Karnataka High Court
Shree Karyaswamy Matha vs The Hon Ble Deputy Commissioner on 14 November, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46274
MFA No. 5110 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 5153 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5110 OF 2024 (CPC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5153 OF 2024(CPC)
IN MFA No. 5110/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SHREE KARYASWAMY MATHA
AN ARTIFICIAL JURIDICAL PERSON
OWNER OF THE SECOND PLAINTIFF
REPRESENTED BY ITS PONTIFF,
HIS HOLINESS SHREE MAHESHWARA SWAMIJI.
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
SANGAMA KSHETRA, MOTTA VILLAGE,
HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
Digitally signed 2. LORD SHREE RAMALINGESHWARA SWAMY
by DEVIKA M THE PRESIDING DEITY OF RAMALINGESHWARA SWAMY
Location: HIGH TEMPLE, REPRESENTED BY ITS OWNER SHREE
COURT OF KARYASWAMY MATHA AN ARTIFICIAL
KARNATAKA JURIDICAL PERSON OWNER OF
THE SECOND PLAINTIFF REPRESENTED BY ITS PONTIFF,
HIS HOLINESS SHREE MAHESHWARA SWAMIJI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, SANGAMA KSHETRA,
MOTTA VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI,
NANJANAGUD TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY D.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46274
MFA No. 5110 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 5153 of 2024
AND:
1. THE HON BLE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT OF MYSURU,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
ATHRAKACHERI,
MYSURU-570 005.
2. THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF RELIGIOUS
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT,
NEAR BANGALORE TIPPU PALACE,
CHAMARAJPETE, BENGALURU.
3. THE HON'BLE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MYSURU SUB-DIVISION,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
ATHRAKACHERI,
MYSURU-570 005.
4. THE HON'BLE TAHASILDAR,
OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR, TALUKA OFFICE,
NANJANAGUDU, DISTRICT MYSURU.
5. SOMESH
S/O LATE SHRI. CHIKKA KUSAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUDU TALUK,
DISTRICT MYSURU.
6. C. PRADEEP
S/O LATE SHRI. CHIKKA KUSAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUDU TALUK,
DISTRICT MYSURU.
7. RANGA RAMAYYA
S/O LATE CHIKKA MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:46274
MFA No. 5110 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 5153 of 2024
HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUDU TALUK,
DISTRICT MYSURU.
8. DEVAIAH
S/O LATE SHRI. KULLA DEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MAADANAHALLI,
KANIYOOR POST, HULLAHALLI HOBLI,
NANJANAGUDU TALUK,
DISTRICT MYSURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4
VIDE ORDER DATED: 27.09.2024
NOTICE TO R-5, R-7 & R-8 ARE H/S)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151
OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
05.07.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN OS.NO.125/2022 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD,
DISMISSING THE IA.NOII FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1
AND 2 OF CPC.
IN MFA NO. 5153/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SHREE KARYASWAMY MATHA
AN ARTIFICIAL JURIDICAL PERSON OWNER OF THE SECOND
PLAINTIFF, REPRESENTED BY ITS PONTIFF,
HIS HOLINESS SHREE MAHESHWARA SWAMIJI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
SANGAMA KSHETRA,
MOTTA VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI,
NANJANAGUD TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
2. LORD SHREE RAMALINGESHWARA SWAMY
THE PRESIDING DEITY OF
RAMALINGESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS OWNER SHREE KARYASWAMY
MATHA,AN ARTIFICIAL JURIDICAL
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:46274
MFA No. 5110 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 5153 of 2024
PERSON OWNER OF THE SECOND PLAINTIFF,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PONTIFF,
HIS HOLINESS, SHREE MAHESHWARA SWAMIJI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
SANGAMA KSHETRA,MOTTA VILLAGE,
HULLAHALLI HOBLI,NANJANAGUD TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY D.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE HON BLE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT OF MYSURU,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
ATHRAKACHAERI,
MYSURU-570 005.
2. THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF RELIGIOUS AND
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT,
NEAR BANGALORE TIPPU PLACE,
CHAMRAJPETE, BENGALURU.
