Delhi HC Imposes 1L Costs On Litigant Who Made 'Hanuman' Party To Private Temple Property Case

The Delhi High Court imposed costs on a litigant who made 'Hanuman' party to an appeal arising out of a private temple property case.

The court highlighted that there is no right to worship available to the public at a private temple, unless the owner makes the right available or the private temple has metamorphosed into a public temple with the passage of time.

In that context, the Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar observed that, "There is no concept, in the law, of the right to worship vesting in the public at a private temple, unless the owner of the temple makes such a right available or, with the passage of time and in compliance with the indicia identified by the Supreme Court, the private temple has metamorphosed into a public temple."

Imposing costs of Rs 1 Lakh on the litigant who made Lord Hanuman a party to the appeal, the Court observed that, "As has happened in the present case, a person could grab the property of another, squat thereon, construct a temple on the property, allow the public to occasionally worship there, and obstruct, permanently, the restoration of the property to its rightful owner. Allowing such a pernicious practice would be driving the last nail in the coffin of justice."

Counsel Abhishek Grover appeared for the appellants, while Counsel Sarojanand Jha, along with others, appeared for the respondents.

The case began with a property dispute involving Suraj Malik as the plaintiff and Lakhan Lal Sharma, Santosh Sharma, and others as defendants.

Malik claimed ownership of the property based on legal documents dating back to 1997, while the defendants argued for adverse possession since 2000, asserting their right to build a temple on the land.

Ankit Mishra, representing Lord Hanuman, appealed a lower court's decision that dismissed his objection petition, arguing that the temple on the disputed property was a site of continuous worship for various deities. He claimed that a 2022 decree in favor of Suraj Malik unfairly restricted his right to worship and perform rituals at the temple.

The High Court observed that, "None of the averments which could suffice to even make out a prima facie case, worthy of consideration, of the temple, situated on the suit property, being a public temple, with the land on which it is constructed vesting in the deity, even pleaded, much less supported by any material evidence. In such circumstances, if the Court were to issue a notice on the objection petition, it would set in motion a fresh round of litigation to which the decree holder would help to be subjected, at the instance of a hyper-adventurous objector who, in cahoots with the judgment debtor, seeks every which way to obstruct the restoration of the possession of the property to its rightful owner."

Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed, with costs.

Cause Title: Ankit Mishra & Anr vs Santosh Sharma & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment