Karnataka High Court
Mr. Jayaprakash Hegde vs The State Of Karnataka Muzarai ... on 3 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18963
MFA No. 2685 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2685 OF 2023
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2570 OF 2023 (R/C)
IN MFA NO.2685 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN HEGDE
S/O NARAYANA HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT PATEL HOUSE, CHERKADI VILLAGE,
BRAHAMMAVARA TALUK AND
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 215.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
RENUKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: MUZARAI DEPARTMENT,
High Court Of DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Karnataka BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. RAJYADHARMIKA PARISHATH AND
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
2ND FLOOR, SRI MINTO ANJANEYA BHAVAN,
ALUR VENKATA RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPETE,
BENGALURU-560 019,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18963
MFA No. 2685 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023
3. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS IN KARNATAKA,
2ND FLOOR, SRI MINTO ANJANEYA BHAVAN,
ALUR VENKATA RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPETE,
BENGALURU-560 019.
4. SRI. VEERABHADRA TEMPLE HIRIYADKA,
BOMMARABETTU VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 113,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
5. DR. SUNIL HEGDE
S/O LATE BALAKRISHNA HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.182/3, SUNISH,
RMV 2ND STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 094.
ALSO AT MOMBETTU POST HIRIYADKA,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 113.
6. MR. JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE
S/O LATE SADASHIVA HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/AT PRASHANTI ENCLAVE,
BRAHMAVARA,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 213.
...RESPONDENTS
(SMT. LEENA UDAYSHANKAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VINAYAKA B. VISHNU BATTA, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SMT. SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 63A OF THE KARNATAKA RELIGIOUS AND
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1997, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN CASE NO.ADM8 CR 128 OF
2017-18 FROM THE SECOND RESPONDENT, PERUSE THE SAME
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:18963
MFA No. 2685 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023
AND DECLARE AND STRIKE DOWN THE IMPUGNED PROFESSED
PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
DATED 28.03.2023.
IN MFA NO.2570 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
MR. JAYPRAKASH HEGDE
SON OF LATE SADASHIV HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PRASHANTI ENCLAVE,
BRAHMAVARA,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 161.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
MUZARAI DEPARTMENT,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHATH HINDU
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
2ND FLOOR, SRI MINTO ANJANEYA BHAVAN,
ALUR VENKATA RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPETE,
BENGALURU-560 019,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS IN KARNATAKA,
ALUR VENKATA RAO ROAD,
CHAMARAJPETE, BENGALURU-560 019.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:18963
MFA No. 2685 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023
4. SRI. VEERABHADRA TEMPLE HIRIYADKA,
BOMMARABETTU VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 161,
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
5. DR. SUNIL HEGDE
SON OF LATE BALAKRISHNA HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.182/3,
SUNISH, RMV 2ND STAGE,
SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 094.
ALSO AT MOMBETTU POST HIRIYADKA,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101.
6. SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN HEGDE
SON OF NARAYANA HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHARKADI VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(SMT. LEENA UDAYSHANKAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VINAYAKA B., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI ABHISHEK, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 63-A (1) OF THE KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1997, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.03.2023 VIDE CASE
NO.ADM 8 CR 128 OF 2017-18 (ANNEXURE-A) AND DISMISS
THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 AND
GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:18963
MFA No. 2685 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The appellants herein are aggrieved by an order dated 28.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2, by which he appointed Dr.Sunil Hegde as a fit person under Section 25-A (3) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 to administer the respondent No.4-temple.
2. The appellants contend that the respondent No.4 is an ancient temple and is declared as an excepted temple under the provisions of Section 9(5) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927. This temple was managed by the hereditary trustees of two families namely the Alva Hegde and Kurla Hegde families. The appellants contend that both the families had contributed large extent of land for the benefit of the respondent No.4- temple and that the said fact was recorded in the Tasdik Register issued by the Revenue Department dated 22.11.1875 and also in the Title Deed issued by the Government of Madras dated 06.03.1930. They contended -6- NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 that Alva Hegde had four sub-branches namely
1)Paddambeedu Padupalu, 2)Paddambeedu Moodupalu,
3)Paddambeedu Kallubettu, 4)Paddambeedu Kapiyadi. Likewise, the Kurla Hegde family had three branches known as 1)Vonthibettu, 2)Anjarubeedu and 3)Mumbettu. Amongst the Alva Hegde family, they had evolved a custom whereby the eldest male member would be unanimously selected by all the members of the four branches as the hereditary trustee of the respondent No.4. Likewise, the members of the Kurla Hegde family would unanimously select a member of their family as a hereditary trustee of the respondent No.4. The appellants claim that for more than three generations, this custom was followed consistently.
3. The appellant in MFA No.2685/2023 claimed that he was discharging the duties of a hereditary trustee of the respondent No.4. The appellant contends that in the year 1970-71, a dispute arose between the Kurla Hegde family and the Alva Hegde family regarding the -7- NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 management of respondent No.4-temple. Accordingly, Mr. T.Vittal Hegde from the Alva Hedge family and Mr. A.Devadas Alva and Mr. M. Balakrishna Hegde from Kurla Hegde family had applied for the hereditary trusteeship before the Deputy Commissioner, Mangaluru. The Deputy Commissioner in terms of the order dated 16.02.1971, appointed Mr.Balakrishna Hegde as a fit person to discharge the functions as a trustee of the respondent No.4, until the issue regarding hereditary trusteeship was resolved. In the meanwhile, Mr. T.Vittal Hegde from the Alva Hegde family filed an application under Section 57(b) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, requesting the Deputy Commissioner HR&CE, D.K. Mangalore to declare him as a hereditary trustee and the managing trustee of the respondent No.4. This application was allowed and Mr. T.Vittal Hegde was declared as a hereditary trustee in terms of the order dated 02.07.1990. This was challenged by Mr.Balakrishna Hedge of the Kurla Hegde family in an appeal before respondent No.3, who dismissed it in terms -8- NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 of an order dated 14.02.1991. Dissatisfied with that order, Mr.Balakrishna Hegde filed a Revision Petition No.33/1991 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal in terms of the order dated 02.08.1995. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, Mr. T.Vittal Hegde from the Alva Hegde family filed W.P.No.41041/1995 and this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and restored the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner HR&CE dated 14.02.1991.
4. The appellant contends that Mr.Balakrishna Hegde without challenging the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.41041/1995 filed another writ petition in W.P.No.24964/2000 again challenging the earlier order dated 02.07.1990 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, HR&CE, D.K. Mangalore. This Court dismissed W.P.No.24964/2000 in view of the observations made in W.P.No.41041/1995. The appellant therefore contends that the order dated 02.07.1990 passed by the Deputy -9- NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 Commissioner, HR&CE, D.K. Mangalore became final and Mr. T.Vittal Hegde from the Alva Hegde family was declared as a hereditary trustee of Alva Hegde family. The appellant contends that Mr. T.Vittal Hegde died on 01.05.2006 and therefore, the appellant being a member of the Alva Hegde family had stepped into the shoes of Mr. T.Vittal Hegde and succeeded to the office of the hereditary trustee of respondent No.4. The appellant contends that all the members of four branches of Alva Hegde family entered into an agreement dated 24.06.2017 which was duly registered before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Udupi in terms of which, all of them had accepted that the appellant shall be the successor to the office of the hereditary trustee of the respondent No.4. The appellant armed with the consensus amongst all the members of the family which was evidenced by the agreement dated 24.06.2017, submitted the same before the respondent No.3, who passed an order dated 26.03.2018 declaring the appellant as a hereditary trustee from the Alva Hegde family and Mr.Govardhan Hegde from
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 the Kurla Hegde family. This order was passed on 26.03.2018.
5. The respondent No.5 who was the son of Mr.Balakrishna Hegde, the last link to the Kurla Hegde family, challenged the order dated 26.03.2018 in MFA No.7470/2018 before this Court. This Court in terms of the order dated 22.02.2019, allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to respondent No.2 to consider the application filed by the appellant and Mr.M.Govardhandas Hegde. The respondent No.2 conducted proceedings on 04.07.2019 and by its order dated 12.07.2019, resolved to appoint the respondent No.5 as a fit person to administer the temple pending adjudication of the dispute. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner and Mr.Govardhandas Hegde filed MFA No.5968/2019 before this Court and this Court allowed the appeal in terms of the order dated 03.02.2020 and directed the respondent No.2 to consider the application filed by Mr.M.Govardhandas Hegde and the respondent No.5 for
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 appointing as a fit person after affording an opportunity of hearing all the parties. This order was assailed by the respondent No.5 before the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.5201/2020. The Hon'ble Apex Court in terms of an order dated 06.07.2021, confirmed the order passed in MFA No.5968/2019 and directed the respondent No.2 to decide the matter expeditiously, apart from directing the respondent No.5 to appear before respondent No.2 on 27.12.2022 before the Suvarna Vidhan Soudha, Belagavi. The appellant appeared before the respondent No.2 and filed his written statement and contended that he was a fit person to be appointed to administer the respondent No.4. In the meanwhile, it was brought to the notice of the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.5 was no longer a member of the Kurla Hegde family as he was related to Kurla Hegde family through his mother and therefore, all ties severed upon her death. In the meanwhile, a suit was filed by Mr. Balakrishna Hegde in O.S.No.101/1996 for a declaration that he was entitled to be appointed as hereditary managing trustee of the respondent No.4.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 However, Mr.Balakrishna Hegde died later and respondent No.5 was arrayed as a legal representative. On the application filed by the respondent No.5, he and his siblings were transposed as defendants and therefore, there was no one to pursue the suit and consequently, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 14.12.2016.
6. The respondent No.5 thereafter filed another suit in O.S.No.297/2018 for the same reliefs that was sought for in O.S.No.101/1996 and the same is pending consideration. Notwithstanding all these proceedings and the concurrence between Alwa Hegde Family and Kurla Hegde family, the respondent No.2 appointed respondent No.5 as a fit person to administer respondent No.4. It is against this order, that the appellant is before this Court in MFA No.2685/2023.
7. MFA No.2570/2023 is filed by Mr. Jayaprakash Hegde who claims to be from the Kurla Hegde Family, who reiterated the history of hereditary trusteeship of the respondent No.4 between families of Alva Hegde Family
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 and Kurla Hegde Family. The appellant reiterated the contentions in MFA No.2685/2023 and contended that Govardhandas Hegde and Harshavardan Hegde were appointed as hereditary trustee of the temple on 26.03.2018 which was challenged by the respondent No.5 in MFA No.7470/2018, which was allowed in terms of the order dated 22.02.2019 and the case was remitted back for fresh consideration. He also contended that the respondent No.2 appointed respondent No.5 as a fit person to administer the respondent No.4-temple vide order dated 12.07.2019, which was challenged before this Court in MFA No.5968/2019. He also admitted that this Court disposed off the said appeal directing the respondent No.2 to reconsider the application filed by Mr.Harshavardan Hegde and Govardhandas Hegde and respondent No.5 herein. He also admitted that the respondent No.5 unsuccessfully challenged the order passed in MFA No.5968/2019 before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP.No.5201/2020. He contended that one of the members of the Kurla Hegde Family namely, Mr. Girshi
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 Hegde had filed an application before the respondent No.2 for appointment of a hereditary trustee of the respondent No.4. However, he later withdrew it on 26.07.2021. Following that, the appellant submitted a representation dated 26.07.2021 before the respondent No.2 to appoint him as hereditary trustee of the temple. He contended that the respondent No.2 held a meeting and required him to appear before it on 27.12.2022 at Suvarana Vidhana Soudha, Belagavi on which date, he appeared and filed an affidavit along with documents and claimed that he was a fit person to administer the respondent No.4. Despite this, he contended, the respondent No.2 appointed the respondent No.5 as a fit person as provided under Section 25-A (3) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. The appellant is therefore, before this Court challenging the appointment of the respondent No.5 as a fit person to administer the temple-respondent No.4.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023
