Karnataka High Court
Shri Uttaradi Mutt vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
R
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 103982 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 103994 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
IN W.P.NO.103982/2023
BETWEEN
SHRI UTTARADI MUTT
RPRESENTED BY ITS HOLY PONTIFF
SHRI SHRI 1008 SHRI SATYATMA TIRTHA SWAMIJI
THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER
R/O SHRI UTTARADI MUTT BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU 560021
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SHRI. SATISH S RAICHUR &
SHRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI., ADVOCATES)
Digitally signed
by AND
NARAYANAPPA
LAKSHMAMMA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU 560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL
DISTRICT KOPPAL
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
KOPPAL, DISTRICT KOPPAL
4. THE TAHASILDAR
ANEGUNDI
TALUKA GANGAVATHI
DISTRICT KOPPAL
5. SHRI NANJANGUDA RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT
THROUGH ITS PONTIFF
MANTRALAYHA KURNOOL DISTRICT
ANDRA PRADESH STATE -5
6. GOPAL KRISHNA
S/O DR. H.K. RAM RAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O 1-1-110, WARD NO.1 PAMPANAGAR,
GANGAVATI TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT-583227
7. VENKATESH G.N.
S/O NAGARAJ ACHAR G.
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O #60, 12TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN ROAD
BEHIND RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT,
SRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI,
BANGALORE SOUTH
KARNATAKA-560050.
8. KISHAN RAO
S/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/O #1/138A, GHORKAL
MANVI TQ.
RAICHUR DIST-584203.
9. K MARUTHI GURUPRASAD
S/O K. BHEEMASENA RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O FLAT 102, SHIVA PRADISE,
1 APARTMENT, MUNISWAMY LAYOUT,
UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE,
BEHIND SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE SOUTH, KARNATAKA-560061
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
10.D. NARASINGA RAO
S/O D. KISHAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/O ANUGRAHA NILAYA
JAYANAGAR, 3RD STAGE
NEAR ST. PAULS SCHOOL
GANGAVATI-583227.
11.RAM KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O N. SUBRAMANYAM
977/A/9 13TH MAIN
8TH CROSS, SRINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560050.
12.VASUKI PRASANNA DESAI
W/O PRASANNA DESAI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O MR 26 NEXT
SHANTINIKETAN SCHOOL
BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560056.
13.RAGHUNTH BADRINATH SOSALE
S/O BADRINATH S.P.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO. 41, 9TH CROSS, KENDRIYA NAGAR
BSK 6TH STAGE, SOMAPURA
EXIT HOSAHALLI,
THALAGHATTAPURA,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560062.
14.AMEETH BHARADWAJ
S/O SRINIVASAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
NO. 1077, 5TH MAIN, SRINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560050.
15.PRABHANJAN MUTTAGI
S/O M.L. NARAYANACHAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O NO. 12 PAYONIDHI, 1ST MAIN,
1ST CROSS, MANJUNATH NAGAR,
ITTAMADU, BANGALORE-560085.
(R6 TO R15 ARE AMENDMENT
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 21.02.2024)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. GANGADHAR J.M. AAG A/W
SHRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SHRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SHRI. C.V. NAGESH., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SHRI. H.R. DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE FOR R6-R15)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 27-06-2023, IN FILE
NO.SAM/KAM/MAG.101.2023-24, IN SO FAR AS THE REJECTION OF
THE APPLICATION FILED BY SHRI. UTTARADI MUTT REQUESTING TO
DEPUTE SUFFICIENT POLICE PERSONNEL DURING THE CELEBRATION
OF SHRI RAGHUVARYA TEERTHARA MAHIMOTSAVA FROM 04-07-
2023 TO 10-07-2023 AT THE HOLY MOOLA BRINDAVANA OF SHRI
RAGHUVARYA TEERTHA, SITUATED IN THE ISLAND NAMED NAVA
BRINDAVANA GADDE, BEARING SY.NO.192 OF ANEGUNDI,
TQ.GANGAVATI, DIST.KOPPAL, THE ORIGINAL ORDER BEARING AT
ANNEXURE-A, AND ETC
*****
IN W.P.NO.103994/2023
BETWEEN
SHRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
HOLINESS SHRI SUBUDHENDRA THEERATHARU
BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
SHRI. R.K. VADEENDRA
S/O R.KRISHNACHAR
AGE. 51 YEARS
SHRI. NANJANGUD RAGHAVENDRA SWAMYMUTT
NO.524, 5TH BLOCK , 11TH MAIN
45TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560041
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SHRI. ARUN NEELOPANT. .,ADVOCATE)
AND
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MINISTRY OF REVENUE
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VIDHI
BANGALORE-560001
2. TAHSILDAR
GANGAVATHI
O/F PAMPA NAGAR, KOPPAL
SH-130, KANAKAGIRI GANGAVATHI MUNIRABAD
ROAD,
TQ. GANGAVATHI
DIST. KOPPA-583227
3. SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE
BT PATIL NAGAR,
ASHOK CIRCLE,
KOPPAL-583231
4. SHRI. UTTARADI MUTT
REP. BY ITS PEETADHIPATHI
SHRI. SATYATMATEERTHSWAMIJI
UTTARADI MUTT BASVANGUDI,
NEAR NATIONAL COLLEGE
BANGALORE-560085
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG A/W
SHRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SHRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SHRI. SATISH S. RAICHUR &
SHRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI., ADVOCATES FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE
WRIT BY QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO. KOM.MAG.101.2023-
24 DATED. 27-06-2023 OF SECOND RESPONDENT WHICH IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND
HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.03.2024, THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
ORDERS
1. Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, the petitioner in
W.P.No.103982/2023 is before this Court seeking for
the following reliefs.
a. Quash the order passed by the respondent No.4
dated 27.06.2023, in file No.
SAM/KAM/MAG:101:2023-24, in so far as the
rejection of the application filed by Shri. Uttaradi
Mutt requesting to depute sufficient police
personnel during the celebration of Shri.
Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava from
04.07.2023 to 10.07.2023 at the Holy Moola
Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertha, situated
in the island named Nava Brindavana Gadde,
bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati,
Dist: Koppal, the Original order being at
Annexure-A and,
b. Consequently, direct the respondent No.4
authority to allow the application filed by Shri.
Uttaradi Mutt dated 08.06.2023, the copy of
which is at Annexure-N, and
b(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ order or
direction in the nature thereof directing
Respondent nos. 1 to 4 to prevent Respondent
no.5, including its followers , agents and office
bearers and anybody claiming through or under
Respondent No.5 from offering prayers or
conducting any religious activity in any form
including Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals,
prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the name
of Sri. Jayateertharu at the Brindavana of Sri.
Raghuvarya Teertharu at the Navabrindavan
Gadde situated on the island named
'NavaBrindavana Gadde', bearing Sy.No.192 of
Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal; and
c. Grant any other appropriate order, writ or
direction as may be necessary in the facts and
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice.
2. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the petitioner in
W.P.No.103994/2023 is before this Court seeking for
the following reliefs.
i. Issue appropriate writ by quashing the order
bearing No. Kom.Mag:101:2023-24 dated
27.06.2023 of second respondent which is
produced at Annexure-A;
ii. Direct Respondent No.1 to 3 to provide police
protection during Aradhana of Shri. Jayateertharu
which is scheduled to take place on 6th July 2023,
7th July 2023 and 8th July 2023.
iii. Grant such other relief's as is deemed fit.
3. Facts in W.P.No.103982/2023 filed by Shri.
Uttaradi Mutt:
3.1. The Petitioner Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, claims to be
the main pontifical Mutt in the lineage of the
great saint Shri. Madhvacharya.
3.2. Shri Uttaradi Mutt claims to be the owner of the
land in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi being an island
situate in Tungabhadra river which is known as
Nava Brindavana Gadde (Gadde meaning an
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
island). It is contended that several previous
pontiffs' brindavana is situate at Nava
Brindavana Gadde, one of them being that of
Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu who was the
predecessor/Peetadhipati of Shri Uttaradi Mutt.
3.3. It is contended that the brindavana of Shri Jaya
Teertharu is at Malkhed, taluka Sedam, District
Kalaburagi which is acknowledged by the
general public. It is contended that there is no
dispute as regards the said brindavana but now
the dispute has been raised by Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as regards the
brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu by
contending that it is not of Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu but of Shri Jaya Teertharu.
3.4. Various averments have been made as regards
the ownership of the said land which is not
relevant for the purpose of this matter since
ownership dispute is not being considered in
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
the present matter which is part of another
proceeding.
3.5. It is contended that there has been an
admission on part of Shri Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt that brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu being situate at Nava Brindavana
Gadde, there was never any claim made that
the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is situate
in Nava Brindavana Gadde. Off late Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has been raising
disputes and or coming in the way of Shri
Uttaradi Mutt performing aradhana and pooja of
its gurus which was never in question.
3.6. Historically it is contended that in the year 1959
Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt trying to assert
title over the land in Sy.No.192 belonging to
Shri Uttaradi Mutt on the basis of more number
of brindavanas in the Nava Brindavana Gadde
are that of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
However, in the very same representation
made by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, it is
clearly stated that the brindavana of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu is situate at Nava
Brindavana Gadde which resulted in the said
claim being challenged by Shri Uttaradi Mutt in
O.S. No.65/1/59-60 which is decreed in favour
of Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Reference is made to the
written statement filed by Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt in said proceedings, as also the
evidence led by earlier pontiff in the said
proceedings. On that basis, it is contended that
there is an admission made on the existence of
the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at
Nava Brindavana Gadde.
3.7. In terms of the decree, name of Shri Uttaradi
Mutt which was already entered in respect of
1/3rd of the land, the entry made in the name
of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in respect of
the balance 2/3rd of the land was deleted,
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
therefore recognising the sole ownership of the
entire island to be that of Shri Uttaradi Mutt.
Insofar as the claim of ownership of the land,
there are certain other proceedings which are
pending.
3.8. In the present matter what is in question is as
regards the admitted facts and it is in that
background it is contended that this court
ought to come to the rescue of Shri Uttaradi
Mutt so as to permit the peaceful celebration of
aradhana and pooja of Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu, as regards which police protection
was sought for on account of the disturbance
on part of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt.
3.9. Shri Uttaradi Mutt having performed the
aradhana, pooja, etc., of Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu for centuries, Shri Uttaradi Mutt
made a request to jurisdictional police
authorities to provide police protection which
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
came to be rejected by the impugned order. It
is in that background that Shri Uttaradi Mutt is
before this Court challenging the said order.
3.10. Once earlier this Court vide order dated
5.06.2023 in W.P. No.103449/2023 had
permitted such aradhana and pooja to be
performed. The Aradhana and poojas being
required to be performed on a regular basis,
this court ought to exercise extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution and grant the relief sought for by
directing the police to depute requisite number
of police personnel at the brindavana so as to
protect peace and tranquillity on account of the
disturbance sought to be created by Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt despite Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt having categorically
admitted the existence of brindavana of Shri
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana
Gadde.
3.11. The dispute in the present matter relates to the
brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. The
contention of Shri Uttaradi Mutt is that in terms
of the accepted facts and history, the
brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is
situated at Navabrindavana Gadde in Sy.No.192
of Anegundi village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal
District.
3.12. The said Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu belonging
to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, it is for Shri Uttaradi
Mutt to carry out necessary ceremonies relating
to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at the said
brindavana, it is in pursuance thereof Shri
Uttaradi Mutt had submitted an application to
the concerned authorities to depute sufficient
police personnel during the celebration of Shri
Raghuvarya Thirtha Mahimotsava from
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
4.07.2023 to 10.07.2023 at the holy moola
Brindavan of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu.
3.13. The said application came to be rejected by
respondent No.4-Tahsildar vide its order dated
27.06.2023, it is challenging the same that
Shri. Uttaradi Mutt had approached this Court.
4. Facts in W.P. No.103994/2023 filed by Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt:
4.1. This petition has been filed by Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt against the State of
Karnataka -respondent No.1, Tahsildar-
respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police-
respondent No.3 and Shri Uttaradi Mutt-
respondent No.4 seeking for the aforesaid
reliefs.
4.2. It is stated that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt
had filed an application with the Tahsildar
seeking for police protection for performing
aradhana of Shri Jaya Theertharu at the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
brindavana located at Nava Brindavana Gadde
on 6th, 7th and 8th July 2023. This application
having been rejected, the present petition has
been filed.
4.3. It is stated that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt
is a Moola Maha Samsthana established by Shri
Madhvacharya amongst other Mutts established
by him. It is contended that the Nava
Brindavana Gadde is a tiny island formed in
Tungabhadra river in Anegundi village. This is
called so since there are nine brindavanas of
saints of Shri Madhva Parampara located there.
The disputes in respect of certain brindavanas
of Shri Padmabha Teertharu, Shri Kavindra
Teertharu and Shri Vageesha Teertharu is
pending consideration in RSA No.100446/2015.
Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had also filed
W.P. No.111125/2014 as regards the land
claimed to be owned by Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Shri
Uttaradi Mutt claiming to have purchased the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
same from one Vakeel Krishna Rao in the year
1983. The sale deed does not mention the total
extent. The entire land had been forfeited by
Nizams for non-payment of revenue. Shri
Uttaradi Mutt made a request to the Raja of
Anegundi to regrant 14 acres 7 guntas of land.
Accordingly, the same was regranted on the
condition that Shri Uttaradi Mutt would not
prevent the other Mutts and devotees visiting
the Nava Brindavana Gadde and performance of
aradhana.
4.4. It is contended that apart from the aforesaid
three brindavanas, one other brindavana is of
Shri Jaya Teertharu which is wrongly claimed
by Shri Uttaradi Mutt to be that of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is claimed that Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is performing
aradhana of Shri Jaya Theetharu at Nava
Brindavana Gadde and in this regard certain
paper clippings are sought to be placed on
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
record which are relating to the year 1988-89,
2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2008-09 and
2009-10.
4.5. It is claimed that Shri Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt and its followers wanting to perform
aradhana of Shri Jaya Theetharu, Shri Uttaradi
Mutt with a malicious intent has sought to
interfere with the same by falsely claiming that
the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu.
4.6. The application filed by Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt for police protection has been
rejected on the ground that there is likelihood
of breach of peace which is not permissible.
Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is entitled under
Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India
to perform the aradhana of its pontiff Shri Jaya
Theetharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde which
cannot be denied by executive action.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
5. OBJECTIONS BY RESPONDENTS No.2 to 4:
5.1. Respondents No.2 to 4-State had filed its
objections contending that there have been
disputes from the year 2022 which have been
raised by both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt had sought for police protection
for conducting aradhana and pooja in the
month of July 2022 which came to be rejected
by the police authorities, as regards which W.P.
No.102614/2022 came to be filed which came
to be disposed of on 15.07.2022 with the
following observations:
"9. Having heard the learned senior counsels and
on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds
that there is nothing on record which would show
that earlier such Aradhana of Sri Jaya Theertharu
was conducted or permitted to be conducted by
the petitioner-Mutt at the Nava Brindavan Gadde.
When it is an admitted fact that a dispute in
respect of the Brindavanas are pending
consideration at the hands of this Court in R.S.A.
No. 100446/2015 and several interim orders are
passed by this Court to ensure that some
arrangement is made permitting the two Mutts to
conduct Aradhanas and more particularly in
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
respect of only three Brindavanas, the petitioner
Mutt could not have ventured to take a unilateral
decision to conduct Aradhana without permission
of this Court in R.S.A. No. 100446/2015. The
petitioner-Mutt was required to approach this
Court by filing appropriate application seeking
permission of the Court to conduct Aradhana at
the Nava Brindavan Gadde. The question as to
whether the dispute in R.S.A. No. 100446/2015 is
restricted only to three Brindavanas or it spreads
across the entire island is something which cannot
be gone into by this Court in this writ proceedings.
10. Moreover, in this writ petition filed under
Article 226 and 227 what is required to be
considered is whether there is any impropriety in
the impugned orders enforcing Section 144 in the
Nava Brindavan Gadde during the days mentioned
therein. The District administration is well within
its powers to impose the sanction contained under
Section 144 Cr.P.C. to ensure public peace and
tranquility. When the authorities have found that
conducting of the Ardahana in such a situation
has all the potential of disturbing the public
peace, the authorities are well within their powers
to impose sanction under Section 144 of Cr.P.C.
11. For the reasons stated above, this Court is
convinced that there is no merit in the writ
petition. Accordingly."
5.2. Since the said petition had been dismissed, Shri
Uttaradi Mutt continued to perform aradhana
and pooja. In the year 2023 once again Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt made similar
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
application. This time an application was made
by Shri Uttaradi Mutt also seeking for police
protection. The Asst. Commissioner called for a
meeting on 30.05.2023 since no consensus
were arrived at, the Asst. Commissioner by
order dated 30.05.2023 issued an endorsement
that both the Mutts should seek necessary
orders from the Court. The said order dated
30.05.2023 came to be challenged before this
Court in W.P. No.103449/2023 which came to
be disposed of by order dated 5.06.2023 with
the following directions:
i)The writ petition is allowed in part.
ii) Order dated 30.05.2023, passed by the
Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 in File
No. Kom/Devasthana/2023-24 is quashed to the
extent of directing the petitioner to approach this
Court to obtain order to perform the religious
rituals.
iii) The Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3
shall provide suitable protection for maintenance
of public peace and tranquility and would be at
liberty to impose or pass an order for maintenance
of public peace and tranquility including issuance
of an order under section 144 of Cr.P.C. to permit
the petitioner to conduct the rituals only with
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
regard to conducting of Aradhana of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu, on fifth, sixth and seventh
of June, 2023, at the Holy site of Moola
Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu in the
island of Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy. No.
192 of Anegundi.
iv) It is however made clear that this Court has
not expressed any opinion with regard to the
merits of the matter including other issues in
dispute other than conducting Aradhana of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu.
v) This Court also does not express any opinion
with regard to the question of rights of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu or rights of Shri
Jayateertharu in the Navabrindavana Gaddi. This
aspect would have to be decided in the pending
proceedings between the parties to the lis, if any.
vi) This Court further observes that in view of the
fact that both the parties are claiming lineage of
the great saint Shri Madhwacharya and adored by
several thousands of people, this Court hopes that
both the parties would maintain public peace and
tranquility for the religious rituals of Aradhana and
Shraddha being conducted in the said Brindavana
of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu of the Nava
Brindavana Gadde.
vii) All rights of the parties are kept open.
