Karnataka High Court
Sri K V Sathyanarayan Das S/O ... vs Sri H V Ramprakash on 29 August, 2013
Bench: Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar, B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.453 OF 2007
BETWEEN
SRI K V SATHYANARAYAN DAS
ADOPTED SON OF SRI G.THIMMAIAH
(SHOWN AS H.M.VENKATAPATHI DAS
IN THE CAUSE TITLE IN THE COURT BELOW)
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDING AT NANDI HILL CROSS
HEGGADEHALLI
TUBUGERE HOBLI
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-560 154
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M S PURUSHOTHAMA RAO, ADV.,)
AND
1.SRI H V RAMPRAKASH
S/O SRI. H.M.VENKATARAMANAPPA
MAJOR
2.SRI H V VENKATESH
SON OF SRI. H.M.VENKATARAMANAPPA
MAJOR
BOTH RESIDING AT NO.1, SUNKALPET
BANGALORE-560 002
2
3.HADONAHALLI VENKATARAMANAPPA
VENUGOPAL SWAMY TRUST
(HPV TRUST),
NO.1, ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE STREET,
LINGASETTYPET, CUBBONPET
BANGALORE-560 002
REPRESENTED BY H.V.RAMPRAKASH AND
SRI.H.V.VENKATESH
4.SRI H V MURTHY
S/O SRI PILLA VENKATAPPA
@ VENKATAP
MAJOR, TANK ROAD,
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN-560 149
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C V SUDHINDRA & SMT.K DHANALAKSHMI &
SMT.M.D.ANURADHA URS., ADV., FOR R1 TO R3)
(BY SRI.R.B.SADASHIVAPPA, ADV., FOR R2)
(R4 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT. 16.01.2007 PASSED IN
OS.NO.275/02 (OLD.NO.76/2001) ON THE FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) DODDABALLAPUR, DECREEING
THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated:16.01.2006 passed in OS No.275/2012 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Doddaballapur. By the said judgment and decree the Trial Court decreed the suit and consequently declared the plaintiffs as owners 3 in possession of the suit schedule property and granted injunction against the defendants.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original ranking i.e., as plaintiffs and defendants in this appeal also.
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property i.e., the property over which the Gopal Krishna Swamy temple and choultry attached to the said temple are situated belonged to one Shakedar Govindappa, father of G.Thimmaiah; after demise of Shakedar Govindappa, G.Thimmaiah was managing the affairs of the temple; G.Thimmaiah being Revenue Inspector was unable to take care of the temple and the choultry and had entrusted the same to H.M.Venkataramanappa (father of the plaintiffs) 10 to 12 years prior to executing the agreement deed dated 15.06.1947; the agreement dated 15.06.1947 was for a period of four years by G.Thimmaiah in favour of father of the plaintiffs namely H.M.Venkataramanappa; by 4 virtue of the said agreement, the management of the temple was handed over in favour of H.M.Venkataramanappa by G.Thimmaiah for a period of four years; even after four years G.Thimmaiah did not come forward to claim the possession of the temple or the suit schedule property from H.M.Venkataramanappa; said H.M.Venkataramanappa renovated certain portion of the temple during the period from 1947 to 1955; besides, he constructed two more temples adjacent to existing Venugopalaswamy temple and installed the idols of Rama-Sita, Lakshmana, Hanumantha and Mata Saraswathi in the year 1955; a wooden chariot with silver plate embossed was created by H.M.Venkataramanappa and pooja activities were being performed by him; during his life time he created a deed of trust for the management of the affairs of the temple of which H.M.Venkataramanappa and both the plaintiffs (sons of H.M.Venkataramanappa) were trustees; after the demise of plaintiffs father namely H.M.Venkataramanappa, 5 plaintiffs continued in possession of the suit schedule property including management of the temple; their names came to be entered in the municipal records in the year 1992; at that point of time, the Defendant No.1 started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the management of the temple; since the defendants started denying the plaintiffs right over the properties in question including the temple management, the present suit came to be filed for declaration that they have become owners by virtue of adverse possession over the suit schedule property and for the relief of injunction, restraining the defendants and their agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the temple property by the plaintiffs.