8. The learned counsel for the appellant in both the cases submitted that the respondent No.3 was not a member of either Alva Hegde Family or Kurla Hegde Family and was not in line to be appointed as hereditary trustee of the respondent No.4. On the contrary they contended that the father of the respondent No.5, Balakrishna Hegde was a last link to the Kurla Hegde Family as he was related through his wife and after her death, the respondent No.5 belonged Mulla Katte Family who was no way related either to Alva Hegde Family or Kurla Hegde family. Therefore, it is contended that between the appellant and the respondent No.5, the respondent No.2 must have chosen any member of the family of either Alva Hegde Family or Kurla Hegde Family as a fit person to administer the temple - respondent No.4 and could not have appointed a third party as a fit person to administer respondent No.4. It is further contended that in view of the agreement entered into members of Alva Hegde Family on 24.06.2017, there is consensus that the appellant in MFA No.2685/2023 shall be person
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 representing the Alva Hegde family as hereditary trustee to administer respondent No.4. Similarly, the appellant in MFA No.2570/2023 contends that there is agreement amongst Kurla Hegde family members that he shall be hereditary trustee to administer respondent No.4. Therefore, both of them contends that presently there is no dispute between the two families as to who shall be the hereditary trustee of respondent No.4 and hence, there is no need to appoint a fit person under Section 25-A (3) of the Act of 1997.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the appellant in MFA No.2570/2023 entered the scene recently on 26.07.2021 before the respondent No.2 and requested the respondent No.2 to appoint him as a fit person to administer the respondent No.4. He submits that the appellant in MFA No.2570/2023 has therefore no right to come on record and pray that he be appointed as a fit person. He further contends that the father of the respondent No.5 being the
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 member of the Kurla Hegde family was earlier appointed as a fit person to administer the temple - respondent No.4. Therefore, it is the respondent No.5 who is more entitled to be appointed as a fit person to look after the respondent No.4-temple. He also contended that the father of the respondent No.5 has been discharging duties and administering the temple from 06.02.1971 onwards and there is no allegation against either his father or respondent No.5 till date and hence, the respondent No.2 felt it appropriate to appoint the respondent No.5 as a fit person. He further contends that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19651/2015 had passed an order allowing the respondent No.5 to continue to perform the religious activities of the temple along with the appellant and others. He further submits that this order was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and therefore, the respondent No.5 is entitled to continue as a fit person. He further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court, where the Apex Court had directed the maintenance of status quo as on 27.05.2020 and submits
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 that respondent No.5 was the fit person, who was looking after the religious activities in the temple and hence, respondent No.2 was justified in appointing respondent No.5 as a fit person.
10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.5.
11. The dispute in both these appeals relates to the question as to who should be a fit person until the issue between the Alva Hegde and Kurla Hegde families is ultimately resolved. Section 25-A of the Act of 1997 relates to an Institution managed by Hereditary Trustee and reads as follows:
"25-A. Provision relating to Institution managed by Hereditary Trustee.- (1) No committee of management shall be constituted in respect of the notified institutions managed exclusively by hereditary trustees. The power of management shall vest in such hereditary trustee.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 (2) If there is no legal heir to succeed the office of the hereditary trustee, the Rajya Dharmika Parishat or the Zilla Dharmika Parishat, as the case may be, shall constitute the committee of management as provided under Section 25.
(3) When a temporary vacancy occurs in the office of a hereditary trustee and if there is a dispute with regard to right of succession to such office and such vacancy cannot be filled up immediately or when a successor is a minor and has no guardian fit and willing to act or there is a dispute regard to as to who is entitled to succeed such office, the Rajya Dharmika Parishat may appoint a fit person to discharge functions of the office of hereditary trustee until the disability ceases or another successor succeeds to such office:
Provided that in making any appointment, the Rajya Dharmika Parishat shall have due regard to the claims of members of the said family, if any entitled to the succession."
