In Brief
A man claimed ownership of land containing a temple, asserting it belonged to his family and that he was the temple priest. The trial court upheld his claim, but the appellate court reversed it, finding no documentary proof of ownership. The High Court dismissed his second appeal, concluding no substantial legal question arose. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that revenue records alone do not establish title—a document of title is essential. The Court distinguished a prior judgment requiring procedural notice before changing revenue entries, as that case involved a temple with a registered gift deed, whereas here the plaintiff had only revenue entries showing his father as 'Manager' (not owner). Without documentary proof of ownership, the claim failed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.