In Brief
The appellant claimed Shri Ram Mandir was a private temple of which he was Mahant (manager) and sought to restrain the government from interfering with temple property. The State contended it was a public temple with only a pujari (priest) in the appellant's position. The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the temple is public: succession follows Guru-Disciple tradition without blood relations between pujaris; property is recorded in the Deity's name with individuals only as pujaris; the appellant himself leased temple lands from government; and public participation in worship occurs. The appellant, having accepted government management by leasing property, is estopped from denying it. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.