Karnataka High Court
Sri R Ramu vs Sri Rajarajeshwari Temple Trust on 13 April, 2018
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.150 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
Sri. R.Ramu
S/o Late Rajarathnam
Aged about 54 years
R/at No.12, Gangmen Quarters
K B A R Main road, Austin Town
Bangalore-47. ..... Appellant
(By Sri. Syed Khaleel Pasha, Advocate)
AND:
Sri. Rajarajeshwari Temple Trust
No.1/1, K B A R Main road
Austin Town, Bangalore-47
Represented by its' Trustees
a) Sri N.Basavaraj
S/o Late Nanjappa
Aged about 58 years
Residing at No.389/70
Rama Iyengar Road
V.V.Puram, Bangalore
b) Sri B.K.Purushothama
S/o Late B.M.Krishnappa
Aged about 40 years
2
Residing at No.4, 15th Cross
Cubbonpet, Bangalore-2.
c) Sri N.Mruthyunjaya
S/o Late M.R.Nanjundappa
Aged about 52 years
Residing at No.12
Mother Theresa Road
Austin Town
Bangalore-47. ... Respondents
(Sri. H.N.Prakash Advocate C/R)
This RFA is filed under Section 96 of CPC against
the Judgment and Decree dated 16.10.2012 passed in
O.S.No.6513/2008 on the file of the XXXVII-Addl. City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit
for declaration and permanent injunction.
This RFA coming on for Admission this day, the
court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2012 passed in O.S.No.6513/2008, on the file of XXXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before trial Court. 3
3. Heard Shri Syed Khaleel Pasha, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri H.N.Prakash, learned Counsel for the caveator/respondents.
4. Brief facts of the case are, Sri Rajarajeshwari Temple at Austin Town, Bangalore, belongs to plaintiff Trust. They have filed the instant suit for a declaration that the person appointed by the Trust shall perform the pooja; and permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from performing pooja.
5. The defendant filed his written statement inter alia contending that the members of the Trust are misappropriating funds. He is eligible to perform pooja and to discharge his duties in the temple as an Archak.
6. Based on the pleadings, learned trial Judge framed the following issues:
1. Does the plaintiffs prove that, Sri Rajarajeshwari Temple Trust is a registered trust as contended in the plaint?4
2. Does the plaintiffs prove that, this defendant is not a duly appointed Priest/Archaka of the plaintiffs' Trust temple and not performing any functions of the plaintiff's trust?
3. Does the plaintiffs prove that, this defendant is interfering in the smooth function of the plaintiffs' Trust?
4. Does the plaintiffs prove that, a person duly appointed by it is only a person to perform the functions of the plaintiffs trust as contended in the plaint?
5. What order or decree?"
7. On consideration of material on record, learned trial judge has decreed the suit as prayed for and restrained the defendant from entering into the temple.
8. Arguing in support of the appeal, Shri Syed Khaleel Pasha, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant's father was rendering service as a priest in the temple; members of the Trust are misappropriating temple's fund and he is a fully qualified priest. Therefore, the trial Court has erred in 5 passing the impugned judgment and decree. With these submissions, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.
9. Shri H.N.Prakash, learned Counsel for the respondents argued in support of the appeal.
10. The facts of this case are in a very narrow compass. Claim of the defendant is that his father was a priest in the temple and he must be permitted to perform pooja in the temple.
11. It is not disputed that temple is managed by the plaintiff Trust. In such circumstances, it shall be the prerogative of the Trustees to manage the affairs of the temple. Unless he is a hereditary archak, defendant's claim cannot be considered.
12. So far as the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not permitted to visit the temple, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that any citizen can visit the temple as a 6 devotee and defendant may also visit the temple as a devotee.
13. In view of the said submission, grievance of the appellant to the extent that he is not permitted to enter the temple as a devotee stands allayed.
14. In the circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, this appeal fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.
15. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.1/2013 does not survive for consideration and it stands disposed of accordingly.
Appeal dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Yn.