https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293467 Revenue entries showing the temple land in the temple's name, rather than in the plaintiff's or his ancestors' name, were held insufficient to prove private ownership, even though the plaintiff established possession and his status as Pujari; the finding that the temple and suit land were the plaintiff's private property was set aside. At the same time, binding precedent meant the State could not treat the land as liable to auction merely on the basis asserted, and the Pujari's name could not be removed from the revenue records in the manner sought by the State; the protection against auction and the corresponding revenue-record direction were upheld. en-us Mon, 12 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:27:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293467 Revenue entries showing the temple land in the temple's name, rather than in the plaintiff's or his ancestors' name, were held insufficient to prove private ownership, even though the plaintiff established possession and his status as Pujari; the finding that the temple and suit land were the plaintiff's private property was set aside. At the same time, binding precedent meant the State could not treat the land as liable to auction merely on the basis asserted, and the Pujari's name could not be removed from the revenue records in the manner sought by the State; the protection against auction and the corresponding revenue-record direction were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 12 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293467