The case of the Defendant No.1 in brief is that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property; he had earlier filed a suit in OS No.128/1991 for injunction against Defendant No.2 herein; Defendant No.2 herein is none other than the 6 cousin of the plaintiffs; in the said suit, plaintiff No.1 herein had deposed as a witness on behalf of the Defendant No.2 herein in OS No.128/1991; the said suit came to be decreed in favour of Defendant No.1; the suit schedule property in OS No.128/1991 was the portion of the suit schedule property in the present suit and therefore, the present suit is not maintainable; Defendant No.1 denies the existence of agreement dated 15.06.1947; according to Defendant No.1 the said agreement is created, concocted and therefore the same is required to be proved by the plaintiffs in accordance with law. It is further case of Defendant No.1 that he is the adopted son of late G.Thimmaiah and he was adopted by G.Thimmaiah when he was three months old after performing necessary ceremonies such as Dutta homa etc.,; since Defendant No.1 is the sole surviving heir of G.Thimmaiah, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property including the temple. As the plaintiffs have not proved the continuous & uninterrupted possession over the suit property after 7 1947 and as there is nothing on record to show that as to when the permissive possession of property became adverse to the interest of the owner, the decree for declaration based on an alleged adverse possession cannot be granted. On the very ground he has opposed the suit for the relief of injunction also.
Defendant No.2 has also filed written statement independently. He concedes to the case of the plaintiffs. He has pleaded that Sri.Venugopala Swamy temple which is situated on the suit property was managed by the plaintiff's father H.M.Venkataramanappa since 1966 uninterruptedly without hindrance of any party; said H.M.Venkataramanappa was spending money for management of the temple; at no point of time, Defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit schedule property; Defendant No.1 is not the legal heir of deceased G.Thimmaiah; Defendant No.1 is infact the son of late Venkatpathidas and not the adopted son of G.Thimmaiah. On these grounds he has prayed for decreeing the suit.
8
4. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether plaintiffs prove their perfecting title over the suit schedule temple property by adverse possession against the previous owner late G.Thimmaiah?
2. Whether plaintiffs further prove their continued possession of the suit temple and alleged act of the 1st defendant illegally usurpring the possession?
3. Whether 1st defendant proves that he is the adopted son of late G.Thimmaiah so as to say that suit schedule temple property is succeeded by him as class-I heir?
4. Does he further prove that Agreement dated 15/06/1947 entered into by the plaintiff's father H.M. Venkataramanappa & late G.Thimmaiah and the Trust Deed pleaded by the plaintiffs are fictitious consequent to a different Sale Deed of an adjacent property showing the 9 schedule Temple at southern side boundary?
5. Whether the defendants prove that acts of plaintiffs father late H.M.Venkataramanappa installing the deities of Rama, Lakshmana & Sita and Saraswathi in the suit Temple, owning wooden chariot with silver plates were just as the Seva Services?
6. Whether 1st defendant prove that plaintiff's suit valuation & court fee paid is incorrect?
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle to get the reliefs prayed for?
8. For What Order or Decree?
5. In support of their case the plaintiffs' have examined, the plaintiff No.1 as PW1 and two more witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and they have produced 45 documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to P45. Defendant No.1 was examined as DW1 and on his 10 behalf two witnesses were examined as DW2 and DW3 respectively and 40 documents were marked as Ex.D1 to D40.
After hearing and perusing of the material on record, Trial Court decreed the suit. Hence, this appeal is filed by defendant No.1. The Trial Court has also held that the Defendant No.1 has not proved that he is the adopted son of late G.Thimmaiah.
6. Sri.M.S.Purushothama Rao, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the first defendant / appellant submits Ex.P1 is not proved in accordance with law, inasmuch as no attesting witness is examined to prove the said document; even assuming that Ex.P1 is believable, then at the most, it can be said that the management of the temple was handed over in favour of the father of the plaintiffs but not the suit schedule property that too for a period of four years; Ex.P1 at the most discloses that permissive possession of the temple was handed over in favour of H.M.Venkataramanappa (father of the plaintiff); any length of continuous permissive possession of the plaintiffs father / plaintiffs 11 cannot be treated as they are in adverse possession; unless there is material to show that the permissive possession of the plaintiff became adverse to the interest of the owners of the property, the permissive possession continues to be permissive possession in law; since there is nothing on record to show as to when and how the possession of the plaintiffs over the temple became adverse to the interest of the owner, the declaratory relief cannot be granted. The trust deed Ex.P38 also cannot be relied upon by the plaintiffs inasmuch as the plaintiffs themselves are not the owners of the property; a person who is assigned with the management of the temple cannot create a trust without the knowledge of the owner of the temple / property; the trust deed specifically mentions that minimum number of trustees should be three at any point of time; after the demise of plaintiffs father H.M.Venkataramanappa, only two plaintiffs continued as trustees and consequently, the trust deed is not existing. The trust deed also reveals that H.M.Venkataramanappa was managing the affairs 12 of the temple and he was not the owner of the suit schedule property; the material on record herein reveals that what was assigned to H.M.Venkataramanappa is the management of the temple and not the suit schedule property; the 3rd plaintiff - trust as well as plaintiffs 1 and 2 cannot claim the ownership over the temple which is not the subject matter of Ex.P1 at all, inasmuch as, what was handed over in favour of H.M.Venkataramanappa was only the management of the temple and not the ownership of the temple itself; The trustees themselves cannot file a suit for declaration that they have become owner of the property by virtue of adverse possession inasmuch as it goes against the principle of "Doctrine of trust"; admittedly, additional trustees are not appointed and therefore the trust cannot be continued only with two trustees; at the most, it can be said that the plaintiffs are managing the temple and not the property.