5.3. Subsequently, the Tahsildar made an order on
27.06.2023 stating that it was difficult to permit
both the Mutts to perform aradhana and pooja
which has been challenged before this court in
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
WP No. 103982 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103994 of 2023
the above writ petitions. This Court vide
common order dated 5.07.2023 passed the
following order:
ORDER
(i) The writ petitions are allowed in part with
following directions:
(ii) The impugned order dated 27.06.2023 passed
by the Tahashildar vide Annexure- is quashed.
(iii) The petitioners in Writ Petition
No.103982/2023 namely Shree Uttaradi Mutt shall
be entitled to celebrate Shree Raghuvarya
Teerthara Mahimotsava from 4th July to 7th July,
2023 (both days inclusive) at the Navabrindavana
Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Taluka-
Gangavati, District-Koppal.
(iv) The petitioners No.103994/2023 in Writ
Petition namely Shree Raghavendraswamy Mutt
shall be entitled to perform Aradhana of Shree
Jayateertharu for a period from 8th July to 10th
July 2023 (both days inclusive) at the
Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of
Anegundi, Taluka- Gangavati, District-Koppal.
(v) The respondent/State shall provide suitable
Police assistance and protection for the purpose of
maintaining public peace, morality, tranquility and
would be at liberty to impose the suitable orders to
maintain the public peace and tranquility or
discipline încluding issuance of an order under
Section 144 of Cr.P.C during the said period
mentioned hereinabove.
(vi) It is made clear that this Court has not
touched upon the merits and demerits of the case,
existence or otherwise of either Shree Raghuvarya
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Teertharu or Shri Jayateertharu in Navabrindavana
Gaddi which is being agitated before the RSA Court
as disputed question of fact and law are involved.
(vii) It is also made clear by virtue of this Court
granting reliefs to both parties, this order would
not in any way create a precedent for the
litigations if any arise between the parties as the
same will have to be adverted in the RSA
proceedings, wherein the larger issue between the
parties are pending consideration.
(viii) The directions issued to the respondent/State
shall be followed in stricto sensu, without any
violation and breach. Proper protection shall be
given to both parties devotees, followers for the
relevant dates mentioned hereinabove, failing
which, authorities will face serious repercussion
from this Court.
5.4. The said order dated 5.07.2023 having been
challenged in W.A. Nos.100390/2023 and
100391/2023, the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 31.08.2023 has been set-aside and
the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
The order dated 31.08.2023 reads as under:
ORDER
i) Both the writ appeals in WA No. 100390/2023 and
WA No. 100391/2023 are hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed in
W.P. No. 103982/2023 C/w W.P. No. 103994/2023
is hereby set- aside.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
iii) The matter is remitted back to the learned Single
Judge for reconsideration afresh in accordance with
law.
iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant as
well as respondent No.5 to produce additional
documents in support of their respective claims
including additional documents produced by the
appellant along with I.A. No. 5/2023.
v) Liberty is also reserved to the parties to file
objections, additional pleadings, counter affidavits
etc., in support of their
vi) respective claims. The parties are also at liberty
to file interlocutory application(s) in the Writ Petition
and seek suitable reliefs and also request the
learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal of the
matter.
vii) All rival contention between the parties on all
aspects of the matter including the several
contentions noted above are kept open and no
opinion is expressed on the same."
5.5. The submission made is that since both the
Mutts are seeking for permission to conduct
aradhana and pooja on the very same date or
same set of dates, it is difficult for the
administration to provide necessary protection
for the same day or set of dates and as such,
the administration will abide by any orders
passed by this Court.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
6. A co-ordinate bench of this court having partly
allowed the Writ Petitions filed by both Shri Uttaradi
Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt permitting
both the Mutts to perform their respective poojas at
different dates. The said order was taken on appeal
before the Division Bench by Shri Uttaradi Mutt, no
appeal having been filed by Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt, the Division Bench had remanded the
matter and hence, the petition is taken up for
consideration afresh.
7. Post the remand, Shri Uttaradi Mutt filed an
application seeking an amendment, which came to
be allowed, and in terms of the amendment petition,
the prayer sought is as follows:
b1) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ order or
direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent
nos.1 to 4 to prevent Respondent No 5, including its
followers, agents and office bearers and anybody
claiming through or under Respondent No.5 from
offering prayers or conducting any religious activity in
any form including Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja,
rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
name of Shri Jayateertharu at the Brindavana of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu at the Navabrindavana Gadde
situated on the island named 'NavaBrindavana Gadde",
bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist:
Koppal;
8. Subsequently, respondents Nos. 6 to 15 sought to be
impleaded in the present matter. The application was
rejected by the Single Bench. An appeal having been
filed before the Division Bench, the Division Bench
allowed the said application. Hence, an amendment
was carried out, bringing on record respondents Nos.
6 to 15, who also filed their statement of objections
and addressed their arguments opposing the
petition.
9. Respondents No.6 to 15 have filed their
objections contending that,
9.1. The writ petitions have become infructuous
since the prayer sought for originally do not
survive for consideration and the amended
relief at prayer B(i) is not tenable or
sustainable;
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
9.2. That relief sought for can only be granted by
the Civil Court in a properly instituted suit,
respondents No.6 to 15 have filed a suit in O.S.
No.35/2024 before the Prl. Civil Judge and
JMFC, Gangavati, who would consider the issue.
9.3. There is a civil dispute between the parties on
account of the filing of the suit. There being a
dispute as regards the identity of the
brindavana, evidence has to be led and
adjudication has to be made. They reiterate
the contentions of Shri Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu
and not Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu.
9.4. The so-called admission made by previous
pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is a
rebuttable one. The entire gazetteers have not
been produced, hence they cannot be relied
upon. There is discrepancy in the date of death
of Shri Jaya Teertharu, therefore the contents
cannot be believed.
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
9.5. Any order which is passed in the present
proceedings would affect respondents No.6 to
15 who have filed the suit and rights of private
parties are required to be adjudicated in a civil
proceedings and not a public remedy like a writ
petition.
9.6. A suit in O.S. No.35/2024 is filed by
Respondents 6 to 15 before the Prl. Civil Judge
and JMFC, Gangavati.
9.7. In the said plaint, it is contended that the
plaintiffs No.1 to 6 are the disciples of Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, plaintiff No.7 is the
disciple of Shri Uttaradi Mutt, plaintiff No.8 to
10 are disciples of Shri Vyasaraya Mutt. They
contend that in the Nava Brindavana Gadde
there are nine brindavanas as under:
1. Shri Padmanabha Teertharu (1324)
2. Shri Jaya Teertharu (1388)
3. Shri Kaveendra Teertharu (1398)
4. Shri Vageesha Teertharu (1406)
5. Shri Govinda Odeyar (1534)
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
6. Shri Vysararaj Teertharu (1539)
7. Shri Srinivas Teertharu (1564)
8. Shri Rama Teertharu (1584)
9. Shri Sudheendra Teertharu (1683)
9.8. Based on the above, it is contended that there
is no brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu
and that brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is
located at Nava Brindavana Gadde.
9.9. It is contended that the dispute as regards the
brindavana of Shri Padmanabha Teertharu,
Kaveendra Teertharu and Vageesha Teertharu
in a separate proceeding. They deny that Shri
Uttaradi Mutt is carrying on uninterrupted
parampara of Shri Madhwacharyaru.
References are made as regards the dates on
which aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu are to
be conducted. There are certain averments
made and references made to certain books to
lay a claim that the brindavana is that of Shri
Jaya Teertharu.
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
9.10. That the brindavanas located in Malkhed are
though of Shri Akshobhya Teertharu and Shri
Jaya Teertharu, they are Mrutika brindavanas.
They admit that the claim was made by Shri
Uttaradi Mutt for permitting to worship at the
said brindavanas and the said application came
to be rejected on account of the same being
under the control of Smt.Bhageerathi Bai,
Sinappa Achar and Raghappa Achar, however
subsequently in the year 1958 the same was
granted to Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Insofar as the
cause of action is concerned, it was contended
cause of action arose in the year 2022 when
Shri Uttaradi Mutt tried to prevent the aradhana
of Shri Jaya Teertharu by the plaintiffs and it
was contended by Shri Uttaradi Mutt that the
Mahimotsava of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu
would be conducted therein and it is in that
background seek the reliefs as sought for.
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
10. Shri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Shri Uttaradi
Mutt in WP No. 103982/2023 would submit that;
10.1. Respondent No.5- Shri. Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt has sought to prevent Shri. Uttaradi Mutt,
from carrying out the celebration of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu's Mahimotsava as also
carrying out aradhana puja, offering prayers,
etc., to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu requiring
Shri Uttaradi Mutt to approach the jurisdictional
authorities for police protection, which
application having been rejected Shri Uttaradi
Mutt is before this Court.
10.2. This is more so for the reason that Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had indicated that
they would conduct the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya
Teertharu at the same brindavana as that of
Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. There being only
one person who could occupy the brindavana.
Shri Uttaradi Mutt claiming that brindavana is
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu which is so
from time immemorial and all the poojas being
conducted as regards the said brindavana on
the basis that brindavana was of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu had filed an application
with the revenue officials for grant of necessary
police protection for carrying out aradhana of
Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu from 5.7.2023 to
7.07.2023.
10.3. There is an earlier round of litigation between
the parties in as much as Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt had filed W.P. No.102614/2022
and Shri Uttaradi Mutt had filed W.P.
No.103449/2023.
10.4. He submits that vide order dated 15.07.2022
and 5.06.2023, respectively, both the above
writ petitions came to be disposed of. In
W.P. No.103449/2023, the following directions
were issued:
Order
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
i) The writ petition is allowed in part.
ii) Order dated 30.05.2023, passed by the Assistant
Commissioner/respondent No.3 in File No.
Kom/Devasthana/2023-24 is quashed to the
extent of directing Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to approach
this Court to obtain order to perform the religious
rituals.
iii) The Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3
shall provide suitable protection for maintenance
of public peace and tranquility and would be at
liberty to impose or pass an order for
maintenance of public peace and tranquility
including issuance of an order under section 144
of Cr.P.C. to permit Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to conduct
the rituals only with regard to conducting of
Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, on fifth,
sixth and seventh of June, 2023, at the Holy site
of Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu in the island of Navabrindavana Gaddi
bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi.
iv) It is however made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion with regard to the merits
of the matter including other issues in dispute
other than conducting Aradhana of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu.
v) This Court also does not express any opinion with
regard to the question of rights of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu or rights of Shri
Jayateertharu in the Navabrindavana Gaddi. This
aspect would have to be decided in the pending
proceedings between the parties to the lis, if any.
vi) This Court further observes that in view of the fact
that both the parties are claiming lineage of the
great saint Shri Madhwacharya and adored by
several thousands of people, this Court hopes that
both the parties would maintain public peace and
tranquility for the religious rituals of Aradhana
and Shraddha being conducted in the said
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu of the
Nava Brindavana Gadde.
vii) All rights of the parties are kept open.
10.5. In furtherance of the above orders, Shri
Uttaradi Mutt performed the poojas for Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana
Gadde.
10.6. It is thereafter that once again the present
issue has arisen which resulted in both Shri
Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt filing the present Petitions. These Petitions
were earlier disposed by a co-ordinate bench on
5.07.2023 passed the order which is extracted
hereinabove.
10.7. Writ appeals being filed in W.A.
No.100390/2023 and 100391/2023, the
Division Bench vide its order 31.08.2023
disposed of both the writ appeals as under:
ORDER
i. Both the writ appeals in WA No.100390/2023
and WA No.100391/2023 are hereby allowed.
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
ii. The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed
in W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P.
No.103994/2023 is hereby set-aside.
iii. The matter is remitted back to the learned
Single Judge for reconsideration afresh in
accordance with law.
iv. Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant as
well as respondent No.5 to produce additional
documents in support of their respective claims
including additional documents produced by the
appellant along with I.A. No.5/2023.
v. Liberty is also reserved to the parties to file
objections, additional pleadings, counter
affidavits etc., in support of their respective
claims.
vi. The parties are also at liberty to file
interlocutory application(s) in the Writ Petition
and seek suitable reliefs and also request the
learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal of
the matter.
vii. All rival contention between the parties on all
aspects of the matter including the several
contentions noted above are kept open and no
opinion is expressed on the same.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do
not survive for consideration and are disposed of
accordingly.
10.8. It is in the above background that the
Amendment was sought by Shri Uttaradi Mutt
to include prayer b(1); Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt has not filed any application for
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
amendment or otherwise as permitted by the
Hon'ble division bench.
10.9. Tracing the history of the dispute he submits
that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed an
application before the Munsiff, Gangavati on
12.03.1959 categorically stating as under:
ಷಯ:- ಆ ೆಗುಂ ಯ ತುಂ ಾಭದ ನ ಯ ಮಧ ದ ರುವ ಸ ೆ
ನಂಬ 192 ನವ ಬೃಂ ಾವನ ಗ ಯನು! "ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄUÀrØ"
ಎಂದು ¥ÀmÁÖ $ಾಡುವ ಷಯದ .
$ಾನ &ೇ
ಆ ೆಗುಂ ಯ ತುಂ ಾಭದ ಪ ಾಹದ ಮಧ ದ ಸ ೆ
ನಂಬ 192 AiÀÄಕ&ೆ 14-7ರ (ನವ ಬೃಂ ಾವನ ಗ ಯ ) ªÀiÁzsÀé
ಸಂಪ ಾಯದ ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄಗಳ ,ೕ-ಾ ಪ.ಗಳ/ ಒಂಬತು1
ಮ2ಾಮ3ಮರ ಬೃಂ ಾವನಗಳ/ ಇ ೆ.
5 ೕ ಮ6ಾ78ಾಯ ರ ಮುಖ ಸಂ:ಾ;ನ ಾದ ನಂಜನಗೂಡು
5 ೕ &ಾಘ ೇಂದ ¸Áé«ÄUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ¦ÃoÁ¢ü¥ÀwUÀ¼ÁwzÀÄÝ 1. 5 ೕ
ಪದ? ಾಭ .ೕಥ ರು 2. 5 ೕ ಕ ೕಂದ .ೕಥ 3. 5 ೕ ಾ ೇA
.ೕಥ ರು 2ಾಗು 4. ಸುBೕಂದ .ೕಥ ರು 3ೕ ೆ ಾಲುD ಜನ
ಮ2ಾಮ3ಮರು ಇ ಬೃಂ ಾವನಸ;&ಾE ಾF&ೆ ಈ ಾಲುD
AiÀÄwUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ಆ&ಾಧ ೆ 2ಾಗು ಈ ತರ ವ ವ:ೆ;ಗಳನು!
3ಂ Hಂದಲೂ 5 ೕ &ಾಘ ೇಂದ :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ ,ೕ-ಾBಪ.ಗJೇ
$ಾಡುKಾ1&ೆ.
:ೋಸLೆ5 ೕ ಾ ಸ&ಾಜ ಮ-ಾBೕಶ&ಾEದF ಜಯನಗರದ
ರತ!Nಂ2ಾಸ ಾBೕಶ&ಾEಕೃಷO ೇವ&ಾಯನ ಕುಲ ಗುರುಗJಾEದF 1.
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
5 ೕ ಾ ಸ&ಾಜರು 2. 5 ೕ 5 ೕH ಾಸ .ೕಥ ರು 2ಾಗು 3. 5 ೕ
&ಾಮಚಂದ .ೕಥ ರು 3ೕ ೆ ಮೂರು ಜನ ಮ2ಾನುQಾವರು ಇ
ಬೃಂ ಾವನಸ;&ಾE ಾF&ೆ ಇ ಯ Rಾವತು1 ವ ವ:ೆ; 5ೕ
ಾ ಸ&ಾಯರ ಮಠTೆD :ೇU ಾFE ೆ.
5 ೕ ಉತ1&ಾ ಮಠದ 5 ೕ ರಘW .ೕಥ ರ ಬೃಂ ಾವನವX
ಇ ೆ3ೕ ೆ ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5 ೕ &ಾಘ ೇಂದ :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ ಮಠ
ಮತು1 :ೋಸLೆ ಾ ಸ&ಾಜರ ಮಠದ ಬೃಂ ಾವನಗJೇ ಇ 2ೆಚುY
ಇದು ಅ ಾ Tಾಲ ಂದಲೂ ಈ ಸ;ಳವX 5ೕ &ಾಘ ೇಂದ
:ಾ7Iಗಳವರ 2ಾಗು 5 ೕ ಾ ಸ&ಾಜರ ಮಠTೆD :ೇU ಾFE ೆ
ಅ ಾ ಗು ಈಗ ಇದನು! ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄUÀrØ ಎಂದು ¥ÀmÁÖ $ಾ N
ಮೂರು ಮಠಗಳ :ಾ7Iತ ದ ಡಲು ಇ[YಸುKೆ1ೕ ೆ.
ಅದTಾDE ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5 ೕ &ಾಘ ೇಂದ :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ
ಮಠ :ೋಸLೆ 5 ೕ ಾ ಸ&ಾಜರ ಮಠ 2ಾಗು 5 ೕ ಉತ1&ಾ
ಮಠ 3ೕ ೆ ಮೂರು ಮಠಗಳ 2ೆಸU ೆ ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄUÀrØ ಎಂದು
ಸ ೆ ನಂಬ 192 AiÀÄಕ&ೆ 14-7 ರೂ\ಾ] 17-00 ಆTಾರªÀżÀî
ನವ ಬೃಂ ಾವನ ಗ ಯನು! ¥ÀmÁÖ $ಾಡ^ೇTೆಂದು ^ೇ Tೆ.
ಗಂ ಾವ.
ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5 ೕ &ಾಘ ೇಂದ :ಾ7Iಗಳ/
ಮಠದ ಪರ ಾE
ಸ3
ಜಯ&ಾಂ ಸರ _ೋ`
10.10. He submits that even in this representation
there is no claim made by Shri Raghavendra
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Swamy Mutt that the Brindavana of Shri Jaya
Teertharu is at the Nava Brindavana Gadde,
more importantly he submits that there is an
admission that the brindavana of Shri
Raghuvara Teertharu is at Nava Brindavana
Gadde.
10.11. It is in view of the above representation that
the Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was constrained to file a
suit in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 against defendant
No.1 being Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt,
defendant No.2 being Shri. Vyasarayaru Mutt of
Sosale, defendants No. 3 and 4 being the
representatives of the above Mutts. In the said
suit, Shri Uttaradi Mutt had prayed for
declaration to the effect that the Shri Uttaradi
Mutt is the sole owner of the land in S.No.192
(Old S.No.239) measuring 14 acres 7 guntas,
situated at Anegundi village and to enter the
plaintiff-Shri Uttaradi Mutt's name in the
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
mutation register, revenue records by deleting
the name of the defendants No.1 and 2.
10.12. His submission is that as per the representation
made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt before
the Munsiff, Gangavathi, it is clear that even as
per Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu's brindavana, is located
in Sy.No.192, Anegundi.
10.13. In the said suit, a written statement came to be
filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which
reads as under:
Copy of the Additional Written Statement
In the Court of Munciff at Gangavathi in
O.S.No.65/1 of 1959-60
H.S. Stya Pramooda Teertharu......... Pltf
vs
H.H. Suyanendra Tirtharu & others.... Defts.
In the above case the defendants 1 and 2 submit
their additional written statement as follows:-
Under Order VIII R. 9 of CPC:
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
1.- It is specifically denied that the plaintiff
holiness has inherited the suit land through
succession as he is put to strict proof of the same
and further it is denied that he is the owner and
possessor of the suit land.
2. That there are nine (9) holy Brindavanas among
them the Moola Brindavana of Shri Vyasaraja Matt,
Shri. Vyasarayaru is situated. Including Moola
Brindavana there are five Brindavanas of Shri
Vyasaraya Mutt i.e, Vyasarayaru, Srinivas Tirtharu
Rama Thirtharu, Govinda Tirtharu (Govinda
Vadiyaru) and Padmanabha Tirtharu
(Padmanabharu comes to the common i.e, D.1 and
and 2). There are three Holi brindavanas
belonging to Deft. No. 1's Mutt they are
Ravindra Tirtharu, Vageesha Tirtharu and
Sudhendra Tirtharu. The plaintiff with mala fide
intention has preferred to mention in the rejoinder
para no. 7 that the Holy Brindavans are not in the
possession of the defendants 1 and 2. On the
contrary the plaintiff. has never been in possession
of the same. Since time immemorial the
defendants 1 and 2 are in possession of the Holy
Brindavans by performing Pujas and Aradhanas as
owners and possessors till to this day.
3. That the plaintiff ought to have submitted the
records at the time of filing the suit. But the late
production of the documents at the time of
rejoinder and further no proper reasons are shown
for their late production, hence they are liable to
be rejected.
4. That the orders passed by the Nasim samsthan
Anegundi in the year 1351 F. is conclusive and the
same is in consonance with the law and procedure,
which not be deemed to be set aside under law.
The subsequent orders. of Nasim as allege in para
no. 4 of rejoinder passed in the year 1355 F. to
which these defendants deny is without jurisdiction
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
as the said order had been passed ignoring the law
of limitation and procedure prevailent then..
Further the order of Rajasab and restoration of
patta as alleged do not stand in the eye of law,
and hence denied specifically.
5. That these defendants 1 and 2 specifically deny
the right and title of the plaintiff over the suit land
and the plaintiff bound to prove all the allegations
made in para 8 of the rejoinder. That the factum of
purchase by H.H. Satya Dhanaru is false and
hence denied. The plaintiff is not entitled to lead
secondary evidence. The peshkar Krishn Rao as
alleged in the sale deed was not a owner and
possessor of the suit land and hence denied.
6. That the rejoinder has not been signed either by
the plaintiff's holiness or by his authorised agent
hence the same is liable to be rejected.
7. That the defendants 1 and 2 have appointed D.
3 and D.4 as their respective agents as such they
are entitled to appear and allegation in para 9
rejoinder is vague.
Hence it is prayed that the suit be dismissed with
costs.
Defendants 1 and 2..
1. His Holiness Suyamendra Thirtharu
through Agent Jayaramachar Sir
Joshi Sd/- in Hindi.
2. His Holiness Vidya Prasanna
Theertharu through: Agent
Hanumanthacharya Sir joshi.
Sd/- in Kannada.
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
It is to certify on oath this day that the contents of
additional W/s are true and correct to the best of
our knowledge and belief.
Defendants 1 and 2.
1. His Holiness Suyamendra
Thirtharu through agent
Jayaramachar Sir Joshi
Sd/- in Hindi.
2. His Holiness Vidya Prasanna
Teertharu through Agent
Hanmanthacharya Sir joshi.
Sd/- in Kannada.
Dt: 29.11.60.
Through:
Sd/-Pleader.
10.14. Even in the written statement, it is clearly
admitted by both Shri. Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt and Shri. Vyasaraya Mutt that there are
nine holy brindavanas at Anegundi, the moola
brindavana of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is situate
there. Apart from moola brindavana of Shri.
Srinivasa, Shri. Rama, Shri. Govinda (Govinda
Wodeyaru) and Shri. Padmanabha Teertharu,
as also Shri. Raveendra, Shri. Vageesha and
Shri. Sudheendra Teertharu are situated
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
therein. At no place in the written statement, a
claim is made as regards the existence of the
Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava
Brindavana Gadde.
10.15. In the said suit, evidence of Shri. Sujayendra
Teertharu, the Peetadhipati of Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt was led on 24.12.1967. In his
deposition, he stated that the island is the
property of all three Mutts, and there are
brindavanas in all three Mutts situated therein.
The nine brindavanas are as follows:
10. Shri Padmanabha Teertharu
11. Shri Kavindra Teertharu
12. Shri Vagisha Teertharu
13. Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu
14. Shri Sudhindra Teertharu
15. Shri Vyasarayaru (Vysararaj Teertharu)
16. Shri Srinivas Teertharu
17. Shri Rama Teertharu
18. Shri Govindawadiyaru.
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
10.16. Out of the said brindavanas, Shri Padmanabha
Teertharu is common to all the three Mutts,
Shri Kaveendra and Shri Vageesha Teertharu
are common to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt
and Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu is solely that of Shri Uttaradi Mutt,
Shri Sudheendra Teertharu is that of Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Govinda
Wodeyaru, Shri. Srinivasa and Shri. Rama
Teertharu are exclusively that of Shri.
Vyasaraya Mutt.
10.17. By relying on the above, Shri. Ameet Kumar
Deshpande submits that even as per the
Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt
in his deposition tendered on 24.12.1967 the
moola brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu
was located in Anegundi. Furthermore there is
no claim made that the brindavana of Shri Jaya
Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde.
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
10.18. The suit that was filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt
was decreed and Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was
declared to be the sole and absolute owner of
Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village vide Judgment
and decree dated 13.03.1968.
10.19. Thus, his contention is that the entire property
belongs to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, of course he
submits that poojas could be performed by
other Mutts of their respective predecessor
Gurus.
10.20. An appeal having been filed against the decree,
the appeal also came to be dismissed on
2.02.1972; thereafter, no challenge was made,
and as such, it attained finality.
10.21. In the year 1991, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt sought to interfere with Shri. Uttaradi Mutt
performing pooja and aradhana at Anegundi;
hence, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was constrained to
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
file one more suit seeking a permanent
injunction against Shri. Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt from interfering with the aradhana of Shri.
Padmanabha, Shri. Kaveendra and Shri.
Vageesha Teertharu, which was defended by
Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt by filing written
statement contending that they also have the
right to perform aradhana of the said
Teertharu.
10.22. His submission is that there is no mention made
of Shri Jaya Teertharu in the written statement,
nor is any claim made by Shri. Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt that there is a brindavana of Shri.
Jaya Teertharu as regards whom they have to
perform pooja and aradhana.
10.23. His submission is that in none of the above
proceedings the dispute centered around the
identity of the brindavana and never was there
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
any assertion made that it belongs to Shri. Jaya
Teertharu.
10.24. It is only now that a departure is sought to be
made contending that the brindavana of Shri.
Jaya Teertharu is situated in Nava Brindavana
Gadde, by wrongly contending that the
Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is
that of Shri Jaya Teertharu which cannot be so
made. It was always understood that the
brindavana was that of Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu, it is only now that an assertion is
made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that it
is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Therefore, it is
for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish
that brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu
which it has failed to do so and until they do so,
Shri. Uttaradi Mutt ought to be permitted to
perform pooja and aradhana of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu at his brindavana.
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
10.25. In the year 2022, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt filed W.P. No.102614/2022, and for the
first time in a court proceeding, it was claimed
that there is a brindavana of Shri. Jaya
Teertharu in Sy. No.192 of Anegundi, which is
known as Nava Brindavana Gadde. This court,
vide its order dated 15.07.1952, held that there
is nothing to show on record that Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had conducted
aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava
Brindavana Gadde, which order has attained
finality.
10.26. Shri. Uttaradi Mutt had filed W.P.
No.103449/2023 wherein this court permitted
Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to conduct aradhana of Shri
Raghuvaryaya Teertharu which order has
attained finality.
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
10.27. He submits that offerings of prayers to former
gurus is an essential religious custom of
Madhva community, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and its
followers are bound to offer prayers to Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu as regards whom they
have been offering prayers for centuries. Merely
because now Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is
making a new claim without the establishment
of such a claim, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt cannot be
deprived of performing pooja which they have
been doing for centuries. What Shri. Uttaradi
Mutt have sought for in the present petition is
only for police help to carry out the poojas as
required and as done in the past and now due
to the obstruction held out by Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt necessary police
help is sought for. If not for the said
obstruction, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt would not have
approached the authorities and on their refusal
this court.
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
10.28. The brindavana being the final resting place of a
saint belonging to Madhva community, there is
only one saint who could be said to be in the
said Brindavana and as per Shri. Uttaradi Mutt,
it is Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu's brindavana.
The Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is near
Malkhed, Kalaburagi where prayers are offered
in his name.
10.29. He relies upon a Judgment in S.Rangaraj -v-
P.Jagjeeva1 more particularly, para 51 thereof
to contend that the State is required to protect
fundamental rights. Para 51 thereof is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
51. We are amused yet troubled by the
stand taken by the State Government with
regard to the film which has received the
National Award. We want to put the anguished
question, what good is the protection of
freedom of expression if the State does not take
care to protect it? If the film, is unobjectionable
and cannot constitutionally be restricted under
Article 19(2), freedom of expression cannot be
suppressed on account of threat of
demonstration and processions or threats of
1989(2) SCC 574
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
violence. That would tantamount to negation of
the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and
intimidation. It is the duty of the State to
protect the freedom of expression since it is a
liberty guaranteed against the State. The State
cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile
audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to
prevent it and protect the freedom of
expression.
10.30. By relying on S.Rangaraj's case, his
submission is that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has a
right to offer prayers at the Brindavana of Shri.
Raghuvara Teertharu. This right would be
negated if the obstruction held out by Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not dealt with in a
proper and required manner by the
jurisdictional police by offering necessary
protection to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt. The right of
Shri. Uttaradi Mutt will be frustrated if the
authorities, including the police authorities, do
not assist Shri. Uttaradi Mutt in asserting such
a right.
10.31. In order to further establish that the brindavana
of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is not at Nava
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Brindavana Gadde, he submits that judicial
notice could be taken under Section 56 of the
Evidence Act that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya
Teertharu is at Malkhed, Kalaburagi which is
recorded not only in the commentaries of
Madhva faith but also in various gazetteers
which have been published by the State.
10.32. In this regard he relies upon the Mysore
Gazetteer, 1966, Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka
Gazeteer, Dharwad District, publication of
Karnataka Tourism Dept., Gulbarga district and
Gazetteer of India, Karnataka State published
by government of Karnataka.
10.33. These publications in the Gazetteers along with
deposition of Peetadhipathi of Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in O.S.
No.65/1/1959-60, he submits is a conclusive
proof that Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu's
brindavana is located in Nava Brindavana
- 53 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Gadde, Anegundi and that of Shri. Jaya
Teertharu is located in Malkhed, Kalaburagi.
10.34. He relies upon the following decisions:
10.35. In Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das v.
Surjanarayan Das2, more particularly para 25
thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
25. It is urged for the appellant that what is stated
in the Gazetter cannot be treated as evidence.
These statements in the Gazetter are not relied on
as evidence of title but as providing historical
material and the practice followed by the math and
its head. The Gazetteer can be consulted on
matters of public history.
10.36. Relying on the decision in Surjanarayan Das
case, submission is that though what is stated
in a gazetteer cannot be considered evidence
but the statement made in the Gazetteer can
be regarded as historical material and of public
history. These aspects if taken into
consideration, and judicial notice is taken under
1966 Supp SCR 436
- 54 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Section 56 of the Evidence Act, the Gazetteer
would establish that the brindavana is that of
Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and not of Shri.
Jaya Teertharu and any assertion made
contrary thereto would have to be established
by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt.
10.37. In ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit
Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.3, particularly
paras 15 to 19 thereof, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
15. The learned counsel then contending that this
Court will not entertain a writ petition involving
disputed questions of fact relied on a judgment of
this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics
and Chemicals Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 216] wherein this
Court held: (SCC p. 218, para 7)
"7. In our view, it is apparent that the
order passed by the High Court is, on the
face of it, illegal and erroneous. It is true
that many matters could be decided after
referring to the contentions raised in the
affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that
would hardly be a ground for exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution in case of alleged breach
of contract. Whether the alleged non-
(2004) 3 SCC 553
- 55 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
supply of road permits by the appellants
would justify breach of contract by the
respondent would depend upon facts and
evidence and is not required to be decided
or dealt with in a writ petition. Such
seriously disputed questions or rival claims
of the parties with regard to breach of
contract are to be investigated and
determined on the basis of evidence which
may be led by the parties in a properly
instituted civil suit rather than by a court
exercising prerogative of issuing writs."
16. A perusal of this judgment though shows that a
writ petition involving serious disputed questions of
facts which requires consideration of evidence which
is not on record, will not normally be entertained by
a court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. This decision again,
in our opinion, does not lay down an absolute rule
that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact
the parties should be relegated to a civil suit. In this
view of ours, we are supported by a judgment of this
Court in the case of Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal
Committee, Bhatinda [(1969) 3 SCC 769] where
dealing with such a situation of disputed questions of
fact in a writ petition this Court held: (SCC p. 774,
paras 14-16)
"14. The High Court observed that they
will not determine disputed question of
fact in a writ petition. But what facts were
in dispute and what were admitted could
only be determined after an affidavit-in-
reply was filed by the State. The High
Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the
petition in limine. The High Court is not
deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a
petition under Article 226 merely because
in considering the petitioner's right to
- 56 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
relief questions of fact may fall to be
determined. In a petition under Article 226
the High Court has jurisdiction to try
issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the
jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but
the discretion must be exercised on sound
judicial principles. When the petition raises
questions of fact of a complex nature,
which may for their determination require
oral evidence to be taken, and on that
account the High Court is of the view that
the dispute may not appropriately be tried
in a writ petition, the High Court may
decline to try a petition. Rejection of a
petition in limine will normally be justified,
where the High Court is of the view that
the petition is frivolous or because of the
nature of the claim made dispute sought
to be agitated, or that the petition against
the party against whom relief is claimed is
not maintainable or that the dispute raised
thereby is such that it would be
inappropriate to try it in the writ
jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.
15. From the averments made in the
petition filed by the appellants it is clear
that in proof of a large number of
allegations the appellants relied upon
documentary evidence and the only matter
in respect of which conflict of facts may
possibly arise related to the due
publication of the notification under
Section 4 by the Collector.
16. In the present case, in our judgment,
the High Court was not justified in
dismissing the petition on the ground that
it will not determine disputed question of
fact. The High Court has jurisdiction to
- 57 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
determine questions of fact, even if they
are in dispute and the present, in our
judgment, is a case in which in the
interests of both the parties the High Court
should have entertained the petition and
called for an affidavit-in-reply from the
respondents, and should have proceeded
to try the petition instead of relegating the
appellants to a separate suit."
17. The above judgment of Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3
SCC 769] finds support from another judgment of
this Court in the case of Century Spg. and Mfg. Co.
Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council [(1970) 1 SCC
582] wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 587, para 13)
"Merely because a question of fact is raised, the High
Court will not be justified in requiring the party to
seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and
expensive process by a civil suit against a public
body. The questions of fact raised by the petition in
this case are elementary."
18. This observation of the Court was made while
negating a contention advanced on behalf of the
respondent Municipality which contended that the
petition filed by the appellant Company therein
apparently raised questions of fact which argument
of the Municipality was accepted by the High Court
holding that such disputed questions of fact cannot
be tried in the exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But
this Court held otherwise.
19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation
of law that merely because one of the parties to the
litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the
case, the court entertaining such petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to
relegate the parties to a suit. In the above case of
- 58 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC 769] this Court even
went to the extent of holding that in a writ petition, if
the facts require, even oral evidence can be taken.
This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the
writ court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ
petition involving disputed questions of fact and
there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ
petition even if the same arises out of a contractual
obligation and/or involves some disputed questions
of fact.
10.38. By relying on the decision in ABL
International's case, he submits that it is not
in all cases where there are disputed questions
of fact, would the writ court refuse to exercise
jurisdiction. It is only disputed question of fact
that require a trial to be held that the court
could refuse to entertain jurisdiction. In the
present matter, it is undisputed that Shri.
Raghuvara Teertharu's brindavana is at
Anegundi which is admitted by Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, it is only in the year
1985 that the former pontiff of Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt on his deathbed had
- 59 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
indicated that he was mistaken to believe the
brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu to be that of
Shri. Raghuvara Teetharu, and as such, he had
instructed his disciples to perform the aradhana
of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana
Gadde. His submission is that until the year
1985 there was no dispute and even the pontiff
of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and the Mutt
by itself had accepted and asserted that the
said Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvara
Teertharu. If that be so, for the first time an
assertion being made in the year 1985 to the
contrary it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt to establish the assertion in a suit to be
filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, it
cannot therefore be contended that it is for
Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file such a suit.