Therefore, appointment of a "fit person" is only an adhoc arrangement pending adjudication of a dispute as to who is entitled to succeed to the hereditary office of Trustee of the temple. Even while appointing a fit person,
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 the Rajya Dharmika Parishat shall have due regard to the claim of members of the family.
12. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the temple in question is an excepted religious institution, where the succession to the office of trustee/trustees is by heredity. It is also not in dispute that the succession to the office of the trustees of the temple is from amongst the eldest male members of the Alva Hegde and Kurla Hegde families.
13. The respondent No.5 claims to be one of the hereditary trustees of Mambettu branch of the Kurla Hegde family.
14. It is now stated before this Court that the eldest male members of all the three branches of Kurla Hegde family have entered into a settlement dated 08.02.2018, in terms of which, they have agreed that they are governed by the Aliya Santhana law of inheritance. They also admitted that the Kurla Hegde family has three branches. The first branch namely Mambettu was from
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 Abbakka Hegde, Anjaaru branch was from Muthakka Hegde and Vonthibettu branch was from Chennamma Hegde. They also agreed that the hereditary Managing Trustee shall be from Kurla Hegde family and Moktesar shall be from Alva Hegde family. They also agreed that the hereditary managing trustee of the temple shall be rotated amongst the three Kavarus of Kurla Hegde family once in two years, which shall commence from Mambettu Kavaru and then from Vonthibettu Kavaru and then Anjarbeedu Kavaru respectively.
15. It is not the case of respondent No.5 that apart from the members mentioned in the agreement dated 08.02.2018, there are other male members in the family of Kurla Hegde. Now that the members of the family of Kurla Hegde have arrived at a settlement as to how the succession to the office of trusteeship has to be filled up, there is no dispute at present from amongst the members of Kurla Hegde. The only person who claims contrary to the claim of the members of the Kurla Hegde is
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 respondent No.5, who has filed O.S.No.297/2018 for the following reliefs:
"a. To declare him as the hereditary managing trustee of Sri. Mahatobara Veerabhadra Temple situated at Hiriadka, Bommarabettu village, Udupi Taluk;
b. To declare that Alva Hegde family members have no right to function as hereditary managing trustee of the temple, as they have lost their right by abandonment, adverse possession and prescription;
c. To grant consequential relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants form interfering with the discharge of duties of hereditary managing trustee of the temple by the plaintiff, in any manner whatsoever."
Therefore, the question whether respondent No.5 is a hereditary managing trustee of the temple is yet to be established by him before the Civil Court. Since it is the claim of the appellants that respondent No.5 is not a hereditary trustee, respondent No.5 cannot be considered as a fit person to carry on the religious activities in the temple, more particularly, when all the other eldest
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023 members of the family have arrived at a settlement and they have determined the manner of succession to the office of hereditary trustee. The respondent No.2 has not considered the agreement dated 08.02.2018 entered into between eldest male members of the family of Kurla Hegde. If only that was done, he could have decided the question whether there was any need to appoint a fit person.
16. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.2 has merely referred to the suit filed by respondent No.5 in O.S.No.297/2018 and has held that until the disposal of the said suit, respondent No.5 could be treated as a fit person under Section 25(A)(3) of the Act of 1997. In view of the agreement entered into between the members of the Kurla Hegde family, there is no dispute as on date as to how and who should succeed to the post of the managing trustee of the temple and therefore, there is no need for appointment of respondent No.5 as a fit person.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18963 MFA No. 2685 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 2570 of 2023
17. Consequently, the appeal filed in MFA No.2685/2023 is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2 in No.ADM 8 CR 128 of 2017-18 vide Annexure-A is set aside. It is for the male members of the family of both Alva Hegde and Kurla Hegde to appoint their respective persons to succeed to the office of the managing trustee of the temple and also the Moktesar of the temple as per the respective agreements entered amongst them.
18. In view of the order passed in MFA No.2685/2023, MFA No.2570/2023 is also allowed and the impugned order passed therein is set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE GSR/HJ/LG List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1