Sri.R.B.Sadashivappa, learned advocate representing the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, per 13 contra argued in support of the judgment of the Court below. He submits that even assuming that the declaratory relief cannot be granted under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court is justified in granting the decree for permanent injunction inasmuch as admittedly the plaintiff's father was managing the temple affairs as per Ex.P1 and after his demise the plaintiffs are managing the affairs of the temple; until the management is taken away from them in accordance with law, they cannot be divested with the authority to manage the temple illegally. He further submits that the plaintiff's possession over the temple is settled and therefore, they can be dispossessed only in accordance with law.
7. After hearing the learned advocates, we are of the opinion that the following points for determination arise in this appeal.
a) Whether the Trial Court is justified in granting the decree of declaration based on alleged adverse possession of the 14 plaintiffs over the suit schedule property?
b) Whether the Trial Court is justified in concluding that the first defendant has not proved that he is an adopted son of G.Thimmaiah?
c) Whether the Trial Court is justified in granting the decree for injunction in respect of the suit schedule property?
8. Before proceeding further, it is beneficial to note the details of the suit schedule property which reads as under:
SCHEDULE All that piece of land bearing Municipal Khata No.830/766 situated at Tank Road, 1st Ward, Doddaballapur. The total area measuring 121' x 111' of which towards the south the temple complex measuring 70' x 40', in the center the bilwavruksha arena in an area measuring 30' x 120' and towards the East the Ashwathakatte area are situated and the same is having following boundaries:-15
East : Tank Road,
West : Residence of Rehman Sab & Others.
North: Tulasi Thota belonging to Late
H.M.Venkataramanappa.
South: Cross Road of Tank Road.
9. From the aforementioned schedule, it is prima facie clear that the schedule property consists of temple complex including Bilwavruksha arena, Ashwathakatte area etc., The schedule property totally measures 121' x 111' situated in Tank Road, 1st Ward, Doddaballapur town.
10. The parties to the litigation are Hindus. The erstwhile owner of the temple and the property namely G.Thimmaiah was a Hindu. The temple complex in question is having Gopal Krishna Swamy temple apart from Rama, Lakshmana, Sita, Hanumantha and Mata Saraswathi temples. Thus, it is needless to observe that it is a Hindu temple complex.16
11. RE: POINT (a):-
The case of the plaintiffs as aforementioned is that their father H.M.Venkataramanappa came in possession of the suit schedule property as per the agreement Ex.P1 dated 15.06.1947. Ex.P1 is executed by G.Thimmaiah in favour of H.M.Venkataramanappa, the father of the plaintiffs. It is no doubt true that none of the attesting witnesses to the said agreement is examined to prove that the said agreement is executed in accordance with law. However, the original agreement is produced before the Trial Court and the same was written on the stamp paper of the relevant period. The document in question is more than 30 years old. Under Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, the presumption is in favour of 30 years old document. The said document is produced by the plaintiffs i.e., produced from the proper custody. As aforementioned, the document was executed in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. Father of the plaintiffs has expired in 1991. Therefore, it is clear that it is produced from the proper custody before 17 the Court. Nothing is available on record to dislodge the presumption in favour of the 30 years old document. Moreover, PW2 & PW3 have deposed that the plaintiff's father Venkataramanappa was managing the temple since long time. Thus, in our considered opinion the Trial Court is justified in relying upon Ex.P1. We do not find any ground to disagree with the said conclusion reached by the Trial Court.
