M Nagappayya Bhatta vs Maharajswami Varaha Devaru
2022 Latest Caselaw 7848 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S R KRISHNA KUMAR

       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1021 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

M NAGAPPAYYA BHATTA
S/O LINGA BHATTA (SINCE DECEASED)

1. RAMACHANDRA BHATTA,
    (SINCE DECEASED)

1(a)    SMT. RENUKA BAYAMMA
        W/O LATE M RAMACHANDRA BHAT
        AGED 63 YEARS
        NO.430, 4TH CROSS
        B H ROAD, BHADRAVATHI-577 301.

1(b)    SMT. NAGARATHNA M
        AGED 48 YEARS
        D/O LATE M RAMCHANDRA BHAT
        W/O RAVINDRA R JOSHI
        NO.617, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NILAYA
        10TH 'A' CROSS, 10TH MAIN
        'A' SECTOR, OPPOSITE RAJIV GANDHI PARK
        YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, YELAHANKA
        BENGALURU -560 064.

1(c)    GANAPTHI PRASANNA
        AGED 45 YEARS
        S/O LATE M RAMACHANDRA BHAT
        NO.461/F1, NIRMALA NILAYAM
        17TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN
        MALLESHWARAM WEST
        BENGALURU -560 055.

1(d)    VIDYA SHANKARA PRASAD
        AGED 41 YEARS
        S/O LATE M RAMACHANDRA BHAT
                             2




       NO.430, 4TH CROSS, B H ROAD
       BHADRAVATHI-577 301.

1(e)   RAVI PRAKASH M
       AGED 37 YEARS
       S/O LATE M RAMACHANDRA BHAT
       NO.430, 4TH CROSS
       B H ROAD, BHADRAVATHI-577 301.

2.     M VASUDEVA BHATTA,
       (SINCE DECEASED)

2(a)   SMT. RUKMAVATHI BHATTA
       W/O LATE VASUDEVA BHATTA
       AGED 63 YEARS

2(b)   SRI NAGENDRA BHATTA
       S/O LATE VASUDEVA BHATTA
       AGED 38 YEARS

2(c)   SRI VENKATESH BHATTA
       S/O LATE VASUDEVA BHATTA
       AGED 34 YEARS

2(d)   SMT. JYOTHI BHATTA
       D/O LATE VASUDEVA BHATTA
       AGED 33 YEARS

       ALL ARE RESIDENT OF MARAVANTHE VILLAGE
       KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

3      M MANJUNATH BHATTA, 65 YEARS

4      M VISWESWARA BHAT
       (SINCE DECEASED)

4(a)   SMT. MAHALAXMIAMMA, 60 YEARS

4(b) SRI NAGABHUSHAN BHAT, 39 YEARS

4(c) SRI GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT, 37 YEARS

4(d) SMT. SUDHAMANI, 36 YEARS

APPELLANT NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE THE CHILDREN OF
M NAGAPPAYYA BHATTA (Plaintiff No.1)
                           3




APPELLANT No. 1(a) IS THE WIFE AND
APPELLANT Nos.1(b) to 1(e)
ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE RAMACHANDRABHATTA
(PLAINTIFF NO.2)

APPELLANT No.2(a) IS THE WIFE AND
APPELLANT Nos. 2(b) to 2(d) ARE
CHILDREN OF M.VASUDEVA BHATTA,
(PLAINTIFF NO.3)

APPELLANT No.4(a) IS THE WIFE AND
APPELLANT Nos. 4(b) to 4(c)
ARE THE CHILDREN OF M.VISWESHWARA BHATTA
(PLAINTIFF NO.4)

APPELLANT Nos.2(a) to 2(d), 3 and
4(a) to 4(d) ARE RESIDING AT
MARAVANTHE VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK.
                                         ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI K CHANDRAKANTH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

 1. MAHARAJSWAMI VARAHA DEVARU
    OF SRI MAHARAJASWAMI
    VARAHA TEMPLE OF MARAVANTHE VILLAGE
    KUNDAPURA TALUK
    REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE:
    K CHANDRSHEKARA HEBBAR
    S/O MANJUNATHA HEBBAR
    R/O KURUDADU VILLAGE
    KUNDAPURA TALUK.

 2. VENKAPPA ADIGA
    70 YEARS, MANAGER OF HIS JOINT FAMILY
    S/O KRISHNA ADIGA,
    R/O HAIKADE OF MARAVANTHE VILALGE,
    KUNDAPURA TALUK

 3. GOWRAMMA, 58 YEARS
    W/O LATE PARAMESHWARA ADIGA
    R/O TRASI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK

 4. NARASIMHA ADIGA, 45 YEARS
    S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA ADIGE
                          4




    R/O ADIGA COMPOUND,
    TRASI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK

 5. PURUSHOTHAMA ADIGA
    35 YEARS,
    S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA ADIGA
    R/O NEAR MAHALAKSHMI TEMPLE
    PADUKERE PO, HADEVU
    KUNDAPURA TALUK

 6. MANJUNATHA ADIGA
    28 YEARS,
    S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA ADIGA
    R/O NEAR MAHALAKSHMI TEMPLE
    PADUKONE, PO HADAVU
    KUNDAPURA TALUK

 7. SMT. POORNIMA ADIGA
    30 YEARS,
    W/O ANANTHA MADHYASTHA
    R/O TRASI VILLAGE
    KUNDAPURA TALUK

 8. RAMACHANDRA ADIGA
    S/O LATE KESHAVA ADIGA
    C/O SRI MAHAVISHNU TEMPLE
    PADUKONE, HADAVU OF
    KUNDAPURA TALUK, R/O TRASI VILLAGE
    KUNDAPURA TALUK

 9. THE COMMISOSNER OF RELIGIOUS
    AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
    BENGALURU.

 10.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND
    CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
    MANGALURU DK

 11.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
    REPRESENTED BY THE
    DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    DK, MANGALURU.              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 TO 8 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED
SRI V SIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R9 TO 11)
                               5




      THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
19TH JANUARY, 2007 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.13 OF
1999 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)
KUNDAPURA,    PARTLY   DECREEING     THE  SUIT    FOR
DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

The appellants and respondents have filed a joint

compromise petition along with the documents and the

same are received on record. The joint compromise

petition reads as under:-

" 1. The Appellants have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned civil judge (Senior division) Kundapura in so far as it relates to party dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

2. The Respondents No.1 and 2 were the Defendants No. 1 and 2 before the trial Court. The Respondent No.2 has been served with notice but not appeared. Respondents No.3 to 8 were the Defendants No.3(a)(1), 3(a)(2), 3(a)(3), 3(a)(4), 3(a)(5) and 3(b) they were ex-parte before the trial Court.

The notice sent by this Hon'ble Court has been duly served of them and they have not appeared before this Hon'ble Court. The Respondents No.9, 10 and 11 were

represented by Assistant Government Pleader.

3. The Trail Court decreed the suit in part and granted prayer of the plaintiff that they are entitled for " Tasdika" amount with interest. However, dismissed the prayer of declaration that the plaintiff are entitled by custom and by hereditary right to perquisites of performing Pachakajjaya Seva in the temple of Defendant No.1 atached to the Keelushanthi Archakas and for permanent injunction and also dismissed the prayer to set aside the order of Defendant No.1 (Should be Defendant No.4) and also dismissed and decree dated 19/01/2007 in o.s. 13/1999. (Old O.S.No. 61/1993). The said judgment and decree has been challenged in the above appeal.

4. The Dispute in respect of the right of the Appellants in hereditary Keelushanti Archakas is pending since 1970 and several proceedings have taken place. The Respondent No.9 (Defendant No.5) has rejected the claim of the Appellants. The same is also subject matter of hte above mentioned suit. The suit was initially filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge Udupi in O.S. 61/1993 on 23/06/1993. Pursuant to establishing the Court at Kundapura, the said suit was transferred and renumbered as O.S.13/1999.

