was effected only after the transfer when Raja Indrajit himself declared the property Devottar and assumed the role of Shebait. Consequently, the Court held that after Raja Indrajit’s death his heir Raja Sheoraj succeeded him as Shebait, and after Sheoraj’s death the title passed to Raja Dharam Karan, who thereby became the lawful Shebait. The Court further reiterated that Jugal Lal’s behaviour clearly demonstrated that he regarded himself solely as a pujari and never claimed any superior title. No evidence was found that either of his sons, Goverdhan Lal or Cheddilal alias Chote Lal, ever asserted any higher right over the temple property. Because the Shebaits resided far from Brindaban, it was natural for the Gosains appointed to perform the Sevapuja to exercise greater control over management than they might otherwise have done. This arrangement reflected the practical realities of temple administration in the region, where distant Shebaits depended on local custodians for day‑to‑day affairs. Nevertheless, the Court emphasized that any administrative actions taken by the Gosains were performed with the explicit permission of the Shebait, namely the Raja. The Court found no material on the record to support counsel Mishra’s claim that, at the time of Jugal Lal and his sons, Shehzad Kunwar began exercising full Shebait rights. The fact that certain payments to temple officers were made by her was consistent with her acting as the Raja’s agent rather than as a self‑asserted Shebait. Moreover, the Court observed that she did not make any clear claim to Shebaitship before the will was executed. On the basis of the materials, the Court concluded that the High Court was correct in holding that Raja Dharam Karan Bahadur was the Shebait and that the defendant Shehzad Kunwar was only a pujari. The Court also affirmed the lower court’s rejection of the defence’s plea of limitation. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with costs, and the order of dismissal was entered.