Sri A Rajendra Prasad vs Sri Prabhakar Deekshit
2022 Latest Caselaw 13225 Kant

                            -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                        PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

         WRIT APPEAL No.1015/2022 (GM-R/C)

 BETWEEN:

 SRI A RAJENDRA PRASAD
 AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
 S/O ARUNACHALA DEEKSHIT
 SULADENAHALLI VILLAGE
 VEMGAL TALUK
 KOLAR DISTRICT
 KARNATAKA - 563 101                        ...APPELLANT

 (BY SRI K.SUMAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
     SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)

 AND:

 1.     SRI PRABHAKAR DEEKSHIT
        AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
        S/O LATE ARUNACHALA DEEKSHIT
        SULADENAHALLI VILLAGE
        VEMGAL TALUK
        KOLAR DISTRICT
        KARNATAKA - 563 101

 2.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REVENUE DEPARTMENT
        M.S. BUILDINGS DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
        BENGALURU - 560 001
        REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY

 3.     THE COMMISSIONER
        KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
        AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (KHRICE)
        2ND AND 3RD FLOOR
        MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVAN
                               -2-


     VENKAT RAO ROAD
     CHAMARAJPET
     BENGALURU - 560 020

4.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     KOLAR DISTRICT, D C OFFICE
     KOLAR, KARNATAKA - 563 101             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI KIRAN B S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
    SRI.S.RAJASHEKAR, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 07.09.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON BLE COURT IN
WP NO.3304/2021 AND TO CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID
WRIT PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 ETC.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:


                       JUDGMENT

The appellant in challenge to the order passed by the

learned Single Judge, heavy reliance is placed on a

document submitted in this appeal as Annexure-R4 dated

20.05.2018.

2. The appellant is respondent No.1 and

respondent No.1 is the petitioner before the learned Single

Judge. The parties will be referred to as per their ranks

before the learned Single Judge.

3. The writ petition is filed at the instance of the

petitioner before learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3304/2021

challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner

whereby the pooja rights were apportioned for particular

period. The said petition was vehemently opposed by

respondent No.1 by filing statement of objections.

4. Two grounds were raised in opposition to the

petition. Firstly, that the petitioner himself granted some

rights of performing pooja to respondent No.1 by way of

family arrangement dated 29.10.2010. The copy of that

document was placed on record. The second ground of

opposition was alternative remedy available to the

petitioner.

5. It was another submission of respondent No.1

that there was change effected by way of another

document dated 19.07.2019. Now the said document on

which respondent No.1 made submission that there was

change in the earlier agreement is vehemently disputed by

the petitioner. The petitioner's specific ground of dispute

was only by concession and under the family agreement,

pooja right was offered to respondent No.1. Subsequently

respondent No.1 wanted to part away his pooja rights on

the ground that now he being in a declining age is not able

to perform the pooja as such this right be granted to his

son.

6. Learned Single Judge in the order dated

07.09.2022 on considering all these aspects and was

pleased to observe that the right granted to respondent

No.1 by the petitioner was only by way of concession. The

further arrangement sought for by respondent No.1 was not

agreed upon by the petitioner. The second ground of

opposition namely alternate remedy of appeal is also

considered by learned Single Judge. Considering all these

grounds, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that

the writ petition succeeds on merits. Accordingly allowed

the petition. The order impugned in the said petition is set

aside.

7. Now in the appeal, entirely new ground is raised

namely the document dated 20.05.2018 placed before this

Court as Annexure-R4. Admittedly, this document is coming

before this Court and it was not placed for consideration

before the learned Single Judge. Interestingly enough, even

though, this document was executed much earlier to

Annexure-R1, before the learned Single Judge there was no

reference of this document in Annexure-R1. Thus assessing

of this document which was not placed before learned

Single nor it was referred in Annexure-R1 which was placed

before the learned Single Judge nor it was referred to in the

statement of objections filed on behalf of respondent No.1

before learned Single Judge and expanding the scope of the

appeal by assessment of this document, when the learned

Single Judge had no opportunity to even see the

documents, leave aside the assessment of the documents,

in our opinion would not be permissible for us, as such we

are unable to find any ground to entertain the appeal. The

appeal being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed

and the same is dismissed.

8. In view of dismissal of the appeal, no orders are

required to be passed on pending interlocutory applications

and are disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KSR