IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.53198 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI SACHIDANANDA WODEYAR S/O LATE PATTADA SRI PARVATHARAJA SHIVACHARIYA SWAMI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT SAMSTHANA MUTT, NO.1, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA, HUNASAMARANAHALLI POST, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 562 157. ...PETITIONER (By Sri RAMESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR Sri P.M.NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 024.
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK PIN CODE – 562 157.
... RESPONDENTS (By Sri Y.D.HARSHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 01.10.2018 AT ANNEXURE-‘A’ ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK, THEREBY REJECTING TO ISSUE GENEOLOGICAL TREE TO THE PETITIONER, ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.P.M.Narayana Swamy for petitioner and Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner has sought for quashing of the endorsement dated 01.10.2018 issued by second respondent whereunder request of petitioner to issue survivorship certificate to the effect that he has succeeded to Mutt on the basis of genealogical tree submitted has been rejected on the ground that a suit in O.S.No.246 of 2012 is pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for petitioner that impugned endorsement is liable to be quashed as it is illegal, arbitrary since second respondent has not taken into consideration all the relevant documents produced by the petitioner along with his application, which was furnished for grant of Survivorship Certificate. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that father of the writ petitioner late Pattada Sri Parvatharaja Shivacharya Swami and other members of the family were living as joint family members and they were living under one roof and petitioner came to be appointed as Mataadipathi of Hunasamaranahalli Samsthana Mutt and as such, by inheritance, he is entitled for issuance of Survivorship Certificate on the demise of his father. Hence, he prays for writ petition being allowed and prayer sought for being granted.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would support the impugned order.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, it would disclose a dispute exists with regard to “Mataadipathi” of Hunasamaranahalli Samsthana Mutt and same is pending before Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli in O.S.No.246 fo 2012 which proceedings have been initiated by the plaintiffs therein in the representative capacity seeking declaration and permanent injunction. Infact an application had been filed by one of the defendant in the said suit, namely, defendant No.4 Sri.Dayananda under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for rejection of plaint, which came to be considered by the learned Trial Judge and had dismissed the same vide order dated 28.03.2015 (Annexure – ‘U’). Infact, an observation came to be made that petitioner herein who is the second defendant in the said suit had after having been appointed as Peetadhipathi of Mutt had deviated from Sanyasiship and had illegal connection with the maid servants of the Mutt. There is also an allegation made in said suit that petitioner herein has misutilized the properties of the Mutt for his illegal activities. It is in this background, learned Trial Judge has referred to reject the plaint. In other words, Civil Court is seized of the matter in O.S.No.246 of 2012 which is a representative suit filed for declaration and injunction. Hence, question of declaring petitioner is Peetadhipathi or he having succeeded to Mutt by Survivorship by the revenue authorities would not arise. As such, the impugned endorsement issued by the second respondent referring to issue Survivorship Certificate declaring Petitioner is the survivor of Mutt does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever calling for interference at the hands of this Court. No other good ground is made out to entertain this petition. Hence, stands rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE
DH