3. THE HONBLE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSURU SUB-DIVISION,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
ATHARAKACHERI, MYSURU-570 005.
4. THE HONBLE TAHASILDAR
OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR,
TALUKA OFFICE, NANJANAGUDU,
DISTRICT MYSURU.
5. SOMESH
S/O LATE SHRI. CHIKKA KUSAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:46274
MFA No. 5110 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 5153 of 2024
HULLAHALLI HOBLI,
NANJANGUDU TALUK,
DISTRICT MYSURU.
6. PRADEEP C
S/O LATE SHRI. CHIKKA KUSAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
HULLAHALLI HOBLI,
NANJANAGUDU TALUK,
DISTRICT MYSURU.
7. RANGA RAMAYYA
S/O LATE CHIKKA MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUDU TALUK,
DISTRICT MYSURU.
8. DEVAIAH
S/O LATE SHRI. KULLA DEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT MAADANAHALLI,
KANIYOOR POST, HULLAHALLI HOBLI,
NANJANAGUDU TALUK,
DISTRICT MYSURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4
VIDE ORDER DATED: 27.09.2024, NOTICE TO R-5, R-7 & R-8 ARE H/S
R-6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN
OS.NO.125/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.3 FILED UNDER
ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:46274
MFA No. 5110 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 5153 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to
4.
2. Inspite of the notice issued against the other
respondents, they did not chose to appear and have not
contested the matter.
3. These appeals are filed against rejection of
I.A.Nos.2 and 3, wherein in I.A.No.2 prayer is sought to
grant relief of temporary injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering in the 1st plaintiff's
functioning, conducting any programmes, rituals or annual
festivals either in schedule 'A' property or with respect to
schedule property - the 2nd plaintiff and related festivities
or religious programmes or propagation of faith through
temple - 2nd plaintiff religiously by the 1st plaintiff in any
manner and in I.A.No.3 prayer sought is to restrain the
NC: 2024:KHC:46274
defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs from repairing
the temple and mutt which are degenerating and are in
dilapidated condition either in schedule 'A' property or with
respect to schedule 'B' property in any manner till disposal
of the suit.
4. Defendant No.5 appeared and filed Statement
of Objections. The Trial Court having considered the
grounds, which have been urged in the applications and
objections, framed the following points for consideration:
1 Whether the plaintiffs have made out a
prima facie case?
2 Whether the balance of convenience lies in
favour of the plaintiffs?
3 Whether the plaintiffs will be put to
irreparable injury if the temporary
injunction is not granted as claimed in
I.As.II and III?
4 What order?
5. The Trial Court having considered the material
on record, answered the above pointes in negative and
came to the conclusion that this property was already
NC: 2024:KHC:46274
notified in the year 2003 itself and still the same is in the
list of notified temple and also comes to the conclusion
that the documents also does not disclose any prima facie
case in favour of the plaintiff. There are no documents to
conclude that the 2nd plaintiff exclusively belongs to the 1st
plaintiff and is a private temple and hence, comes to the
conclusion that there is no any prima facie case and also
taken note of the fact that in RTC produced by defendant
No.5 shows that presently in Column No.9 name of Sri.
Rameshwara Deity is forthcoming and as per Column
No.11 of the RTCs, there is interim stay against the order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P.No.21935/2015 and rejected the I.A. The main
contention of the counsel for the appellants in these
appeals are that the Trial Court committed an error in
rejecting the application and the order impugned is
contrary to law and non-application of judicious mind.
NC: 2024:KHC:46274
6. The Court has failed to notice that renovation of
the existing temple building in the suit schedule property
as it was emergent due to its unsafe state, considering the
safety and well being of the devotees of the temple. It is
also contended that the Trial Court failed to notice the
object of the Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and if the 2nd
plaintiff temple cannot maintain as it is likely to be
collapsed due to flooding of water owing to rain and stray
animals climb over the portico of temple and roof of
sanctums has developed huge cracks and as such water
pours inside the 'B' schedule property.
7. In order to protect the temple as well as the
devotees, who are also coming to the temple, it will affect
the interest of the devotees. The plaintiffs are not allowed
to carry out repairs in maintaining the temple. The
plaintiffs are deprived of their rights of using the mutt and
the temple and propagate and practice the religion.
8. The counsel also vehemently contends that the
evidence and documents coupled with the statement of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46274
the plaintiffs clearly shows that prima facie case and
balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellants-
plaintiffs. Unfortunately, the Trial Court has failed to take
note of these facts into consideration. The reasoning
given by the learned Senior Civil Judge in
O.S.No.125/2022 while passing the impugned orders is
against the well settled principles of law and has not
considered the prima facie case and balance of
convenience and hence, the order impugned requires
interference by this Court.
9. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the State i.e., respondent Nos.1 to
4 would contend that the notification was issued long back
in the year 2003 itself and also the Trial Court while
considering the grounds which have been urged by the
plaintiff as well as defendant No.5, who took specific
contention in the written statement and also furnished
Photostat copies of the order passed in
W.P.No.3837/2012, receipt, photograph, invitations and
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46274
order passed in W.P.No.21935/2015, RTCs, photographs,
letter written to the Tahasildar, Nanjanagud Taluk by the
Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru, Gazette Notification, letter
dated 01.01.2018 written to the Deputy Commissioner
Mysuru by the Tahasildar, Nanjanagud Taluk, Public
Notification dated 11.01.2017, letter written to Tahasildar
by the Deputy Commissioner dated 12.11.2010 and all
these documents are placed before the Court and the
same was also taken note of by the Trial Court, while
passing the order and in paragraph Nos.26 to 29 it is
clearly mentioned that even including the grievance of the
plaintiffs in paragraph No.26 and also the contention taken
by the plaintiffs as discussed in paragraph No.28, having
considered the material on record, particularly, the RTCs
and the order passed by the High Court in
W.P.No.21935/2015, comes to the conclusion that there
are no documents to conclude that the 2nd plaintiff
exclusively belongs to the 1st plaintiff, private temple.
Hence, no grounds are made out to interfere with the
findings of the Trial Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46274
10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants
and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State
and also the very contention of the plaintiffs urged before
the Trial Court also that the schedule properties belongs to
the plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff is inseparable from the 1st
plaintiff, Mutt. As such, the temple cannot be brought
under the purview of list of notified temples. The fact that
already notification was issued way back in the year 2003
is not in dispute and also there was an order passed by
the High Court is also not in dispute and also the Trial
Court has also taken note of the documents which have
been given by the defendants and mentioned in paragraph
25 of the impugned order, so also taken note of the RTCs
which have been produced before the Trial Court by the
plaintiffs as stated in paragraph 26 of the impugned order.
The fact that the notification was issued as long back as in
the year 2003 is not in dispute and though it is claimed by
the 2nd plaintiff that the same exclusively belongs to the
1st plaintiff and it is a private temple, no material is
placed.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46274
11. In order to substantiate the same, no such
material is placed before the Court and once the property
was notified in the year 2003 and when the material does
not disclose anything about the plaintiffs having prima
facie material and the very contention that the same is in
dilapidated condition and it requires renovation in order to
protect the life of the devotees and the plaintiffs are also
in the very same building and the same cannot be a
ground to grant relief of temporary injunction. Unless the
plaintiffs make out a prima facie case to grant the relief,
the Trial Court also taken note of the material on record
and the only grievance of the plaintiffs is whether it
belongs to the plaintiffs and also the contention that the
2nd plaintiff is inseparable from the 1st plaintiff-Mutt and
temple cannot be brought under the purview of the list of
notified temples and when the same has already been
notified and the same still holds good, the very contention
of the plaintiffs that they are entitled for temporary
injunction cannot be accepted. The Trial Court has also
taken note of the material available on record in coming to
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46274
the conclusion that there is no prima faice case in favour
of the plaintiffs in paragraph No.29 also, clear discussion
was made and hence, I do not find any force in the
contentions of the appellants' counsel and hence, there is
no merit in these appeals.
12. In view of the discussion made above, the
appeals are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
BMC