- 60 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
10.39. In Tejraj-President, Jain Sangh v. State
(M.B.) & Collector4, particularly para 10
thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
19.The Supreme Court then, after indicating the
question involved in the case, said that all
those questions should be decided in a
properly constituted suit in a Civil Court rather
than in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It is thus clear that the power
under Article 226 ought not to be exercised if
the right which the Petitioner is seeking to
enforce depends on facts which are complex
and disputed and which have to be
established. The dispute as to the facts
persuading the High Court to decline to
exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution must, however, be real and
substantial. It must be with regard to
perception of facts as distinguished from their
evaluation. The rule that the High Court should
not in an application under Article 226 embark
on an investigation into the disputed facts and
materials for determining whether the
Petitioner Mutt has the right which he is
seeking to enforce, cannot apply where the
doubt or dispute is as to the construction of a
document or a judicial order or as to the effect
and meaning of a record. Again, the mere
statement of the opponent in a petition under
Article 226 challenging the correctness of the
facts averred by the suppliant and saying that
he is in possession of documents and materials
to contradict the statements made by the
Petitioner is not sufficient for holding that the
case is of the type in which facts have to be
established. If such a statement is accepted as
sufficient to decline to exercise power under
1957 SCC OnLine MP 81
- 61 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Article 226 then the opponent in a petition
under Article 226 and not the Court would be
the arbiter of the question whether the case is
of a type where questions of facts have to be
established. The opponent is under an
obligation to produce sufficient material to
satisfy the Court that there does exist a real
and serious dispute as to the facts on which
the Petitioner concerned bases his rights
sought to be enforced. As will be shown
presently, in this case there is no such dispute
as to the material facts. When the right sought
to be enforced is clear and undisputable and is
a fundamental right, the Petitioner cannot be
directed to avail himself of the remedy of a
suit (see Himmatlal v. State of Madhya
Pradesh [AIR 1954 SC 403.] and Mahabir
Prasad v. B.S. Gupta, Sales Tax Officer,
Indore [1957 M.P. Cases 214.]
10.40. By relying on Jain Sangh's case, he submits
that a dispute has been raised by Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt subsequently, and
the dispute is not on account of Shri. Uttaradi
Mutt. Accepted facts which were admitted by
the pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt
was that the brindavana is that of Shri.
Raghuvara Teertharu. It is only after 1985 that
the said aspect has been disputed and recently
that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has
- 62 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
obstructed Shri. Uttaradi Mutt offering pooja,
aradhana, etc. for Shri. Raghuvarya Rayaru
contending that the brindavana is that of Shri.
Jaya Teertharu.
10.41. On the basis of the above, he submits that Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt itself has admitted at
an undisputed point of time that the brindavana
is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has now only with
the intention of creating problems and
obstacles in Shri. Uttaradi Mutt performing
required poojas is contending that the
brindavana is that of Shri Jaya Teertharu
requiring Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to approach Courts
of law for protection being a law abiding entity.
If not for the obstructions held out by Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt
would not have approached this court.
- 63 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
10.42. The Brindavana where aradhana and puja was
being performed for the last several centuries is
that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and it is
only now that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt
has sought to contend that the said Brindavana
is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. It is for Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish the
same by cogent evidence and it is for Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to seek for a
declaration in a properly instituted suit that the
Brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. The
status-quo as prevalent now is that the
Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya
Teertharu and as such, it does not now lie for
Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to contend that
it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to establish the
Brindavana to be of Shri. Raghuvarya
Teertharu.
- 64 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
10.43. His submission is that it is only in the Nirupa
issued by the Peetadhipathi that the
Peetadhipathi has stated that he was under
mistaken belief that the Brindavana is that of
the Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu when in
actuality it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. This
alleged mistaken belief having been acted upon
for at last four hundred and more years and the
aradhana being performed as that of Shri.
Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is only in the year
1985 that the Nirupa was issued just prior to
the death of the Peetadhipati. This cannot be a
ground for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to
contend that the Brindavana is that of Shri.
Jaya Teertharu.
10.44. For centuries, these prayers being offered at
the Brindavana to Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu.
It is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and
their followers who have impleaded themselves
- 65 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
as respondents No.6 to 15 to establish it, to the
contrary. The suit having been filed by
respondents No.6 to 15, until a decision is
rendered in the said suit, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt
ought to be permitted to offer prayers for Shri.
Raghuvarya Teertharu in Navabrindavana
Gadde.
10.45. The offering of prayers to the former gurus and
saints is a fundamental religious practice of the
Madhwa community, as such, Shri. Uttaradi
Mutt whose saint is Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu.
It is the bounden duty of all followers of Shri.
Uttaradi Mutt to offer prayers to Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu during the important
events of his lifetime, and if such poojas are not
offered, it would amount to disrespect to that
saint, which is not in the interest of the Mutt
and/or the followers of the Mutt. The poojas
having been offered for centuries to Shri.
- 66 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Raghuvarya Teertharu, the followers of Shri.
Uttaradi Mutt having followed and
implemented, the belief that the Brindavana is
that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is also a
bounden duty on the part of the said followers
to see to it that the said Brindavana is not
treated as that of anyone else and that only
pooja of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is offered
in the said Brindavana.
10.46. The Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu,
being situated in Navabrindavana Gadde, is
established by the evidence of the
Peetadhipathi of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt in O.S.No.65/1/1959-60 wherein the name
of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu has been
mentioned by the said Peetadhipathi.
10.47. Even in O.S.No.193/1992, Shri. Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt, in its evidence, has categorically
stated that the Brindavana is that of Shri.
- 67 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Raghuvarya Teertharu. This aspect is reflected
in the Karnataka Toursim Gazetteer, Gulbarga
Region (Anegundi). Similarly, it is also
established by the very same documents that
the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is not at
Navabrindavana Gadde. The Mysore State
Gazetteer published in the year 1966 indicates
and establishes that the Brindavana of Shri.
Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, Kalaburagi. The
Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka, Dharwad District
also speaks of the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya
Teertharu being situated in Malkhed. The
Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga Region
as also the Gazetteer of India, Karnataka State
Gazetteer, Government of Karnataka indicates
that Shri. Jaya Teertharu's Brindavana is at
Malkhed, Kalaburagi. The Brindavana of Shri.
Raghuvarya Teertharu being at Nava
Brindavana Gadde cannot be disputed. Once it
is established that Shri. Jaya Teertharu's
- 68 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Brindavana is situated at Malkhed, Kalaburagi,
there cannot be another Brindavana of Shri.
Jaya Teertharu at Navabrindavana Gadde.
Furthermore, it cannot be contended by Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that the Brindavana
of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is that of Shri.
Jaya Teertharu since there cannot be two saints
who occupy the same Brindavana. On the basis
of the above, the submission of Sri.Amit Kumar
Deshpande is that the writ petition filed by Shri
Uttaradi Mutt has to be allowed and the writ
petition filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt
has to be dismissed.
11. Shri. Prabhuling Navadgi, learned Senior counsel for
respondent No.5-Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt
would submit that,
11.1. It is only the amended prayer B(i) in
W.P.No.103982/2023 which is required to be
considered by this Court. Other prayers having
- 69 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
been rendered infructuous due to the passage
of time, he submits that interim prayer and
final prayer, being one and the same, cannot be
granted.
11.2. He denies that there is any admission made by
Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as regards the
existence of the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu at Navabrindavana Gadde and
submits that there is a lot of research which
has happened which would indicate otherwise.
11.3. Shri. Vadirajaru, a pontiff of Sodi Mutt, Udupi,
had written a book indicating the existence of
the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava
brindavana Gadde, one Shri. BNK Sharma,
scholar in his treatise History of Dvaita School
of Vedanta and his literature, also recognised
that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is
located at Nava Brindavana Gadde.
- 70 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
11.4. Another researcher M.R.Anantha Padmanabha
Rao also recognizes that the Brindavana of
Shri. Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava
Brindavana Gadde.
11.5. Shri. Sannur Bheema Bhat has translated the
Sanskrit work of Shri. Vadirajaru mentioned
earlier into Kannada which records the
existence of Shri. Jaya Teertharu's Brindavana
at Navabrindavana Gadde.
11.6. It is further claimed that Shri. T.K.Venugopala
Dasaru who has done research on Dasa
Parampara has also written a booklet on Srimad
Jaya Theerta Moola Brindavana which is stated
to be situate at Navabrindavana Gadde.
11.7. The government of Karnataka while celebrating
Anegundi Utsava had also published a souvenir
authored by Sharana Basappa Kolkar that Shri.
- 71 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Jaya Teertharu's brindavana is at Nava
Brindavana Gadde, hence, his submission is
that in the light of these scholars having written
and having published works indicating Shri.
Jaya Teertharu's brindavana being located at
Nava Brindavana Gadi, the so-called admission
on part of the then Peetadhipathi of Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt cannot be the basis
for the claim of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt.
11.8. His submission is that there being a dispute as
regards whose brindavana is located at Nava
brindavana Gadde, it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt
to file a suit in relation thereto and only on a
determination of the matter by a Civil Court,
could the matter be laid to rest and a claim
made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt be considered.
11.9. The aspect of whether Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is the
owner of Sy.No.192; he submits that another
- 72 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
matter is pending consideration before this
court, in RSA No.100446/2015, which would
have to decide on that aspect. He submits that
the suit in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60 has no
relevance for this case.
11.10. He relies upon the following decisions:
11.11. In Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran
Mar Marthoma5, particularly paragraphs 37
and 89 thereof which are reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
37. It was vehemently urged that declaration of the
character of a church, viz., whether it was
autocephalous was solely dependent upon the
canonical laws and it necessarily involved an
adjudication of what was the applicable canon,
what was its interpretation and what are the
religious beliefs, practices, customs and usage in
the church which pertained to the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction and the civil courts could not embark on
such an enquiry. This is the farthest or the highest
stand that could be taken by the appellant. The
answer is twofold, one Section 9 of the Civil
Procedure Code and other Article 25 of the
Constitution. The latter guarantees constitutionally
freedom of conscience and the right freely to
1995 Supp (4) SCC 286
- 73 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
profess, practise and propagate religion to every
person. Its reach has been explained in various
decisions. In His Holiness Srimad Perarulala
Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami v. State of T.N.
[Seshammal v. State of T.N., (1972) 2 SCC 11 sub
nom His Holiness Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja
Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami v. State of T.N., AIR 1972
SC 1586] it was held that this article guarantees
freedom to practise rituals and ceremonies which
are integral parts of a religion. In Rev. Stainislaus
v. State of M.P. [(1977) 1 SCC 677 : 1977 SCC
(Cri) 147 : AIR 1977 SC 908] it was held that right
to practise and propagate not only matters of faith
or belief but all those rituals and practices which
are regarded as integral parts of a religion by the
followers of a doctrine. In S.P. Mittal v. Union of
India [(1983) 1 SCC 51 : AIR 1983 SC 1] it was
held that freedom or right involving the conscience
must naturally receive a wide interpretation. The
suit filed was thus maintainable. The injunction and
prohibition sought from interfering in administration
of Church are certainly matters which pertain to the
religious office. Even the declaration that the
Church is episcopal is covered in the expansive
expression of religion as explained in Mittal case
[(1983) 1 SCC 51 : AIR 1983 SC 1] . The word
'episcopal' means "of or pertaining to bishops,
having a government vested in bishop". A suit for
declaration of such a right would be maintainable
under Section 9. Not only because it is claim to an
office but also because there is no other forum
where such dispute can be resolved. If a dispute
arises whether a particular religious shrine has
ceased to be so due to its anti-religion activities
then the followers of that religion or belief and faith
cannot be denied the right to approach the court.
Explanation I is not restrictive of the right or
matters pertaining to religion. It only removes the
doubt to enable the courts to entertain suits where
dispute about religious office is involved. The right
- 74 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
to religion having become fundamental right, it
would include the right to seek declaration that the
Church was episcopal. But the court may refrain
from adjudicating upon purely religious matters as
it may be handicapped to enter into the hazardous
hemisphere of religion. Maintainability of the suit
should not be confused with exercise of jurisdiction.
Nor is there any merit in the submission that
Explanation I could not save suits where the right
to property or to an office was not contested or
where the said right depended on decisions of
questions as to religious faith, belief, doctrine or
creed. The emphasis on the expression "is
contested" used in Explanation I is not of any
consequence. It widens the ambit of the
Explanation and includes in its fold any right which
is contested to be a right of civil nature even
though such right may depend on decisions of
questions relating to religious rights or ceremonies.
But from that it cannot be inferred that where the
right to office or property is not contested it would
cease to be a suit cognizable under Section 9. The
argument is not available on facts but that shall be
adverted to later. Suffice it to mention that in
Ugamsingh [(1970) 3 SCC 831 : (1971) 2 SCR 836]
the plaintiff's claim was that they were entitled to
worship without interference of the idol of
Adeshwarji in the temple named after him at Paroli
according to tenets observed by the Digambari sect
of the Jain religion. It was held that from the
pleadings and the controversy between the parties
it was clear that the issue was not one which was
confined merely to rites and rituals but one which
effected the rights of worship. If the Digambaris
have a right to worship at the temple, the attempt
of the Swetamberis to put Chakshus or to place
Dhwajadand or Kalash in accordance with their
tenets and to claim that the idol is a Swetamberi
idol was to preclude the Digambaris from exercising
their right to worship at the temple, with respect to
- 75 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
which a civil suit is maintainable under Section 9 of
the Civil Procedure Code. The scope of the section
was thus expanded to include even right to
worship.
89. The conclusions thus reached are:
1. (a) The civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain
the suits for violation of fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India and suits.
(b) The expression 'civil nature' used in Section 9 of
the Civil Procedure Code is wider than even civil
proceedings, and thus extends to such religious
matters which have civil consequence.
(c) Section 9 is very wide. In absence of any
ecclesiastical courts any religious dispute is
cognizable, except in very rare cases where the
declaration sought may be what constitutes
religious rite.
2. Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
does not debar those cases where declaration is
sought for a period prior to the Act came into force
or for enforcement of right which was recognised
before coming into force of the Act.
3. The following findings in Moran Mar Basselios
(supra) have become final and operate as res
judicata:
(a) The Catholicate of the East was created in
Malankara in 1912.
(b) The Constitution framed in 1934 by Malankara
Association is valid.
(c) The Catholicos were not heretics nor they had
established separate church.
- 76 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
(d) The meeting held by Patriarch group in 1935
was invalid.
4. (a) The effect of the two judgments rendered by
the Appellate Court of the Royal Court and in Moran
Mar Basselios (supra) by this Court is that both
Catholicos and Patriarch groups continue to be
members of the Syrian Orthodox Church.
(b) The Patriarch of Antioch has no temporal
powers over the Churches.
(c) Effect of the creation of Catholicate at
Malankara and 1934 Constitution is that the
Patriarch can exercise spiritual powers subject to
the Constitution.
(d) The spiritual powers of the Patriarch of Antioch
can be exercised by the Catholico in accordance
with the Constitution.
5. (a) The Hudaya Canon produced by the Patriarch
is not the authentic version.
(b) There is no power in the Hudaya Canon to
excommunicate Catholicos.
6. The excommunication of the Catholicos by the
Patriarch was invalid.
7. All churches, except those which are of
Evangelistic Association or Simhasana or St. Mary
are under spiritual and temporal control of the
Malankara Association in accordance with 1934
Constitution.
11.12. By relying on Moran Mar Marthoma's case,
he submits that it is only a civil court which can
- 77 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
entertain jurisdiction in the matter and not this
court since there are disputed questions of facts
which have to be adjudicated. This court ought
not to embark to see such a finding on disputed
questions of fact in a writ proceeding when it
could only be done so by a trial Court. Any
right, even under Article 25 of the Constitution,
could be pressed into service by filing a suit and
not by filing a writ petition is the submission.
11.13. In Basant Singh -v- Janki Singh AIR 1967 SC
341, particularly para 6 thereof which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
6. The explanation of Janki Singh and Kailashpati
Singh that the plaint was drafted by their lawyer
Ramanand Singh at the instance of the panchas
including one Ramanand and they signed and
verified the plaint without understanding its
contents cannot be accepted. There is positive
evidence on the record that the plaint was drafted
at the instance of Janki Singh and was filed under
his instructions. The plaint was signed not only by
Janki Singh and Kailashpati Singh but also by
their lawyer, Ramanand Singh. Neither Ramanand
Singh nor the panch Ramanand was called as a
- 78 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
witness. Even in this litigation, Ramanand Singh
was acting as a lawyer on behalf of some of the
defendants. Kailashpati Singh is a Homeopathic
medical practitioner and knows English. The plaint
was read over to Janki Singh. Both Janki Singh
and Kailashpati Singh signed the plaint after
understanding its contents and verified all the
statements made in it as true to their knowledge.
They then well knew that Ramyad Singh had died
in 1939 after the passing of the Hindu Women's
Rights to Property Act. It is not shown that the
admission in the plaint as to the date of death of
Ramyad Singh is not true or that it was made
under some error or misapprehension. This
admission must be regarded as a strong piece of
evidence in this suit with regard to the date of
death of Ramyad Singh.
11.14. In the case of Satyadeo Prasad -v-
Smt.Chanderjoti Debi and others6 AIR 1996
Patna 110, particularly para 31 thereof, which
is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
31. Section 21 of the Evidence Act states that
admissions are relevant and may be proved as
against the persons who makes them, or his
representative in interest; but they cannot be proved
by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by
his representative in interest, except in certain cases
with which we are not concerned for the present.
Section 31 lays down that admissions "are not
conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they
may operate as estoppels under the provisions
hereinafter contained". On a reading of the two
AIR 1996 PATNA 110
- 79 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
sections together, the law on the point appears to be
clear that an admission of a person is admissible in
evidence as against him and though, under certain
circumstances, it operates as estoppel against him, it
is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted and it
can be explained away by the maker thereof or the
person against whom it is sought to be proved. For
example, a person against whom it is sought to be
used may prove that it was made without his
knowledge or in ignorance of facts admitted, or
under such other circumstances; but there is no
doubt about its admissibility in evidence against the
maker thereof. The above view gains support from a
Single Judge decision of this court in Jairam Mahaton
v. Lokenath Mahaton, AIR 1930 Pat 405, wherein it
was held that, in a title suit the proceedings in a
previous title suit between the present defendants
and a third person were relevant under S. 19 and the
pleadings of the defendants were admissible as
admission of the defendants under Section 21 of the
Evidence Act.
In S.T. Chendikamba v. K.I. Viswanathamayya, AIR
1939 Mad 446; it was pointed out that what a party
himself admits to be true may reasonably be
presumed to be so, but the party making the
admission may give evidence to rebut this
presumption, and unless and until that is
satisfactorily done the fact admitted must be taken
to be established. It was further pointed out that the
same principle will apply to an admission in a signed
pleading, and that, so far as Indian Law is
concerned, there can be no doubt that under the
provisions of the Evidence Act, an admission
contained in a plaint or written statement or an
affidavit or any sworn deposition given by a party in
a prior litigation will be regarded as an admission in a
subsequent action, though it is capable of rebuttal.
The statement of Hardeo (defendant No. 2) in his
written statement in the previous partition suit (Ext.
- 80 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
6) is, therefore, admissible in evidence, and unless
any evidence in rebuttal has been given by him, that
will be a very valuable piece of evidence against his
contention in the present suit.
