LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 10 September 2026

Does the burden of establishing a valid dedication of property to a religious institution lie on the party asserting it?

BHAG SINGH (D) THR. MAHANT KASHMIR SINGH v. BASANT KAUR (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS
2026 INSC 983 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1718 OF 2016
Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

The burden of establishing a valid dedication of property to a religious institution lies on the party asserting it.

Yes. A valid dedication does not always require a formal deed, but the burden of establishing such dedication — a clear and unequivocal intention to permanently divest ownership — squarely rests upon the party asserting it, and mere long possession or a revenue entry indicating cultivation for religious purposes cannot, without more, be treated as conclusive proof of dedication.

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.100 — Second appeal — Property — Revenue records — Title — Dedication — Adverse possession — Evidence — Revenue records — Proof of possession, not title — Held: Revenue entries such as Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris are relevant evidence of possession but do not, by themselves, create or extinguish title, which must be established through substantive evidence of its source. (¶23) Property — Dedication to a religious institution — Burden of proof — Held further: The burden of establishing a valid dedication of property to a religious institution lies on the party asserting it, which must show a clear and unequivocal intention to permanently divest ownership. (¶25) Limitation Act, 1963 — Adverse possession — Hostile animus required — Held further: Adverse possession requires actual, open, continuous and hostile possession denying the true owner's title, not mere long possession from a lawful or permissive origin. (¶28, 31) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.100 — Concurrent findings — Misapplication of law — Held further: Concurrent findings of fact are not immune from interference in second appeal where vitiated by a misapplication of law or an erroneous understanding of settled legal principles; appeal dismissed, the finding of adverse possession set aside. (¶40, 43, 44)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 25In our considered opinion, the approach adopted by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court below cannot be sustained in law. A valid dedication of immovable property to a religious or charitable institution undoubtedly does not, in every case, require a formal deed if the law otherwise recognises such dedication by unequivocal conduct. Nevertheless, the burden of establishing such dedication squarely rests upon the party asserting it. The Court must be satisfied that the owner had manifested a clear and unequivocal intention to divest himself permanently of ownership and to vest the property in the religious institution. Mere long possession of a Mahant or an entry in the revenue records indicating cultivation for Dharam-Arth purposes cannot, without more, be treated as conclusive proof that ownership itself stood irrevocably transferred.
Acts & Sections
s.100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of BHAG SINGH (D) THR. MAHANT KASHMIR SINGH v. BASANT KAUR (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Do revenue entries such as Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris create or extinguish title?Does adverse possession require actual, open, continuous and hostile possession denying the true owner's title, not mere long possession from a lawful or permissive origin?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections