Karnataka High Court
Laxmibai W/O.Kushal Wader vs Shiddappa Shiddappa @ Balappa ... on 25 February, 2021
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
W.P.No.100400/2021 (GM-CPC)
Between:
1. Laxmibai W/o. Kushal Wader,
Age 74 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
2. Chamaraj S/o. Kushal Wader,
Age 48 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
3. Yuvaraj S/o. Kushal Wader,
Age 41 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
4. Arunkumar S/o. Kushal Wader,
Age 74 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
... Petitioners
(By Shri Jagadish Patil, Advocate)
And:
1. Shiddappa Shiddappa @ Balappa Wader,
:2:
Age 66 yers, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
2. Malakari Shiddappa @ Balappa Wader,
Age 62 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
3. Khanappa Shiddappa @ Balappa Wader,
Age 62 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
4. Lagamma Shiddappa @ Balappa Wader,
Age 56 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
5. Doddawwa Shiddappa @ Balappa Wader,
Age 62 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Vidya, Advocate for R1 to R5)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the
impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,
Raibag in Ex.P.No.30/2020, dated 12.01.2021,vide Annexure-E and
thereby allow the application.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing orders, this
day, the Court made the following:
:3:
ORDER
1. It is not in dispute that a decree was granted in favour of
the petitioners in O.S.No.47/1973 and the said operative portion of
the judgment reads as follows:
"The plaintiff's suit is decreed. The defendants 1
to 5 are hereby permanently restrained from
interfering with plaintiff's right to performing pooja of
aranya Shidda Deva Deity in the temples at
Khamlapur and Yelparatti in his turn of worship and
also in receiving offerings, daxinas and other
perquisites in his turn of worship of the deity in the
two temples. In view of the circumstances of the case
parties are directed to bear their own costs."
2. It is also not in dispute that this decree was confirmed by
the Appellate Court and also by this Court in RSA No.297/1987.
3. The plaintiff decree holder contending that the decree was
disobeyed and he was not permitted to perform pooja and filed an
execution petition and sought for Police help to implement the
decree by filing an application.
4. In the execution petition, the Executing Court has stated
that the JDRs were third parties and were not pujaries of the
Temple and they were also not concerned with the temple.
However, the Executing Court has proceeded to reject the
application stating that if the application was granted, hardship
and inconvenience would be caused to the legal heirs of original
trustee namely the deceased Siddappa Yallappa Wadeyar.
5. In my view, the grant of the decree of injunction is not in
dispute. As a matter of fact the said decree has been confirmed.
6. The Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and could
not have refuse to implement the decree of injunction by citing
that some inconvenience may be caused to the legal heirs of the
deceased trustee.
7. I am therefore of the view that the impugned order cannot
be sustained and the same is set aside.
8. As a consequence, I.A. filed by the decree holder is allowed.
The jurisdictional Police shall ensure that the decree dated
12.01.2021is implemented.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