5. The Appellants during the course of meetings with the Respondent No.1 have brought to their notice that their hereditary right as Keelushanti Archakas including performing Panchakajjaya Seva has been unjustly refused without considering the materials available in the temple. The committee is also facing difficulties in getting the Seva done through third parties in view of the cost involved and non-availability of the proper person. Under the circumstances the Respondent No.1 discussed with Appellants and asked them to submit representation along with documents to consider their right. One of the Appellants who has been performing Panchakajjaya Seva and other duties in the 1st Respondent temple has submitted the representation on 19.03.2022 along with available documents to the Respondent No.1, temple committee. Pursuant to which the committee has taken a pragmatic view of the same the Respondent No.1 has passed the Resolutions and the same is before this Hon'ble Court.

6. The representation was placed before the committee on 28.03.2022 and the Committee has considered the representation and the documents produced by the Appellants and has mainly taken note of the Parikath (Deed) dated 21.01.1881, Affidavits of former Managing Trustee &

Trustees, reputed persons and several other records including the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the same matter reported in ILR 1998 KAR 2313(Nagappayya Bhat & Ors.vs Maharajaswamy Varsha & Ors) and has come to the conclusion that the appellants are Keelushanti Archakas and are entitled for all the benefits. Further, on the same day the Respondent No.1, in the resolution number 467, has taken a decision that the materilas to prepare Panchakajjaya is at the cost of the Keelushanthi Archakas. The copies of the Resolutions dated: 28.03.2022(containing 8 pages, which includes the resolution number 467) are produced along with this compromise petition.

7. In view of the aforesaid resons, the Appellats and the first Respondent have entered into an understanding and filing this compromise petition to modify the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the following manner:

I. The post of Keelushanthi Archaks to do all Sevas attached to the Keelushanthi Archaks in the Maharajaswamy Sri. Varaha Temple, Maravanthe Village, Kundapura Taluk, including performing Pachakajjaya Seva be treated as hereditary right of the Appellants.

II. The order dated: 15.03.1993 passed by the Respondent No.09 (Defendant No.4) be treated as become infructuous in view of the decision of Respondent No.1 committee.

III. The Appellants agreed that they will not make any claim in respect of the arrears of Tasdika amount and also, they will not demand the account for the dues payable up to the date of filing of the suit.

are normal parties and except Defendant No.1 others have not appeared and their right, title and interest are not affected by virtue of this compromise. Hence the judgment and decree of hte trial court may kindly may be modified, treating the Resolutions passed on 28.03.2022(containing 8 pages which includes the resolution number 467) and attached to this compromise petition as a part of this compromise petition.

V. The appellants have produced the original parikath(deed) dated 21.01.1881 and other documents along with application under order41 rule 27 of CPC and the same may kindly be ordered to be returned to the appellant No.1 (c).

VI. The appellants have authorized the appellant No. 1(c) (Ganapathi Prasanna) to sign this compromise petition on their

behalf. They have executed a Special Power of Attorney dated: 15.04.2022 in favour of appellant no.1(c) (Ganapathi Prasanna) authorizing to sign this compromise petition and they are bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in compromise petition and they have gone through the contents of the petition and also resolutions referred to above and satisfied about the same.

WHEREFORE, the Appellants and the Respondent No.1 prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to modify the judgment and decree in terms of the compromise petition and by taking the resolutions passed by the Respondent No.1 dated: 28.03.2022 in the interest of justice."

2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the

compromise petition have been duly signed by them

and by the respective parties.

3. Being satisfied with the terms and conditions of

the said joint Compromise petition and by placing on

record the Resolutions dated 28.03.2022 passed by the

respondent No.1, appeal is hereby disposed of in terms

of the joint compromise petition by modifying the

impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial

court and substituting the same with the terms and

conditions of this compromise.

Registry to draw up the decree accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Ark/Srl.