Unfortunately, no explanation has been given by him
with regard to the statements made in the above
written statement, and all that he has said in his
evidence is that he did not know the contents of that
written statement, as it had been drafted at the
instructions of Kamta Prasad. Kamta Prasad, who has
been examined as P.W. 24, has, no doubt, admitted
in his examination-in-chief that he had also come
when Hardeo filed the written statement in that suit.
But the stand taken by the defendants in cross-
examining this witness is to the effect that the
written statement was not written in his (Kamta's)
presence. A suggestion had been put to him that the
written statement was not written in his presence,
and he stated that it is not a fact that the written
statements of Hardeo and Jagarnath were not written
in his presence. Thus, the explanation offered by
Hardeo is not convincing and cannot be accepted.
That being so, the admissions made in the above
written statement are admissible against him.
11.15. Though several other judgments have been
annexed to the memo, he does not refer to or
rely on any of those judgments.
11.16. The submission of Shri. Prabhuling Navadagi,
learned Senior counsel is that the dispute being
- 81 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
civil in nature, the civil court would have to
decide the dispute. The deposition of
Peetadhipati is not relevant since subsequently,
the said Peetadhipati had issued a Nirupa
wherein he had categorically stated that he was
under a misapprehension that the brindavana
located in Navabrindavana Gadde was that of
Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. After having read
various treatises, he has now come to a
conclusion that the brindavana is that of Shri.
Jaya Teertharu and has called upon his disciples
to treat the said brindavana as that of Shri.
Jaya Teertharu and go ahead with the prayers
to him therein.
11.17. On enquiry as to when this Nirupa was issued,
he submits that the Nirupa was recorded by the
disciples of the erstwhile Peetadhipati on
5.06.1985. On enquiry as to whether any pooja
or aradhana has been performed after
- 82 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
5.06.1985 of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and if any
document could be placed in support thereof,
though he submits that the pooja and aradhana
has been carried out, there is no particular
document that is placed on record in relation to
the Aradhana having been performed but some
pamphlets relating to the announcement of the
aradhana are placed on record.
11.18. Based on the above, he submits that from the
time Nirupa was issued, Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt has been performing aradhana of
Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde
and as such, the application filed by Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt for protection ought
not to have been rejected. Based on the above,
he submits that the writ petition filed by Shri
Uttaradi Mutt is required to be dismissed and
that filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt be
allowed.
- 83 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
12. Shri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel appearing
for respondents No.6 to 15 who are impleaded,
subsequently submits that;
12.1. The respondents No.6 to 15 are followers and
devotees of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt,
their rights would be affected by any orders
that may be passed in the present matter in as
much as it is respondents No.6 to 15 who are
going to be performing the pooja and any order
against Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would
affect them adversely.
12.2. At the outset Shri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior
counsel submits that he would be adopting the
submissions made by and on behalf of Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt by Shri.
Prabhuling K. Navadgi learned senior counsel.
- 84 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
12.3. In addition, he submits not only in support of
Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt but as also on
behalf of the devotees that the dispute in the
present matter is as regard the identity of one
Brindavana in Navabrindavana Gadde, Shri.
Uttaradi Mutt claiming it to be that of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu and the very same
Brindavana is claimed by Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt and respondents No.6 to 15 as
that Shri Jaya Teertharu.
12.4. Subsequent to the impleading application filed
have also filed a representative suit in OS
No.35/2024 before the Principal Civil Judge &
JMFC at Gangavathi seeking for declarative and
injunctive relief against Shri. Uttaradi Mutt,
Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri.
Vyasaraja Mutt. The Reliefs as sought for are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
- 85 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
i. To Declare that the Moola Brindavana of Sri. Jaya
Teertharu is at Navabrindavana Gaddi Anegundi
Village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District and
further to declare the claim of the 1st defendant
that it is the Brindavana of Sri. Raghuvaryaru is
untenable and illegal.
ii. Injunct the 1st defendant and their henchmen,
workers and their followers or any one claiming
under them not to worship by conducting daily
pujas and aradhana or Mahimotsava to the
Brindavana of Sri Jaya Teertharu as that of Sri.
Raghavaryaru at Nava Brundavana Gaddi,
Anegundi Village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal
District.
iii. Grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon'ble
court deems fit grant in the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice
and equity.
12.5. The Single Bench, having rejected the
impleading application on an appeal filed in Writ
Appeal No.100023/2024, the Division Bench
has categorically concluded that any order
passed in the writ petition would affect or would
have a bearing on the suit that the impleading
applicants have filed and, as such they cannot
be said not to have any interest, in the subject
matter of the writ petition. Whether the claim
- 86 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
or independent right is claimed through Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is proper or not is to
be decided in the suit where both Shri. Uttaradi
Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt are
parties. Respondents No.6 to 15 cannot be
considered to be ordinary devotees since they
have initiated a suit in O.S. No.35/2024.
Though they are not necessary parties, they
would be proper parties. Thus, he submits that
any order passed in the present matter would
have a direct bearing on respondents No.6 to
15.
12.6. As regards the maintainability of the writ
petition, he submits that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is
seeking a direction to the authorities to prevent
Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt from
performing the Poojas of Shri. Jaya Teertharu
at Navabrindavana Gadde. There has been no
determination of this aspect by any court of law
- 87 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
till now. Without declaration of the civil right,
Shri. Uttaradi Mutt cannot seek such a direction
to be issued against respondent-State as
regards undeclared civil rights.
12.7. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri.
Althaf Ahamed v. State of Karnataka and
others7 more particularly paras 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3
which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference.
5. The weighty aspect which dissuades the court
from exercising the writ jurisdiction is that the
dispute between the parties is essentially in relation
to validity of the gift deed. This dispute involves
civil rights. In the ultimate analysis, what is to be
have got valid title over the property or not and
whether the Will referred to by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt
and alleged to have been executed fraudulently and
by misrepresentation is valid or not.
5.1 It is in light of these aspects that the
assertion of the appellant that he is the absolute
owner of the property will have to be examined.
Decision on all issues would require leading of
evidence and determination of civil rights amongst
the parties. It involves adjudication into titular
rights of the parties. It is a trite principle that the
WA No.713/2023 dated 11.3.2024
- 88 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
dispute regarding property rights cannot be gone
into in the writ jurisdiction. The parties have to take
recourse to civil court.
5.2 The contested property rights cannot be
dealt with in writ jurisdiction. The writ court can at
the best take notice of the property rights of the
parties which are already established rights. When
a party is claiming under the disputed Will, the writ
court would not be able to adjudicate it, for, it is a
matter of leading evidence. In the same way when
the gift deed is the derivative document,
whereunder the parties claim their respective title
rights and dispute one another's claims, the
adjudication has to be done by the civil court. The
remedy before the civil court would be proper
remedy in such circumstances.
5.3 This is reiterated by the Supreme Court in
Sohan Lal vs. Union of India and Another (AIR 1957
SC 529) observing thus,
"We do not propose to enquire into the merits of
the rival claims of title to the property in dispute
set up by the appellant and Jagan Nath. If we were
to do so, we would be entering into a field of
investigation which is more appropriate for a Civil
Court in a properly constituted suit to do rather
than for a Court exercising the prerogative of
issuing writs. These are questions of fact and law
which are in dispute requiring determination before
the respective claims of the parties to this appeal
can be decided. Before the property in dispute can
be restored to Jagan Nath it will be necessary to
declare that he had title in that property and was
entitled to recover possession of it. This would in
effect amount to passing a decree in his favour. In
the circumstances to be mentioned hereafter, it is a
matter for serious consideration whether in
proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution such
a declaration ought to be made and restoration of
the property to Jagan Nath be ordered."
(para 5)
- 89 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
12.8. Relying on the aforesaid paragraphs in Althaf
Ahamed's case, he submits that when the
alleged admissions in the Gazetteer are
seriously disputed by respondents, the writ
Court cannot adjudicate the undeclared rights.
Whenever parties claim their own respective
title and dispute the others' claims, adjudication
has to be done by a Civil Court and not by a
writ petition. The injunctory relief which Shri.
Uttaradi Mutt is seeking for against Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt cannot be so granted
in a writ proceeding; such a relief cannot be
dehors the ordinary civil remedies which are
available under the general law of land before a
Civil Court. Respondents No.6 to 15 have filed a
comprehensive suit before the civil Court, which
would decide the matter. Till then, this Court
ought not to intercede in the matter or grant
the orders sought by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt.
- 90 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
12.9. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T.8
more particularly para 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
thereof which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference;
14. These questions, in our view, were pure
questions of fact and could be answered one way or
the other only by the civil court in a properly
constituted civil suit and on the basis of the
evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
by the High Court.
15. It has been consistently held by this Court
that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for
settlement of the disputes relating to property
rights between the private persons. The remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be
available except where violation of some statutory
duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In
such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue
appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It
is held that the High Court cannot allow its
constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding
disputes, for which remedies under the general law,
civil or criminal are available. This Court has held
that it is not intended to replace the ordinary
remedies by way of a civil suit or application
available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution being special
and extraordinary, it should not be exercised
casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant.
(See Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria [Mohan
Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC 61]
and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal
AIR 2019 SC 659
- 91 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
[Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6
SCC 230] .)
16. In our view, the writ petition to claim such
relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It,
therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the
ground of availability of an alternative remedy of
filing a civil suit by Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) in
the civil court.
17. We cannot, therefore, concur with the
reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High
Court when it unnecessarily went into all the
questions of fact arising in the case on the basis of
factual pleadings in detail (43 pages) and recorded
a factual finding that it was Respondent 1 (writ
petitioner) who was in possession of the flat and,
therefore, he be restored with his possession of the
flat by the appellant.
18. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore,
while so directing exceeded its extraordinary
jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Indeed, the High Court in granting
such relief, had virtually converted the writ petition
into a civil suit and itself to a civil court. In our
view, it was not permissible.
12.10. By relying on Roshina's case, he submits that
disputes relating to rights and liabilities of the
private individuals must be adjudicated by the
civil Courts and not in a writ jurisdiction. The
private law dispute cannot be adjudicated in a
public law remedy of writ petition, a private law
dispute can only be adjudicated in a civil suit.
- 92 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
12.11. He relies upon the decision of the hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal v.
Supdt. of Taxes9 more particularly a portion of
para 7 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
7. ........ the jurisdiction of the High Court was
bypassed, the appellants moved the High Court
challenging the competence of the Provincial
Legislature to extend the concept of sale, and
invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 and sought to reopen the
decision of the Taxing Authorities on question of
fact. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms
and the exercise thereof is not subject to any
restrictions except the territorial restrictions which
are expressly provided in the Articles. But the
exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary : it is not
exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The
very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it
will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-
imposed limitations. Resort that jurisdiction is not
intended as an alternative remedy for relief which
may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed
by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a
petition for a writ under Article 226, where Shri.
Uttaradi Mutt has an alternative remedy, which
without being unduly onerous, provides an equally
efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not
generally enter upon a determination of questions
which demand an elaborate examination of
evidence to establish the right to enforce which the
writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore
act as a court of appeal against the decision of a
court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does
not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226
trench upon an alternative remedy provided by
AIR 1964 SC 1419
- 93 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the
aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or
even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining
redress in the manner provided by a statute, the
High Court normally will not permit by entertaining
a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the
machinery created under the statute to be
bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to
seek resort to the machinery so set up.
12.12. By relying on Thansingh Nathmal's case, he
submits that when Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has an
alternative efficacious remedy the writ court
ought not to entertain a writ petition under
Article 266. It is open to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to
move Civil court or tribunal, this court should
direct Shri Uttaradi Mutt to move such court or
a tribunal and not entertain a claim made by
Shri Uttaradi Mutt before this Court.
12.13. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble apex
court in the case of Dwarka Prasad Agarwal
v. B.D. Agarwal10 more particularly a portion
of para 36 thereof, which is reproduced here
under for easy reference;
AIR 2003 SC 2686
- 94 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
36. ....... The High Court derives its jurisdiction
in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, if an occasion arises therefor, to make
judicial review of the order passed by a statutory
authority. It is beyond any cavil that no writ can
be issued if the disputes involve private law
character. The writ court has also no jurisdiction
to determine an issue on private dispute over a
property or right under a partnership. .......
12.14. By relying on Dwarka Prasad Agarwal's case
he submits that no writ can be issued when the
dispute involves private law, a writ court can
only deal with public law.
12.15. As regards the admission of the deponent in OS
No.65/1/1959-60 he submits that the said
admission can only bind Shri. Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt and the person succeeding to the
office of the said deponent it cannot be binding
on respondent no.6 to 15 who have an
independent right. This independent right has
been recognized by the Division Bench while
allowing writ appeal filed by respondents No.6
to 15 as regards the rejection of the impleading
- 95 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
application by the single judge. Thus, this right
having been upheld as regards respondents
No.6 to 15 which is independent of Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the statement of
the deponent in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60 will not
be binding on respondent no.6-15, nor are they
claiming under Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt.
12.16. He submits that the suit in OS No.65/1/1959-60
was filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt seeking for
relief of declaration that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is
the owner of 14 acres 7 guntas and for deletion
of the entry made in the name of Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. There was no issue
in the said suit as regards the existence or
otherwise of the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvara
Teertharu or Shri Jaya Teertharu. Therefore,
the admission made in a suit where the
existence or otherwise of the Brindavana was
- 96 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
not in question will not be binding on anybody
in so far as the present dispute is concerned.
12.17. He relies upon the decision of the hon'ble Apex
court in the case of Sita Ram Bhau Patil v.
Ramchandra Nago Patil11 more particularly
para 13 thereof which is reproduced here under
for easy reference;
13. The first infirmity in regard to this
admission is that whatever was said by the
respondent in regard to Survey No. 201/2 is
irrelevant and inadmissible in the deposition of
the respondent in that case. Section 17 of the
Indian Evidence Act states that "An admission is
a statement, oral or documentary, which
suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or
relevant fact, and which is made by any of the
persons, and under the circumstances,
hereinafter mentioned". In regard to dispute
between the appellant and the respondent
arising out of Surveys Nos. 194/15 and 200/29,
Survey No.s Nos. 201/2 and 194/13 were
neither issues in fact nor relevant fact.
12.18. By relying on the Sita Ram Bhau Patil's case
he submits that admission, if any made in such
a suit can only be read in regard to and in
reference to a dispute in the said suit and not
AIR 1977 SCC 1712
- 97 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
beyond the dispute in the said suit. Therefore,
admission cannot apply in the present case.
There is no issue raised in the said suit as
regards the existence or not of the Brindavana.
Therefore, the alleged admission would not be
binding on respondents No.6 to 15.
12.19. He again relies on para 16 of Sita Ram Bhau
Patil's case (supra) which is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
16. Counsel for the appellant submitted that
the respondent even though not confronted with
the admission would be bound by his admissions
and the appellant would be entitled to rely on
the admissions as admissible. There is the
observation in the very next sentence in the
aforesaid decision of this Court that "the
purpose of contradicting the witness under
Section 145 of the Evidence Act is very much
different from the purpose of proving the
admission". It, therefore, follows that admission
is relevant and it has to be proved before it
becomes evidence.
12.20. Relying on the above, he submits that an
opportunity has to be given to put the
admission across to the person who has made
- 98 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
the admission, permitting him to tender his
explanation, merely because admission is made
cannot be held against him.
12.21. He reiterates that an admission is not
conclusive proof; admission can be explained,
in this regard he relies upon the decision of
Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Basant
Singh vs. Janki Singh and other12 more
particularly a portion of para 5 thereof which is
reproduced here under for easy reference:
5.......Under the Indian law, an admission
made by a party in a plaint signed and verified
by him may be used as evidence against him in
other suits. In other suits, this admission cannot
be regarded as conclusive, and it is open to the
party to show that it is not true......
12.22. He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Avadh Kishore Das
v. Ram Gopal13 more particularly para 30
AIR 1967 SC 341
AIR 1979 (4) SCC 790
- 99 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
thereof, which is reproduced here under for
easy reference:
30. In the face of this evidence reinforced by
the oral evidence on the record, the learned
Judge of the High Court concluded that the Math
and the temple in this case are a public religious
Trust and not the personal property of the
defendant. We do not find any reason to take a
different view.
12.23. By relying on Avadh Kishore Das's case he
submits that the present Peetadhipati can also
in the civil suit filed by respondents No. 6-15
depose that the statement of the earlier
Peetadhipati to be incorrect or not on the basis
of cogent evidence which is also available in
terms of various books and documents which
have been produced.
12.24. The deponent in OS No.65/1/1959-60 also
issued a Nirupa in which he who was the earlier
Peetadhipati has stated that he had consulted
various scholars, writers, researchers, etc., and
- 100 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
thereafter concluded that the earlier statement
made by him was not correct; therefore, the
said explanation would have to be considered
by this Court.
12.25. In so far as Gazetteers are concerned, he
submits that the same lacks credence since
there is a statement made in the Bombay
Gazetteer that Shri. Jaya Teertharu expired in
1269 AD and the Gulbarga Gazetteer it is
stated that he expired in 1389 AD. There being
a gap of more than 100 years it cannot be
accepted that the location of the Brindavana as
stated therein to be genuine, the discrepancy
going to the root of the matter.
12.26. He relies upon the decision in Triyambak
Shivarudra vs. State of Bombay14 more
particularly para 8 thereof which is reproduced
here under for easy reference:
1950 Crl.LJ 1372
- 101 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
8. Section 81, Evidence Act, provides that
Courts shall presume the genuineness of every
document referred to therein. Official Gazettes
are amongst the documents included in that
section. It is therefore dear that we must raise
an initial presumption that 0. 0. 8 which is
published in the Gazette of India dated 26th
January I960 is a genuine document. The
presumption enacted by Section 81 is, however,
a rebuttable one. That is a clear from the
definition of the words "shall presume" which is
a given in Section 4, Evidence Act. According to
that section:
Whenever it is directed by this Act that, the
Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such
fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved.
12.27. Relying on Triyambak Shivarudra's case, he
submits that the Gazetteers by themselves are
not conclusive evidence but are rebuttable
pieces of evidence which can be rebutted before
the civil court. On the basis of the wrong
statement or mistake in the statements made
in the Gazetteer, the same already stands
rebutted even before this Court and, as such,
cannot be relied upon.
12.28. He relies upon the decision of Calcutta high
court in the decision of Kali Prosanna vs.
- 102 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Nagendra Nath 44 (CWN) Calcutta weekly
notes which is reproduced hereunder for
easy reference;
"Reports and gazetteers ae not strictly
evidence of the truth of all the statements
contained in them, although they may be read
for what they are worth."
12.29. Relying on Kali Prosanna's case, he submits
that reports and Gazetteer are not strictly
evidence of truth. In that background, he
submits that even the Gazetteers relied upon
by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt cannot be accepted by
this court. All these aspects would have to be
to 15, and on that basis, he submits that the
above writ petition is required to be dismissed.
13. Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior
counsel in reply would submit as under:
- 103 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
13.1. Insofar as the reliance placed by both Shri.
Prabhuling Navadgi and Shri. C.V. Nagesh
learned Senior Counsels on the work of one Dr
B.N.K.Sharma published in 1986; he submits
that this, though it is a scholarly work, would
not have the same value as a gazetteer, which
is recognised under Section 81 of the Indian
Evidence Act. It can only be a scholarly work,
which will have to be established in the course
of trial before the trial Court in the suit filed by
respondents No.6 to 15, and the same cannot
be a basis for claiming the Brindavana of Shri.
Raghuvarya Teertharu to be that of Shri. Jaya
Teertharu in the present writ petition.
13.2. As regards the judgments relied upon in Sita
Ram Bhau Patil's case, Basant Singh's case
and Nagindar Ramdas's case [referred to
supra], by the respondents to contend that
admissions are not conclusive on account of the
- 104 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
possibility of they being proved wrong, he
submits that the said proposition would not
apply to the present facts. The admission has
never been established to be wrong. Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt itself has been of a
consistent opinion of the identity of nine
Brindavanas in Nava Brindavana Gadde for
centuries. Evidence in this regard was led in the
suit filed in the year 1959 as also in the year
1992. There is nothing on record to show that
Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has conducted
or was permitted to conduct the Aaradhana of
Shri. Jaya Teertharu at the Navabrindavana
Gadde as observed in the judgment dated
15.07.2022 in WP No.102614/2022.
13.3. Neither Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt nor
Respondents 6 to 15 have been able to explain
the admissions pertaining to the identity of the
Brindavana in Navabrindavana Gadde except to
- 105 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
lay a claim on the Nirupa issued by the former
Peetadhipati (which in a manner amounts to
resiling from the earlier admission) and the
publication made by Dr.B.N.K.Sharma as also
by the Pontiff of Sosale Mutt. These are all
aspects which have come into being in recent
times and cannot upset the facts which have
been accepted by all concerned for centuries.
13.4. Insofar as the contention of the respondents
that the writ court cannot decide the disputed
question of fact, he submits that this Court can
assess the veracity of facts which can be so
ascertained on the basis of the documents
produced. The dispute having been raised as
regards established facts of over centuries only
recently in the year 1985, the established facts
prior to the dispute being that the Brindavana
belonged to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, this
aspect would have to be taken into
- 106 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
consideration by this Court and there would be
no disputed question which this Court would be
addressing itself to.
13.5. By relying on ABL International Ltd's case
(referred to supra), he contends that the
adjudication in the instant case does not
require detailed evidence or trial to be
conducted. The entire evidence in the form of
documents which are uncontroverted and are
reliable are already on record, which this Court
can take cognisance of. Since Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Respondents 6
to 15 have now sought to deny and/or
controvert the established facts; it is for them
to establish the same in the suit filed.
Admittedly, no suit has been filed by Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt but has been filed by
respondents No.6 to 15, who were, according to
him, acting at the behest of Shri Raghavendra
- 107 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Swamy Mutt to only try and derail these
proceedings.
13.6. He submits that the brindavana where
aradhanas and poojas were being performed for
the last several centuries is that of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu and it is only now that
Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has sought to
contend that the said brindavana is that of Shri.
Jaya Teertharu. It is for Shri. Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt to establish the same by cogent
evidence and it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt to seek a declaration in a properly
instituted suit that the brindavana is that of
Shri. Jaya Teertharu. The status quo as
prevalent now is that the brindavana is that of
Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu, and as such, it
does not now lie for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt or respondents No.6 to 15 to contend that
it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to establish the
- 108 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu. His submission is that it is only in
the Nirupa issued by the Peetadhipati that the
Peetadhipati has stated that he was under a
mistaken belief that brindavana is that of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu when in actuality it is
that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Assuming the
contentions of shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt
and Respondents 6 to 15 to be true, this
alleged mistaken belief having been acted upon
for last 400 and more years and the aradhana
being performed as that of Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu, it is only in the year 1985 that
Nirupa was issued just prior to the death of
Peetadhipati, this cannot be a ground for Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to contend that the
brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu.
13.7. For centuries, prayers have been offered at the
brindavana to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is
- 109 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its
followers who have impleaded themselves as
respondents No.6 to 15 to establish to the
contrary. The suit having been filed by
respondents No.6 to 15, until a decision is
rendered in the suit, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt ought
to be permitted to offer prayers for Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu in the Nava brindavana
Gadde, without any interference from Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt or its followers.
13.8. The offering of prayers to the former gurus and
saints is a fundamental religious practice of the
Madhva community; as such, Shri. Uttaradi
Mutt, whose saint is Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu, has a bounden duty as also all
followers of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt have a bounden
duty to offer prayers to Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu during the important events of his
life, and if poojas are not offered, it will amount
- 110 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
to disrespect to the saint, which is not in the
interest of Shri Uttaradi Mutt and the followers
of the Shri Uttaradi Mutt.
13.9. The poojas having been offered for centuries to
Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, the followers of
Shri Uttaradi Mutt having followed and
implemented the belief that the brindavana is
that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is also a
bounden duty of the said followers to see to it
that the said brindavana is not treated as that
of anyone else and that only poojas of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu is offered in the said
brindavana.
13.10. The brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu,
being situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde, is
established by the evidence of Peetadhipati of
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in O.S.
No.65/1/1959-60, wherein the name of Shri.
- 111 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu has been mentioned
by the said Peetadhipati. Even in O.S.
No.193/1995, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt,
in its evidence, has categorically stated that the
brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu. This aspect is also reflected in the
Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga region
(Anegundi).
13.11. Similarly, it is also established by the very same
document that brindavana of Shri. Jaya
Teertharu is not at Nava Brindavana Gadde.
The Mysore State Gazetteer, published in the
year 1966, indicates and establishes that the
brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is at Malked,
Gulbarga. The Bombay Gazetteer Karnataka,
Dharwad district also speaks of brindavana of
Shri. Jaya Teertharu to be situated at Malkhed.
The Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga
region, as also the Gazetteer of India Karnataka
- 112 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
State Gazetteer, Government of Karnataka,
indicate that Shri. Jaya Teertharu's brindavana
is at Malked, Kalburagi. The brindavana of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu being at Nava
brindavana Gadde cannot be disputed. Once it
is established that Shri. Jaya Teertharu's
brindavana is situated at Malked, Kalaburagi;
there cannot be another brindavana of Shri.
Jaya Teertharu at Nava brindavana Gadde.
Furthermore, it cannot be contended by Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that the brindavana
of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is that of Shri.
Jaya Teertharu since there cannot be two saints
who occupy the same brindavana.
13.12. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, not having
chosen to file any suit to establish its claim,
merely because respondents No.6 to 15 have
filed a suit, would not make the fact a disputed
fact.
- 113 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
13.13. By relying on Jain Sangh's case, he reiterates
that the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court has categorically held that
objections as to disputed question of fact
raised, when raised for the sake of raising will
not deviate from the established facts.
13.14. As regards the decision in Triyambak
Shivarudra's case relied upon by respondents
he submits that there is no material which has
been placed on record showing that any fact
recorded therein is wrongly recorded in the
gazetteer and as such, the said judgment would
not apply in the present case and in the above
background, he submits that the writ petition
filed by Uttaradi Mutt is required to be allowed.
14. Shri Gangadhar J.M, Learned Additional Advocate
General, would submit that it is only on account of a
possible law and order issue that could be created
- 114 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
that the requests made by both the Mutts have been
rejected. The state would adhere to any direction
issued by this court.
15. Heard Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior
Counsel for Sri. Satish S Raichur and Sri. Bhushan B.
Kulkarni, learned counsel for Petitioner and Sri.
Gangadhar J.M. learned AAG a/w Sri. Praveen Uppar,
AGA for Respondents No.1 to 4, Sri. Prabhuling K.
Navadagi, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Arun L.
Neelopant for Respondent No.5, Sri. C.V. Nagesh
Senior Counsel for Sri. H.R. Deshpande for
Respondents No. 6 to 15 in W.P.No.103982/2023,
Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadagi, learned Senior Counsel
for Sri. Arun Neelopant for Petitioner and
Sri. Gangadhar J.M. AAG a/w Sri. Praveen Uppar, for
respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri. Ameet Kumar
Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Satish S.
Raichur and Sri. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, learned
- 115 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
counsel for Respondents No.4 in
W.P.No.103994/2023. Perused papers.
16. Based on the above arguments the points that arise
for determination in this matter are:
1. Whether this court cannot entertain the
present petition and pass orders thereon
on account of the contentions raised by
Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, on the one hand, and
Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as also its
followers Respondents 6 to 15 on the
other being disputed?
2. Whether the contention raised by Shri.
Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt, as well as its followers
Respondents 6 to 15, can, in fact, be said
to be disputed questions of fact.
3. Despite a suit having been filed by
respondents No.6 to 15, is the present
petition maintainable?
4. Would the admission made by former
Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt be binding on Shri. Raghavendra
- 116 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Swamy Mutt and its followers Respondents
6 to 15?
5. Whether the Gazetteers produced by Shri.
Uttaradi Mutt, now at this stage, can be
relied upon by this Court?
6. Whether at this juncture, it can be said
that the Brindavana at Nava Brindavana
Gadde is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu or
Shri. Raghuvara Rayaru?
7. What order?
17. I answer the above points as under:
18. Insofar as the history of litigation as regards the
present matter is concerned, originally, both Shri
Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had
filed petitions in W.P. No.103994/2023 and
102614/2022 respectively. Shri Uttaradi Mutt
wanted to perform the Mahimotsava of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu at his Brindavana in Nava
- 117 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Brindavana Gaddi from 4.07.2023 to 10.07.2023.
Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt also wanted to
perform Aradhana of Jaya Teertharu at his
Brindavana in Nava Brindavana Gaddi, from
5.07.2023 to 7.07.2023.
19. It is clear that for the first time, both the Mutts
wanting to celebrate the Aradhana of their respective
Gurus during the same period of time. Apprehending
interference, both the mutts filed applications before
the tahsildar for police protection, but both
applications were rejected. In view thereof, the
above writ petitions are filed.
20. A coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said
writ petitions by permitting both the Mutts to
perform the Aradhana on different sets of dates.
Aggrieved by the same, Shri Uttaradi Mutt filed a
Writ Appeal, but Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt did
not.
- 118 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
21. In the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench allowed the
same by setting aside the orders of the coordinate
Bench and remanded the same for adjudication by
taking on record the additional documents filed by
Shri Uttaradi Mutt. The Division Bench afforded an
opportunity to both the Mutts to file amended
petitions and additional documents and seek
additional reliefs.
22. An amendment was filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt, but
no amendment has been filed by Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt; only objections have been filed by Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. Thus, it is clear that
insofar as the writ petition by Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt as regards the dates mentioned in the
said writ petition and the prayers, Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt does not intend to press or prosecute
the said petitions since the dates mentioned have
already passed and the said writ petition therefore
- 119 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
rendered infructuous. It is also clear that only Shri
Uttaradi Mutt, has been prosecuting the matter,
agitating its legal rights.
23. In the above background history of the matter, I
would have to consider the points raised.
24. ANSWER TO POINTS NO.1, 2 AND 3:
1. Whether this court cannot entertain the
present petition and pass orders thereon
on account of the contentions raised by
Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, on the one hand, and
Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as also its
followers Respondents 6 to 15 on the
other being disputed?
2. Whether the contention raised by Shri.
Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt, as well as its followers
Respondents 6 to 15, can, in fact, be said
to be disputed questions of fact.
3. Despite a suit having been filed by
respondents No.6 to 15, is the present
petition maintainable?
- 120 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
24.1. Points 1,2 and 3 being related to each other are
considered together.
24.2. The submission of Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi.,
learned senior counsel appearing for Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and that of Shri.
C.V. Nagesh., learned senior counsel appearing
for respondents No.6 to 15 in WP
No.103982/2023 is that the writ petition filed
by Shri Uttaradi Mutt is not maintainable since
the questions which have arisen out of said writ
petition are disputed questions of fact which
this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction
cannot decide.
24.3. The additional submission of Shri. C.V.Nagesh.,
learned senior counsel is that respondents No.6
to 15, having filed a suit for declaration until
the determination of the dispute raised in the
- 121 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
said suit, this Court ought not to pass any
orders and, as a necessary corollary ought to
leave it to the civil Court to determine the
disputed question of facts.
24.4. Shri. C.V. Nagesh., learned senior counsel
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Roshina's case, Thansingh
Nathmal's case, Dwarka Prasad Agarwal's
case, Sita Ram Bhau Patil's case, Avadh
Kishore Dass' case, Triyambak
Shivarudra's case and Kali Prosanna's case
for the same purpose.
24.5. The submission of Shri. Ameet Kumar
Deshpande., learned senior counsel appearing
for Shri Uttaradi Mutt is that there is no
disputed question of fact which requires trial, in
so far as Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt's
dispute. Respondents No.6 to 15 having filed a
suit, the same would be defended. Shri
- 122 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has not filed any
suit; the claim made by its followers is on the
basis of the Nirupa issued by the earlier
pontiff/Peetadhipati of Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt, which has created confusion. The
Nirupa having been issued in the year 1985,
there is no dispute prior to 1985 of the
aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being
performed at the Nava Brindavana Gadde and
no aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu was
performed there. Even during the lifetime of the
earlier pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt, the said pontiff, in the evidence led in
O.S. No.65/1/1959-60, has categorically
admitted that it is the Brindavana of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu which is situated at Nava
Brindavana Gadde. Neither in the written
statement nor the evidence has the earlier
pontiff ever claimed that the Brindavana of
- 123 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Shri. Jaya Teertharu was located in Nava
Brindavana Gadde.
24.6. For over 400 years the aradhana of Shri.
Raghuvarya Teertharu having been performed
at Nava Brindavana Gadde, it cannot be now
contended that there is a dispute of fact
requiring trial in so far as the existence of the
Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu in
Nava Brindavana Gadde. His further submission
is that the aradhana and other ceremonies in so
far as Shri. Jaya Teertharu has been performed
for last few centuries at Malkhed, Kalaburagi
district and continue to be performed there
even today. Thus, the contention of Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and/or respondents
No.6 to 15 that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya
Teertharu is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde
subsequent to the Nirupa issued by the earlier
pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt will
- 124 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
not make it a disputed question of facts
requiring trial.
24.7. In this regard, he relies upon the decision in
ABL International Ltd. Case and submits that
the writ court would also have jurisdiction to try
issues both fact and law even if they are in
dispute, when the same does not require a
detailed trial this Court can determine the
issues and pass necessary judgment on the
basis of the documents available on record.
24.8. The dispute having been raised by Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers post
1985, it is the assertion now made by Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which is required to
be established in a Court of law and not that of
Shri Uttaradi Mutt who has been performing the
aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava
Brindavana Gadde for over a century.
- 125 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
24.9. He also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Tejraj-
President Jain Sangh's case. In view thereof
submission is made that this Court can and
would have to decide the above issue.
24.10. It is therefore in the background of the above
submissions that this court would have to
decide the above issues.
24.11. It is trite law that this Court exercising writ
jurisdiction would ordinarily not cause an
enquiry into disputed question of facts and
would normally relegate the parties to a civil
suit. It is also trite law that this Court would not
countenance any contention on the part of the
respondents that there are disputed questions
of fact when there are in fact no such disputed
questions of fact and/or that the respondents
- 126 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
have raised the disputed question of fact and/or
brought into dispute certain admitted facts to
try and prevent orders being passed in the Writ
Petition, which in my considered opinion would
also amount to abuse of the process of court.
24.12. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Moran Mar Marthoma case's and principles
laid down therein cannot be disputed; the said
decision dealt with and was rendered in respect
of the jurisdiction of a civil Court to decide a
claim under Article 25 of the Constitution of
India. In the said judgment, there is no
reference, nor is any issue dealt with as regards
a writ Court not having jurisdiction. Thus, the
said decision will not be a touchstone to decide
on whether this Court ought to exercise
jurisdiction in the present case or not.
24.13. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Roshina's case was one relating to a claim of
- 127 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
property rights which were disputed and it is in
that background that the Hon'ble Apex Court
came to a conclusion that the extra-ordinary
jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot be exercised to
convert a writ petition into a civil suit. The said
decision also would not apply to the present
case since there are no property rights which
are required to be decided upon or adjudicated
by this Court. The dispute, essentially in
Roshina's case, was a property dispute which
was inter se the parties, and as such, the
Hon'ble Apex Court was of the opinion that
those disputes would have to be adjudicated by
the Civil Court and not by a writ court. Since
this is a private law dispute which cannot be
decided in a public law remedy.
24.14. Again the decision in Thansingh Nathmal's
case was one relating to the exercise of
- 128 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
jurisdiction by the High Court where an
alternative remedy was available and where the
Court came to a conclusion that there was an
elaborate examination of evidence required in
order to establish or enforce a right as regard
which a writ was filed and it is in that
background that the Hon'ble Apex Court was of
the opinion that an elaborate examination of
evidence cannot be made by a writ Court.
These judgments in my considered opinion
would not help the cause of Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt and/or respondents No.6 to 15 in
WP No.103982/2023.
24.15. Per contra the decision relied upon by Shri.
Ameet Kumar Kumar Deshpande., learned
counsel appearing for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt in
ABL International Ltd. Case would be of
relevance since the Hon'ble Apex Court has
categorically held that the High Court could
- 129 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
exercise jurisdiction to determine the question
of fact even if they are in dispute and those
could be determined on the basis of the
affidavits and reply rather than relegate the
parties to a separate suit. This jurisdiction
needs to be exercised at the discretion of the
Court.
24.16. Thus, it is clear that there is no specific bar for
a writ Court to exercise jurisdiction merely
because respondents were to contend that the
facts are disputed, it is left to the discretion of
the Court.
24.17. It is not in dispute that the aradhana and other
functions in so far as Shri. Raghuvarya
Teertharu is concerned has been performed at
Nava Brindavana Gadde for more than four
centuries, it is only after a Nirupa was issued by
the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati in the year 1985
- 130 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
that the existence of the Brindavana of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu has been brought into
question.
