IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.23330 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI NAGARAJU S/O GAVIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 2. SRI. PARAMESH S/O M.G. PRAKASHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI. M.G.PRAKASHAPPA 3. SRI.M.G. PRAKASHAPPA S/O KAMANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT SIDADARAGALLU VILLAGE, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 112 …PETITIONERS (By SRI R. NATARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI KAMARAJU S/O LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT KAVANADALA, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 2. SRI.SIDDAPPA S/O LATE JUNJANNA, AGED AOBUT 67 YEARS R/AT POOJARAHALLI, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 3. SRI. DODDATHIMANNA S/O LATE CHIKKARAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT JAVANAYYANA PALYA, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 4. SRI. SHIVANNA S/O NAGAPPA R/AT POOJARAHALLI DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISH. H.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD. 16.07.2019.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MA 10/2017 FROM THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MADHUGIRI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2019 WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEX-K AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners being the defendants in contesting respondent/plaintiffs’ suit in O.S.No.63/2017 inter alia for a decree of declaration of Archakship, are knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the order dated 23.03.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-K whereby, the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Madhugiri, having favoured respondents M.A.No.10/2017, has granted temporary injunctive relief to them. The contesting respondent No.1 having entered appearance through his counsel, opposes the Writ Petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the temple in question is a public temple but not affiliated to Muzrai Department of the State; the Shakta Deity namely Shree Kaavallamma has devotees in seven villages in the vicinity; for some period, the pooja to the deity having not been done on regular basis, the village leaders and yajamaans having formed a Committee for the rejuvenation of the said temple vide registered document dated 28.03.2016 has appointed petitioners No.2 & 3 as the Archaks of the said temple since they had been performing pooja after one Mr.Siddappa, recused from the Archakship because of declining age; the management of the temple has vested in this Committee which has taken the right decision to make appointment; this aspect having been duly considered by the trial court, no injunctive relief was granted to the respondents; however, the lower Appellate Court unjustifiably reversed the said order in respondents M.A.No.10/2017 and granted them the injunctive relief. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the Writ Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1 made submissions in justification of the impugned order contending that this court exercising restrictive jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, may not examine the matter as an Appellate Court; the supervisory jurisdiction does not extend to re-appreciation of facts recorded by the lower Appellate Court and therefore, the impugned order cannot be faltered on merits. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) petitioners allege that the suit temple is a public shrine, but no material is produced to prima facie show it to be; the letter of Muzrai Department that the said temple is not affiliated to the said department does not take anyone’s case any further; they have not placed any material to show as to how the registered Rejuvenation Committee came to be formed and how the management of the temple came to be vested in it; under what authority these few members of this Committee can represent the seven villages, is not forthcoming; why the Gram Panchayats in which these seven villages are comprised, are not associated with the management of the temple or with the Committee, is militantly lacking;
(b) petitioners in their Written Statement dated 04.03.2017 contend that the temple has been in existence since last 200 years or so; they have not whispered anything about the hereditary Archakship except stating three names i.e., Puttaiah, his son Kavalappa and Kavalappa’s son Siddappa were doing the pooja; conversely, the respondents have averred about the hereditary Archakship but here again, without producing much evidence; however, as between them, the lower Appellate Court has favoured the case of the contesting respondents in its wisdom and discretion which this court ordinarily does not re-examine such decisions in the absence of glaring errors; and, (c) the petitioners have taken up in their Written Statement a contention as to a suit in O.S.No.47/1990 concerning the Archakship of the said temple and its disposal in the year 1995 without producing either the judgment & decree or the pleadings; no reasons are assigned for not producing the same in this Writ Petition, if at all, they supported their case as claimed by them; contesting respondent No.2 has not produced the same, is true but he has not structured his suit on the basis of the said suit at all.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
However, the observations made herein above being confined to disposal of this Writ Petition, shall not influence the trial and decision making in the suit and thus, all contentions of the parties are kept open.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY