In Brief
A temple priest (Mahant) sued claiming ownership of 5 acres of forest land surrounding an ancient heritage temple and sought injunction against state interference. The trial court granted the suit on adverse possession grounds, and the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaint lacked necessary material pleadings detailing how ownership was claimed, the temple's history, any state grants, and the basis of the Mahant's authority. The Court found no documentary evidence supporting the ownership or management claims and emphasized that relief cannot be granted beyond pleadings or on grounds not claimed by the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed as misconceived.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.