24.18. In the year 1959, Shri Uttaradi Mutt had filed a
suit in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 claiming proprietary
rights over the land in Sy.No.192 (old
Sy.No.239) situate at Anegundi Village in which
the Nava Brindavana Gadde is situated.
24.19. In the written statement filed more so at para 2
Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt contended that
the Brindavana's of the Gurus of Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt
and Shri Vyasaraya Mutt are situate at Nava
Brindavana Gadde.
24.20. It was contended that five Brindavana's
belonging to Shri Vyasaraja Mutt are situate at
Nava Brindavana Gadde namely that of;
1. Shri Vyasarayaru (Vysararaj Teertharu)
- 131 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
2. Shri Sinivas Teertharu
3. Shri Rama Teertharu
4. Shri Govinda Teertharu (Govindawadiyaru)
5. Shri Padmanabha Teertharu
24.21. It was contended that three Brindavana's
belonging to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt are
situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde namely that
of:
1. Shri Ravindra Teertharu,
2. Shri Vageesh Teertharu and
3. Shri Sudhendra Teertharu.
24.22. Though the details of the ninth Brindavana is
not mentioned in the written statement what is
required to be appreciated by this Court is that
even among the eight out of nine names
mentioned the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya
Theertharu who is claimed to belong to Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not mentioned in
the written statement.
- 132 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
24.23. In the evidence led by the earlier pontiff of Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt namely his holiness
Shri. Suyamendra Teertharu, it has been stated
that nine Brindavana's are that of;
1. Padmanabha Tirtha
2. Kavindra Tirtha
3. Vagisha Tirtha
4. Raghuvarya Tirtha
5. Sudhindra Tirtha
6. Vyasarayaru (Vysararaj Tirtha)
7. Sinivas Tirtha
8. Rama Tirtha
9. Govindawadiyaru.
24.24. Thus, Shri Suyamendra Teertharu who was the
earlier Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt in his evidence has categorically
admitted that the Brindavana of Shri.
Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated in Nava
Brindavana Gadde. In the said evidence led by
him, there is no mention made of Brindavana of
Shri. Jaya Theertharu.
- 133 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
24.25. In the evidence it is further stated that the
aforesaid Brindavana's belong to all three Mutt
namely, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt and Shri Sosale Vyasarayaru Mutt.
24.26. Shri. Kavindra Theertharu and Shri Vagisha
Theertharu being common to Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt and Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu being solely belonging to
Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri. Sudhendra Teertharu
being solely belonging to Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt, Shri. Govindawadiyaru, Shri
Sinivas Teertharu and Shri. Rama Teertharu
exclusively belonging to Shri. Sosale
Vyasarayaru Mutt.
24.27. Thus, from the evidence led it is clear that Shri.
Raghuvarya Teertharu's Brindavana is
categorically admitted to be located at Nava
- 134 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Brindavana Gadde and the same solely belongs
to Shri Uttaradi Mutt.
24.28. Though all three Mutts follow Shri.
Madhavcharya's philosophy it appears that
there are some disputes between these three
Mutts which ought not to have occurred and the
earlier pontiff having accepted that Shri.
Raghuvarya Teertharu's Brindavana solely
belongs to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and situate in
Nava Brindavana Gadde, now it is sought to be
contended that such Brindavana of Shri.
Raghuvarya Teertharu is not situated in Nava
Brindavana Gadde and that the said Brindavana
belongs to that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Though
it is admitted that Shri Raghuvara Teertharu
was a Guru of the Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, and there
is denial made of the existence of his
brindavana at Nava Brindavana Gadde, there is
- 135 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
no assertion made as to where his Brindavana
is, if not at Nava Brindavana Gadde.
24.29. This assertion which has been made is only post
the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff in the
year 1985, there being no such claim or
assertion made prior to 1985. Thus, merely
post 1985 such an assertion having been made
would not make the practice followed for four
centuries earlier of offering pooja and aradhana
to the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya
Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde a
disputed one. Thus, on the face of it, by sheer
extent of time it cannot at this stage be said
that there are disputed questions of facts
requiring this Court not to exercise jurisdiction.
24.30. Furthermore, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt
also has filed WP No.103994/2023 seeking
similar reliefs as that sought for by Shri
- 136 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Uttaradi Mutt in WP No.103982/2023. Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt itself having
approached this Court seeking for the more or
less identical reliefs as that sought for by Shri
Uttaradi Mutt and not filing a suit in that
regards till date, also indicates the double
standards adopted. Though the prayer sought
for by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt have
been rendered infructuous, the fact remains
that even according to Shri. Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt this Court could exercise
jurisdiction to decide the matters in issue and it
is for that reason that this court has been
approached vide a writ petition by Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, if not then it would
amount to the said Mutt abusing the process of
court since the writ petition is filed knowing
fully well that this court would not have
jurisdiction. Even for this reason I am therefore
- 137 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
unable to agree with the submissions made that
this court has no jurisdiction.
24.31. It is trite law that jurisdiction to a Court cannot
be conferred by consent, thus, it is not only on
the basis of the writ petition filed by Shri.
Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt that I come to the conclusion that this
Court has jurisdiction but also on the grounds
aforesaid i.e., there is no disputed question of
fact which can be said to come in the way of
this Court exercising its jurisdiction.
24.32. A suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to
been filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in
that regard even if it is assumed that
respondents No.6 to 15 are acting at the
instance of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the
- 138 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
would have to be determined by that Court,
such suit pending determination by the Civil
Court would not come in the way of this Court
exercising jurisdiction. Of course, the
determination by the Court would be binding on
the parties. Merely, because of the said
subsequent suit being pending it is not required
for this Court not to decide the present matter.
It would also be open for Shri. Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to seek for
such reliefs that they are entitled to in the said
suit.
24.33. As regards the performance of the Aradhana of
Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana
Gadde, certain documents are sought to be
relied upon, viz., paper publications/Pamphlets
from the year 1989 onwards. The same would
not amount to evidence of the Poojas and
Aradhanas being performed at Nava Brindavana
- 139 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Gadde for Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Be that as it
may there is nothing on record prior to 1989
indicating that the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya
Teertharu was performed at the Nava
Brindavana Gadde, in fact, in an earlier Writ
Petition in W.P. No.102614/2022 filed by Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, this court vide its
order dated 15.07.2022 while dismissing the
said writ petition has categorically come to a
conclusion that there was nothing on record to
show that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had
conducted or was permitted to conduct the
Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava
Brindavana Gadde. The said observation and
judgment have not been challenged, attaining
finality and the said observation is binding on
this Court.
24.34. In W.P. No.102614/2022 relating to the
performance of Aradhana in the year 2022,
- 140 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
again in the year 2023, another dispute arose
when the performance of aradhana by Shri
Uttaradi Mutt of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu
was resisted by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt
constraining Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file writ
petition in W.P. No.103499/2023. The said writ
petition came to be allowed by the coordinate
Bench of this Court permitting Shri. Uttaradi
Mutt to carry out the Aradhana in furtherance
of which Aradhana was in fact carried out, no
challenge being made to the said order of the
coordinate Bench, thus attaining finality.
24.35. Therefore, evidence and records available
indicate that Shri. Uttarathus attainingied out
pooja, Aradhana and other ceremonies
concerning its Guru Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu
for more than 400 years, as also in the recent
past at Nava Brindavana Gadde.
- 141 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
24.36. There is no believable document placed on
record by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as
regards the conduct of pooja, aradhana and
other ceremonies relating to Shri. Jaya
Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde, either in
the past or present.
24.37. One of the writ petitions filed by Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has been dismissed
with an observation that there is nothing on
record to indicate such performance of pooja or
aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava
Brindavana Gadde. In that background, it
cannot be said that the contention now taken
by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is one which
gives rise to disputed questions of fact requiring
the trial court to decide the matter in a properly
constituted suit. It is only in the recent past
that the disputes have arisen, more particularly
in the last three years.
- 142 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
24.38. Though the contention of Shri C.V.Nagesh
learned Senior Counsel is that there is no
determination or adjudication of the claim of
Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, I'am of the considered
opinion that when the dispute has been raised
by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and it is
asserted and claimed that the brindavana is
that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu, when in fact all
records indicate otherwise, it is for Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to file necessary
proceedings for declaration of the assertion and
claim, now made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt. It would not be for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to
file any such suit or proceedings. Merely
because a party were to make a claim, the
party against whom such claim is made need
not be driven to court, it is for the party making
a claim to approach the jurisdictional and
- 143 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
competent court, seeking for adjudication of its
claim.
24.39. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that
this Court can entertain the writ petition in
WP No. 103982 of 2023 and pass orders
thereon, despite the contentions raised by
Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and
respondents 6 to 15 contending that there
are alleged disputed question of fact,
when in fact there are none.
24.40. I answer point No.2 by holding that the
contention raised by Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt and respondents 6 to 15
cannot in fact be said to be disputed
questions of fact considering that Shri
Uttaradi Mutt has been offering poojas and
performing aradhana's of Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu for over 400 years at Nava
Brindavana Gadde and there are
admissions made in this regard by
Shri.Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. The aspect
of admission has also been separately
considered hereinbelow.
- 144 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
24.41. I answer point No.3 by holding that the
suit having been filed by respondents No.6
to 15 in WP No.103982/2023 no suit
having been filed by the Shri. Raghavendra
being disciples and or followers of Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt who claim that
Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is
situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde and
claim of respondents No.6 to 15 being yet
to be adjudicated, the same shall not come
in way of this Court exercising jurisdiction.
Since I have come to the conclusion that
as on today the undisputed fact is that the
Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya
Teertharu.
25. Answer to point No.4: Would the admission
made by former Peetadhipati of Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt be binding on Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers
Respondents 6 to 15?
25.1. As referred to in answer to points No.1 to 3 the
earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati of Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt had in the written statement in
- 145 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
O.S. No.65/1/59-60 as also in the evidence
categorically stated that Shri. Raghuvarya
Teertharu's Brindavana is located in Nava
Brindavana Gadde. There was no mention made
in either the written statement or in evidence
that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu was
located in Nava Brindavana Gadde.
25.2. The contention of Sri. C.V.Nagesh., learned
senior counsel for respondents No.6 to 15 is
that such an admission made by the earlier
pontiff does not bind respondents No.6 to 15.
They have an independent right, they can
always negate any admission made by the
earlier pontiff. In this regard, he relies upon the
decision in Dwarka Prasad Agarwal's case
as also Sita Ram Bhau Patil's case his
submission is that in the suit in O.S.
No.65/1/59-60 there was no dispute as regards
the existence or otherwise of the Brindavana of
Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and Shri. Jaya
- 146 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Teertharu in the absence of such a dispute the
admission made by the earlier pontiff cannot be
binding. If an admission has to be relied upon,
the admission should be put across to the
person against whom the admission is sought
to be relied upon for him to offer an
explanation.
25.3. By relying on Basant Singh's case his
contention is that the admissions made in
another suit cannot be regarded as conclusive
its open to a party to the other suit to prove
otherwise. By relying on Avadh Kishore
Das's case his submission is that, in the
Nirupa issued by the earlier
pontiff/Peetadhipati, the said
pontiff/Peetadhipati has explained the
admissions by stating that he was under a
mistaken belief, now it having been brought to
his notice various Articles, Research,
Publications that Shri. Jaya Teertharu's
- 147 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Brindavana is located at Nava Brindavana
Gadde, a Nirupa has been issued by the earlier
pontiff, this Nirupa would negate the so-called
admission made in the aforesaid suit.
25.4. The submission that an opportunity would have
to be granted to a person who has made an
admission to explain the same, in my
considered opinion, cannot be so done in the
present case since the earlier pontiff has
expired long ago in the year 1985 and
therefore the admission made by him cannot
be put across to him. In this regard the
submission made by Sri.C.V.Nagesh., learned
senior counsel is that the successor to the
earlier pontiff, i.e., the present pontiff, can
explain the admission in the view of the
Nirupa.
25.5. The Nirupa as issued is extracted hereinbelow
for easy reference
- 148 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
DATE: 08.06.2023
UÉÃ
ªÀiÁ£Àå aLಾBTಾUಗಳ/
Tೊಪbಳ aLಾ
Tೊಪbಳ.
$ಾನ &ೇ,
ಷಯ: ಾಂಕ 06, 07, 08 ಜುLೈ 2023 ರಂದು ನಮ? 5 ೕ
ಉತ1&ಾ ಮಠದ ಪdವ ಯ.ವಯ &ಾದ 5ೕ ರಘWವಯ .ೕಥ ರ
ಮ3eೕತfವವನು! ಪ .ೕ ವಷ ದಂKೆ ಈ ವಷ ವd ಮೂಲವೃಂ ಾವನಸH!B,
ನವವೃಂ ಾವನ ಗgೆhಯ ಆಚರiೆ $ಾಡು.1ರುವXದರ ಕುUತು ತಮ?
ಅವ ಾಹ ೆ, ಸಹTಾರTಾDE 2ಾಗೂ jೕ ೕk ಪgೆಯನು!
HlೕaಸುವXದTಾDE ಮನ .
1. ಾವX ಅಂದ&ೆ 5 ೕಉತ1&ಾ ಮಠವX ಅ ೇಗುಂ Kಾಲೂmನ ಸ ೇ ನಂ.
192 ನವವೃಂ ಾವನಗgೆhಯ $ಾ ಕ&ಾEದುF, ಇದರ nೕLೆ Tಾನೂನುಬದo
:ಾ7BೕನKೆಯನು! 2ೊಂ ೆFೕ ೆ. ಈ ಆN1ಯು ನಮ? Kಾ^ೇದ ಇದುF ಅದರ
ಅನುQೋಗವನು! $ಾಡು.1 ೆFೕ ೆ.
2. ಈ ನವವೃಂ ಾವನ ಗgೆhಯ ಒಂಬತು1 ಯ.ಗಳ ವೃಂ ಾವನಗp ೆ.
ಅವXಗಳ ೈm ನಮ? ಮಠದ ಪdವ ಯ.ಗJಾದ 5 ೕಪದ? ಾಭ.ೕಥ ರು,
5 ೕಕ ೕಂದ .ೕಥ ರು, 5 ೕ ಾEೕಶ.ೕಥ ರು 2ಾಗೂ 5 ೕರಘWವಯ .ೕಥ ರು ಈ
ಾಲುD ಯ.ಗಳ ಮೂಲವೃಂ ಾವನಗಳ/ ನಮ? ಮಠTೆD ಸಂಬಂBNದುF
ಇರುತ1 ೆ.
3. Qಾರ.ೕಯ ಪಂ8ಾಂಗದ ಪ Tಾರ ಆqಾಢ ಕೃಷO ಪಂಚIೕ ನದಂದು
5 ೕರಘWವಯ .ೕಥ U ೆ sೕ$ಾನ ಯು ಇ^ಾtಗ ಾE ಾU uಟುw 5 ೕಮಠದ
- 149 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
ೇವರನು!, ಸಂ:ಾ;ನವನು!, ಪU ಾರವನು! ಯವನರ ಆಕ ಮಣ ಂದ Tಾ\ಾ ದ
ನ ಾEರುತ1 ೆ. ಈ ವಷ ಆqಾಢ ಕೃಷO ಪಂಚIೕ .yಯು . ಜುLೈ 7 ೇ
KಾUmನಂದು ಇರುತ1 ೆ.
4. ಅವರ ಈ ಪ ಾಡದ ಸ?ರiಾಥ ಾE ಪ ಾಡ ನgೆದ ನ ಾದ ಜುLೈ 7
2ಾಗೂ ಅದರ 3ಂದು ಮುಂ ನ ನಗಳ ಅಂದ&ೆ ಾಂಕ ಜುLೈ 04 Uಂದ
10 ಜುLೈ 2023 ಈ ಏಳ/ ನಗಳಂದು ನಮ? ಮಠದ ಪರಂಪರ......
ಪdವ ಯ.ಗJಾದ 5 ೕರಘWವಯ .ೕಥ ರು ಮ3eೕತfವವನು! ಅವರ
ಮೂಲವೃಂ ಾವನಸ;ಳದ ಅದೂFURಾE ನgೆಸಲು .ೕ$ಾ HಸLಾE ೆ.
5. ಈ ಸಂದಭ ದ 5 ೕರಘWವಯ .ೕಥ ರ ಮೂಲವೃಂ ಾವನTೆD ಪಂ8ಾಮೃತ,
ಹ:ೊ1ೕದಕ eದLಾದ ಅ ೇಕ ಪd_ಾ ೈಭವಗJೇ eದLಾದ ನ ಯ
ಉತfವಗಳನು! ೆರ ೇUಸLಾಗುತ1 ೆ. \ಾ&ಾಯಣ, ಭಜ ೆ, ಉತfವ, ಜಪ,
ಪ ವಚನ eದLಾದ Tಾಯ ಕ ಮಗಳ| ಇರುತ1 ೆ.
6. ಈ ಸ$ಾರಂಭTೆD ನಮ? &ಾಜ $ಾತ ವಲ ೇ 2ೊರ&ಾಜ ಗJಾದ ಅಂಧ ,
ತIಳ/ ಾಡು, Kೆಲಂ ಾಣ ಮತು1 ಮ2ಾ&ಾಷ} ಂದ ಭಕ1ರು :ಾ &ಾರು
ಸಂ~ೆ ಯ ಆಗIಸುವ HUೕ•ೆ ಇ ೆ. ಈ ಆ&ಾಧ ಾ ಮ2ೋತfವTೆD
ಗiಾ .ಗಣ ಅ.yಗಳ/ ಇ ೕ ೇಶ ಂದ ಬರುವವU ಾF&ೆ.
7. ಈ ಸ$ಾರಂಭTೆD ಅBಕ ಸಂ~ೆ ಯ ಭಕ1ರು 2ಾಗೂ ಗiಾ .ಗಣ ಅ.yಗಳ/
ಬರುವXದUಂದ ತಮ? :ಾHಧ ದ ಅUTೆ ಏ ೆಂದ&ೆ nೕಲDಂಡ ಮೂರು
ವಸಗಳಲೂ ಸ$ಾರಂಭ ಯಶN7RಾE ನgೆಯಲು ಎಲ Uೕ.ಯ ಸಹTಾರ
2ಾಗೂ ಭದ Kೆಯ ವ ವ:ೆ; ಾE :ಾಕಷುw ಸಂ~ೆ ಯ jೕ ೕk ಪgೆಯನು!
Hlೕaಸ^ೇTೆಂದು TೋUTೆ.
8. jೕ ೕk ಪgೆಯ Hlೕಜ ೆ ೆ ^ೇTಾದ ಎಲ ಪdವ Qಾ ಕ ಮಗಳನು!
ಅನುಸUN ಅದTೆD ತಗಲುವ ಸಮಗ ೆಚYವನು! 5 ೕಮಠ ಂದ ಭUಸLಾಗುತ1 ೆ.
9. ಸ$ಾರಂಭದ ಕ&ೆlೕLೆಯನು! ಈ ಪತ ದ _ೊKೆ ತಮ? ಅವ ಾಹ ೆ ೆ
ಲಗ.1ಸLಾE ೆ.
- 150 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
ನಮ? ಈ ಮನ ೆ ಆದಷುw ^ೇಗ ೆ ಸbಂ N ಸೂಕ1 ಾದ $ಾಗ ದಶ ನವನು!
ಸಂಬಂಧ ಪಟwವU ೆ $ಾಡ^ೇTೆಂದು TೋರುKೆ1ೕ ೆ.
ವಂದ ೆಗJೆ| ಂ ೆ,
Hಮ? €ಾ7N
Sd/-
25.6. The examination of the Nirupa would indicate
that even according to the earlier pontiff, it was
believed that the disputed Brindavana situated
in Nava Brindavana Gadde is that belonging to
Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. The said belief is
now sought to be termed as mistaken belief in
the Nirupa and a direction has been issued by
the earlier pontiff to his disciples to conduct the
pooja and aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at
the said Brindavana, by indicating or
contending that the said Brindavana is not of
Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu but it is that of
Shri. Jaya Teertharu.
- 151 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
25.7. Thus, even in the admitted Nirupa there is an
admission made by the earlier pontiff that there
was a belief of the Brindavana to be belonging
to Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and that belief is
now sought to be changed at the time of
issuance of Nirupa in the year 1985 to
contended that the Brindavana is not of Shri.
Raghuvarya Teertharu but that of Shri. Jaya
Teertharu.
25.8. Thus, the admission made in the suit is not
denied in the Nirupa but is sought to be resiled
from, this in my considered opinion cannot take
away the admission made, the resiling from the
admission made and a new claim being set up
under the Nirupa it is required for Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish this new
claim. An explanation to an admission cannot
be by way of resiling from the admission, a new
- 152 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
case or claim being set up under the Nirupa,
the same would have to be established in a
court of law by anyone claiming the contents of
the Nirupa to be true by filing a properly
constituted suit before the Jurisdictional and
Competent Court, which would also be the
situation in respect of the Successor Pontiffs.
25.9. The said admission is made in a proceeding
between the same party i.e., Shri. Uttaradi Mutt
was the plaintiff therein, Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt was the Defendant No.1 and Shri.
Sosale Vyasarayaru Mutt was the defendant
No.2, the dispute in the said suit was as
regards the ownership of the property where
the Nava Brindavana Gadde is situated. Thus, I
am of the considered opinion that the said
proceedings and the present proceedings
cannot be so different to contend that the
admission made in the earlier proceedings
- 153 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
would not be binding in the present
proceedings.
25.10. Since Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has
specifically pleaded and led evidence as regards
the Brindavanas located in the Nava Brindavana
Gadde. Hence, the decision in Sita Ram Bhau
Patil's case would not be appliable. In so far
as Basant Singh's case is concerned wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion
that an admission can be explained by the
concerned party, here the person who has
made the said admission having expired his
successor to office relying on the Nirupa issued
by the person making the admission and the
said Nirupa also clearly stating that there was
an alleged mistaken belief that the Brindavana
was of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu when it is in
fact of Shri. Jaya Teertharu, I am of the
considered opinion that these aspects would
- 154 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
have to be independently established by Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in a proceedings
initiated in that regard by Shri. Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt.
25.11. The admission has not been explained but is
sought to be resiled from, there is nothing on
record to disbelieve the admission made in O.S.
No.65/1/59-60.
25.12. Hence, I answer point No.4 by holding that
the admission made by former
Peetadhipati of Shri Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt would be binding on Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its
followers.
26. ANSWER TO POINT NO.5: Whether the
Gazetteers produced by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt,
now at this stage, can be relied upon by this
Court?
26.1. Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has produced several
Gazetteers based on which the submission
- 155 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
made by Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande is that
the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is
recognized to be that in Nava Brindavana
Gadde and that of Shri Jaya Teertharu is in
Malkhed, Kalaburagi. Reliance is placed on the
Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga Region
(Anegundi) to contend that the brindavana of
Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is at Anegundi viz.,
Nava Brindavana Gadde. By relying on the very
same document/publication, it is contended
that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya
Teertharu is not at Nava Brindavana Gadde
since his name is not mentioned.
26.2. By relying on the Mysore State Gazetteer
published in the year 1966, it is contended that
the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at
Malkhed, Gulbarga, now Kalaburagi. By relying
on Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka, Dharwad
district, it is again contended that the
- 156 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at
Malkhed.
26.3. The submission made by Shri. Ameet Kumar
Deshpande is that in terms of Section 81 of the
Indian Evidence Act, there is a presumption as
to the contents of the Gazetteer and this Court
would have to take the same into account to be
genuine and accept the contents thereof. It is
further contended that cognizance of the
contents thereof could be taken in terms of
Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act.
26.4. The submission of Sri. C.V.Nagesh, learned
Senior counsel for respondents No.6 to 15 is
that the Gazetteer cannot be taken to be or
considered to be the gospel truth, the contents
of the Gazetteer would have to be
independently assessed on the available
evidence, this Court cannot look into the same
due to the contents of the Gazetteer being
disputed, it would be better to let the Court
- 157 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
seized of the suit now filed by respondents No.6
to 15 to decide on the same.
26.5. His submission is that in terms of Bombay
Gazetteer Shri Jaya Teertharu is stated to have
expired in the year 1269 and in terms of the
Gulbarga Gazetteer, he is stated to have
expired in the year 1389 there being difference
of 100 years amongst these two Gazetteers.
The year of expiry being wrongly mentioned,
the contents of the Gazetteers cannot be
considered to be true. In this regard reliance
has been placed on Thriamak Shivarudra's
case to contend that the Gazetteers
themselves are not conclusive evidence but are
rebuttable pieces of evidence. Reliance is also
placed on Kali Prasanna's case to contend
that Gazetteers are strictly not evidence of the
truth of the matter.
- 158 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
26.6. Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act is
extracted hereinbelow for easy reference:
81. Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers,
private Acts of Parliament and other
documents.
The Court shall presume the genuineness of
every document purporting to be the London
Gazette or [any official Gazette, or the
Government Gazette] [Substituted by A.O.
1937, for "the Gazette of India, or the
Government Gazette of any L.G., or".] of any
colony, dependency or possession of the
British Crown, or to be a newspaper or
journal, or to be a copy of a private Act of
Parliament [of the United Kingdom] [Inserted
by A.O. 1950.] printed by the Queen's Printer
and of every document purporting to be a
document directed by any law to be kept by
any person, if such document is kept
substantially in the form required by law and
is produced from proper custody.
26.7. A perusal of Section 81 of Indian Evidence Act,
extracted hereinabove, would indicate that the
Court shall presume the genuineness of every
document, be it official gazette or government
gazette printed by the Queens printer, which
- 159 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
would now have to be read as Government
Press, thus, the Gazetteers having been
produced there would be a presumption drawn
by this Court.
26.8. The said presumption as contended by
Sri.C.V.Nagesh is rebuttable except for pointing
out the divergence in the year of death of Shri.
Jaya Teertharu, nothing has been placed on
record to disbelieve the Gazetteers, nor is any
defect pointed out in the Gazetteers. Merely
because the year of death of Shri. Jaya
Teertharu is mentioned wrongly would not take
away the assertion made in the Gazetteers that
the brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu
is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde nor does
it take away the fact that the brindavana of
Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated at Malkhed,
Kalaburagi.
- 160 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
26.9. All the counsels having specifically asserted that
a brindavana can relate to only one pontiff or
Guru and that two pontiffs or two Gurus cannot
be in the same brindavana. It cannot therefore
be contended that the same brindavana is of a
different pontiff than that of the pontiff which
has been believed for the last several centuries.
26.10. The denial by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is
based on one single contradiction. The
existence of the Gazetteers and the publication
thereof is not disputed.
26.11. The submission of Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned
Senior counsel in this regard is that in the Suit,
the truth of the Gazetteers would come out.
are seeking to deny the veracity of the contents
of the Gazetteers, as regards which, as of
today, there is only a denial. The Gazetteers
speak for themselves and have been published,
- 161 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
admitted to be so published, the existence
being admitted. At this stage, the said
gazetteers would have to be considered by this
Court. The request for non-consideration by
respondents No.6 to 15 on the basis of their
dispute, as regards the veracity, is yet to be
established in the suit.
26.12. The veracity and authenticity of the gazetteers
being established, I'am of the considered
opinion that in terms of Section 56 of the
Indian Evidence Act, this court can take
cognizance of, as also take judicial notice of the
contents of the said gazetteers which give a
history of people and places, which includes
that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and Shri.
Jaya Teertharu and their respective
Brindavanas including location thereof.
26.13. Insofar as the books and treatises relied upon
by Sri.C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior counsel,
- 162 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
these books and treatises are private
publications which are not ones which are
recognized or be recognised under Section 81
of the Indian Evidence Act. Without
commenting on the veracity and or the
authenticity of the said books, it can only be
said that the contents of the said books and the
statements made therein are the opinion of the
authors concerned. If at all, they are required
to be established during the trial in the suit filed
by respondents No.6 to 15, the authors would
have to be examined in the said suit.
26.14. Merely because there is a publication that would
not bind this court. It is a trite law that
newspaper publications or the like are not ones
which can be taken to be established evidence
without them being established in the manner
known to law.
- 163 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
26.15. Merely because the said suit is pending and a
claim is made contra to the existing state of
affairs, it cannot be said that the said dispute
will override the existing state of affairs,
requiring the contents of the Gazetteers to be
disbelieved. I am therefore of the considered
opinion that the contents of the Gazetteers
would have to be taken into consideration by
this Court in terms of Section 81 of the Indian
Evidence Act, as also in terms of Section 56 of
the Indian Evidence Act.
26.16. Thus, I answer Point No.5 by holding that
the Gazetteers relied upon by Shri.
Uttaradi Mutt can and/or to be believed by
this Court for the purpose of ascertaining
and passing necessary orders there being
no rebuttable evidence placed on record
contrary to the contents of the Gazetteers
- 164 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
except the divergence pointed out in the
year of death of Shri Jaya Teertharu.
27. ANSWER TO POINT NO.6: Whether at this
juncture, it can be said that the Brindavana at
Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri. Jaya
Teertharu or Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu?
27.1. In view of my answer to points No.1 to 5 above,
it is clear that until the year 1985 even Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its pontiffs
believed that the brindavana situated at Nava
Brindavana Gadde to be that of Shri.
Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is only post the
Nirupa which had been issued by earlier pontiff
of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt based on
certain publications that it is now sought to be
asserted that the brindavana is of Shri. Jaya
Teertharu and not of Shri. Raghuvarya
Teertharu.
27.2. As held above, there is nothing on record which
would indicate that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy
- 165 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
Mutt is performing any pooja or aradhana of
Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde
prior to 1985 and even after 1985 except for
the pamphlets which have been produced there
is nothing placed on record and coordinate
Bench of this Court vide judgment dated
15.07.2022 in WP No.102614/2022 has come
to a conclusion that there is nothing which is on
record to establish that Shri.Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt has conducted any aradhana of
Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana
Gadde.
27.3. In the suit which had been filed by Shri.
Uttaradi Mutt, written statement having been
filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as also
evidence having been led by the earlier pontiff
of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, firstly there
is no mention of the brindavana of Shri. Jaya
Teertharu being existent at Nava Brindavana
Gadde in the written statement.
- 166 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
27.4. In the evidence led by the pontiff, firstly it is
categorically asserted that the brindavana of
Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated at Nava
Brindavana Gadde and secondly, nowhere it has
been claimed that brindavana of Shri. Jaya
Teertharu is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde.
27.5. It is also clear from the records that in the year
1985 when Nirupa was issued by earlier pontiff
of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, for the first
time it is contended that the brindavana of Shri.
Jaya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana
Gadde. In fact, the pontiff has categorically
stated that he was under a mistaken belief that
the brindavana was that of Shri. Raghuvarya
Teertharu. This would indicate and categorically
establish that even until 1985 both the pontiff
of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt were of the opinion
- 167 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
that the brindavana situated at Nava
Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri. Raghuvarya
Teertharu and not Shri Jaya Teertharu.
27.6. Even thereafter there are no issues which arose
until 2021-22 when the ceremony, pooja,
aradhana sought to be performed by Shri
Uttaradi Mutt was obstructed by Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which resulted in
writ petition being filed for that year followed
by subsequent years. The Nirupa having been
issued on the basis of certain publication made
by Sosale Vysaraya Mutt and now sought to be
substantiated by relying on the publication by
certain other researchers viz., Shri.
M.R.Anantha Padmanabha, Shri. Sanur Bheema
Bhat, Shri. T.K.Venugopala Dasaru, which are
all private publications which would need to be
established by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt
by cogent evidence being led. These being
- 168 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
private publications by individuals cannot be
accepted to be the gospel truth or Veda Vakya,
on the face of it. The authors would have to be
examined and cross-examined, their assertions
being contrary to the admission even made by
the pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt
cannot be a ground for this Court to disbelieve
that the brindavana located at Nava Brindavana
Gadde is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu
requiring this court to take judicial notice of the
same in terms of Section 57 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
27.7. Be that as it may, these are all documents
which have come into being post the admission
made in the Suit on which basis the Nirupa has
been issued and as such, the Nirupa being a
assertion of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt
would have to be established by Shri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt.
- 169 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
27.8. At this stage when Shri Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt has not sought for any further relief than
that originally sought for in W.P.
No.103994/2023, it is Shri Uttaradi Mutt who
has persisted in prosecuting its writ petition by
filing amendment and addressing arguments.
This would give rise to unmistakable conclusion
that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not
interested in prosecuting W.P.
No.103994/2023.
27.9. The arguments of Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi
and Shri. C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsels
has always been with an intent to find lacuna in
the claim of Shri Uttaradi Mutt rather than
establishing the claim of Shri. Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is
not merely a Respondent in WP No. 103982 of
2023 but is also a Petitioner in WP No. 103994
of 2023. The only assertion made as regards
- 170 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
establishing the claim of Shri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt being reference to aforesaid
publications and the Nirupa.
27.10. A suit has also been filed by respondents No.6
to 15 wherein petitioners No. 1 to 6 claims to
be the devotees and followers of Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which has been filed
after the filing of the present writ petition and
those persons have also been impleaded in the
present matter. The manner in which the said
suit has been filed subsequent to filing of the
writ petition, impleading application being filed
and asserted that respondents No.6 to 15 will
be affected if any order is passed and there
being no suit which has been filed by Shri.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, I am of the
considered opinion that the intention behind
filing of the said suit is also suspect. Be that as
it may the arguments of respondents 6 to 15
- 171 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
were heard in detail and all the submissions
made on their behalf by Sri.C.V.Nagesh,
learned senior counsel have been dealt with in
the present order.
27.11. For all the above-mentioned reasons, I
answer point No.6 by holding that at this
juncture, I am of the considered opinion
that the brindavana situated at Nava
Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri
Raghuvarya Teertharu and not that of Shri
Jaya Teertharu.
28. ANSWER TO POINT No.7: What order?
28.1. I am of the considered opinion that it does not
behoove the Mutts of the stature of Shri.
Uttaradi Mutt and/or Shri. Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt to have such disputes in a court of law,
they ought to have resolved the same among
themselves they being guiding Mutts as regards
- 172 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
the Shri. Madhva philosophy which the common
citizens look upto.
28.2. The mutts and their Peetadhipatis, being
knowledgeable of worldly and other worldly
affairs, are looked upon to offer solace to a
common man. It is never advisable for such
guiding Mutts, who are friends, philosophers
and guides to the general public, to have such
disputes. It is, in fact, for such Mutts to guide
the general public, their devotees and followers
in such a manner that there is no scope for any
disputes to arise, if despite the same if any
worldly or other worldly disputes were to arise
to guide them in such a manner that they are
resolved amicably. If the same are not so
resolved, the Courts are always available to
decide on the dispute raised.
28.3. It is there required for the Peetadhipatis of both
the Mutts to resolve these disputes at the
- 173 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
earliest, lest the followers and devotees would
be dragged into the same, as can be seen by
Respondents No. 6 to 15 having been dragged
in.
28.4. Considering that these disputes have recently
arisen for the last three to four years leading to
litigation before this Court, and this litigation
arises every year when Aradhana is required to
be performed, I am of the opinion that waiting
for the Civil Court to decide the alleged dispute
now raised which may take many years, would
not be in the interest of both the Mutts and/or
the followers of the Mutt.
28.5. This court would have to take into consideration
the circumstances as existing and as also
established as being followed to arrive at a
conclusion rather than to wait for a decision of
a Civil Court as regards the dispute raised only
now based on the Nirupa issued by the former
- 174 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, which
Nirupa is also contrary to the statements made
by the very same pontiff in a litigation before
Courts of law.
28.6. In view of the above findings and observations,
I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition in W.P. No.103994/2023 filed by
Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is dismissed.
ii. The writ petition in W.P. No.103982/2023 filed by
Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is allowed.
iii. A mandamus is issued directing official
respondents No.1 to 4 to provide adequate
protection, if and when necessary, for Shri.
Uttaradi Mutt to offer prayers, conducting pooja
Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers,
Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the name Shri.
Raghuvarya Teertharu at his Brindavana situated
on the island named 'Nava Brindavana Gadde",
- 175 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7502
bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Gangavati Taluk,
Koppal District; and
iv. Respondents No.1 to 4 are also directed to ensure
that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and/or its
followers do not offer any prayers, conducting
pooja Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals,
prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc, in the name
of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at any brindavana
situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde.
v. The above order shall, however, be subject to the
Judgement and decree, if any, passed in OS
No.35/2024, now pending before the Principal
Civil Judge & JMFC at Gangavathi.
I place on record my appreciation for the valuable
assistance rendered by Sri.Vinay Kudri, Law Clerk-
cum-Research Assistant.
Sd/-
JUDGE