The case of the plaintiffs is supported by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 who are aged about 77 and 81 years. Both of them have deposed that the plaintiffs father H.M.Venkataramanappa was managing the affairs of the temple since long time. In the agreement Ex.P1 the author of the said document namely G.Thimmaiah has averred that since it is not possible for him to manage the affairs of the temple inasmuch as he being the Revenue Officer he has to move from place to place, he handed over the management of the temple in favour of H.M.Venkataramanappa for a period of four years with a condition that incase if G.Thimmaiah 18 comes back and asks the management of the temple within the said four years time, the same shall be handed over to him forthwith. The bare reading of Ex.P1 clearly reveals that only the management of the temple was handed over to H.M.Venkataramanappa for a period of four years which clearly means that the property was not handed over in favour of H.M.Venkataramanappa but only the management of the temple was handed over. It is needless to observe that the title of an immovable property value of which is more than Rs.100/- cannot be transferred to a 3rd party by the owner of the property without there being a registered deed of transfer except by way of a Will. Ex.P1 is merely an agreement. Under the said agreement, only the power to manage the temple and choultry was provided in favour of H.M.Venkataramanappa for a temporary period of four years. However, it is on record that G.Thimmaiah never came back to seek the management of the temple after his retirement from his service. Thus, the management 19 of the temple was continued with H.M.Venkataramanappa till his death. The material on record also reveals that G.Thimmaiah expired sometime in the year 1959-60. It is also relevant to note that only the name of the temple continued in the municipal records/ revenue records till the year 1990 which means, nobody's name much less the name of H.M.Venkataramanappa was entered in the records.
12. However, an attempt was made by the first defendant in the year 1990 to get his name entered in the municipal records in respect of the suit schedule property. In view of the same, litigations arose between the parties to the appeal. The plaintiffs also tried to get their names entered in the municipal records after 1992. Thus, the litigation has started after 1990-1992.
There was no litigation till 1990. As aforementioned the name of the temple continued in the municipal records till 1992.
20
13. The plaintiffs are claiming declaration based on adverse possession on the ground that they have become owners of the property by virtue of their continuous and uninterrupted peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property to the notice of the general public and therefore, they are to be declared as owners of the property. But there is nothing on record to show that the possession of the property became adverse to the interest of the owner. Infact the possession of the property was never handed over to the plaintiffs. On the other hand what was handed over to the plaintiffs was the management of the temple. Even assuming that the suit schedule property was handed over in favour of the father of the plaintiffs, there is nothing on record to show as to from when the plaintiffs started asserting their rights over the suit schedule property adverse to the interest of the owner.
14. The owner of the suit property namely G.Thimmaiah expired in the year 1959-60 itself. Even according to the plaintiffs, he did not have any legal 21 representatives. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiffs could not have asserted adverse interest or adverse possession against the non existing legal representatives of G.Thimmaiah, the original owner. As aforementioned the name of the temple continued in the municipal records till the year 1990. Hence, there is nothing on record to show that at any point of time till 1990, either the plaintiffs father or the plaintiffs asserted their right over the suit property adverse to the interest of the original owner.
More over, it is the case of the plaintiffs that a trust deed came into existence as per Ex.P38 on 16th May 1992 which means the plaintiffs came into picture in the year 1992. At that point of time, their father was alive. They were inducted into the management of the temple as trustees and not as the owners of the suit schedule property. Even according to the plaintiffs, they were continuing as trustees till filing of the suit. Firstly, the plaintiffs and their father would not have created the trust deed without the consent of the owner of the suit 22 property. Secondly, the trustees cannot claim ownership for themselves. If the trustees claim ownership for themselves, the same will go against the basic principles of the doctrine of trust. The very fact that the plaintiffs have claimed ownership over the trust property itself goes to show that they have misused the trust imposed by the erstwhile owner of the property on the father of the plaintiffs. But the father of the plaintiffs has misused the trust by creating a "trust deed" between him and his sons ie., the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs being in management of the temple as so called trustees are unfortunately claiming ownership unto themselves. Therefore the decree for declaration cannot be granted. Even otherwise, the trust deed cannot said to be in existence after the demise of H.M.Venkataramanappa inasmuch as Clause 4 of the Trust deed contemplates that the number of trustees will not be less than 3. After the demise of H.M.Venkataramanappa there were only two trustees available ie., the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. In this view of the matter, the trust also cannot be said to 23 be in existence after the demise of H.M.Venkataramanappa and the same has become inoperative.
15. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, we are clearly of the opinion that the Trial Court is not justified in granting the decree for declaration of ownership of the schedule property based on adverse possession. It is by now well settled that the claim of a watch man / care taker / agent / servant, all of them being persons in gratuitous possession / permissive possession and who were permitted by the owner to occupy the temple property, hold it on behalf of the owner and they acquire no right or interest therein irrespective of their long stay or occupation. Mere production of ration card or house tax receipts or stray entries would not establish their claim of adverse possession. [see the judgment in the case of A.Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam represented by its President and Others 24 reported in (2012) 6 SCC 430 and in the case of R.Hanumaiah and Another Vs. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department and Others reported in (2010) 5 SCC 203]. Moreover, as aforementioned, in this matter the possession of the suit schedule property infact was not handed over to the plaintiffs and only the management was handed over to the father of the plaintiffs. Even assuming that the suit schedule property is handed over in favour of the father of the plaintiffs, the possession of the plaintiff's father and thereafter, plaintiff's possession continued to remain as permissive possession. Since the plaintiffs have failed to prove their alleged adverse possession over the suit property, the Trial Court is not justified in granting the decree of declaration based on so called adverse possession. Hence point for determination No.(a) is answered accordingly.
16. RE: POINT NO.(b):-
Admittedly, G.Thimmaiah was the owner of the property. He expired in the year 1959-60. According to 25 the Defendant No.1, he is the adopted son of deceased G.Thimmaiah. According to him he was adopted by G.Thimmaiah when he was three months old. None of the witnesses is available to speak about the factum of adoption. Nothing is deposed by DW1 about ceremonies conducted at the time of adoption. Exs.P19 and 20 are the sale deeds executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of the 3rd parties in respect of his own properties after he attained majority. In the sale deeds Exs.P19 and 20, Defendant No.1 has mentioned his father's name as Venkatadasappa and not his alleged adopted father's name G.Thimmaiah. In other words, Defendant No.1 has described himself as the son of Venkatadasappa and not as the adopted son of G.Thimmaiah. Ex.P19 is the sale deed dated 14.12.1998 under which his private property was sold in favour of K.Jyothi and Ex.P20 is the sale deed dated 24.08.2005 in which another property was sold in favour of C.Mahesh. In both these documents, his father's name is mentioned as Venkatadasappa. If really he is the adopted son of 26 G.Thimmaiah, certainly the same should have been mentioned in those documents. There was no reason for Defendant No.1 to mention his father's name as Venkatadasappa. Even, the voters list of Defendant No.1 produced at Exs.P36 and 37 clearly reveal that the name of father of Defendant No.1 is mentioned as Venkatadasappa. In none of the documents after so called adoption, the name of the adopted father of Defendant No.1 is found. On the other hand, in every document pertaining to Defendant No.1, the name of his father is shown as K.M.Venkatadasappa. Only at the time of litigating before the Commissioner or before the Civil Court after 1990, Defendant No.1 has shown his father's name as G.Thimmaiah. Till such time and till the disputes arose, he did not show the name of his father as G.Thimmaiah. As aforementioned, G.Thimmaiah was said to be an officer of the revenue department. It is highly un-imaginary that Defendant No.1 did not get educated by his father. According to Defendant No.1, he was not educated at all. It is 27 unthinkable as to why Defendant No.1 was not educated though his father was a revenue officer. Had really the adoption took place in the infant age of three months, the name of father of Defendant No.1 should have been mentioned as G.Thimmaiah and not the name of his natural father K.M.Venkatadasappa. Looking to the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, the Trial Court is justified in concluding that Defendant No.1 has failed to prove that he is the adopted son of deceased G.Thimmaiah. It is also relevant to note, a suggestion is made on behalf of Defendant No.1 during cross examination of PW1 that he is a foster son of G.Thimmaiah. Be that as it may. Having regard to the totality of the case, even on re-appreciating the material on record, we find that Defendant No.1 has failed to prove that he is an adopted son of G.Thimmaiah. Hence point for determination No.(b) is answered accordingly. 28
17. RE: POINT NO.(c):-
We have already held that under Ex.P1 the plaintiffs father was given permission to manage the temple for a period of four years. However, the management of the temple continued with the father of the plaintiff. Even after four years Sri. G.Thimmaiah did not come back to claim the management of the temple and choultry at any point of time till his death. We have also held that G.Thimmaiah had not left any of his heirs and he died issueless and intestate. Defendant No.1 has also failed to prove that he is an adopted son of G.Thimmaiah. Under such circumstances, the suit schedule property virtually vests with the State Government as per Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act inasmuch as there are no heirs available for late G.Thimmaiah. The suit schedule property escheats to the Government. Therefore, the entire suit schedule property including the temple is vested with the State Government after 1959-60 (ie., after the death of original owner G.Thimmaiah). 29 However, the management of the temple is now being made by the plaintiffs as was being done by their father since 1947.
18. By virtue of the interim order dated 23.10.2010 of this Court, the temple was renovated under the supervision of the Tahsildar of Doddaballapur taluk. But the fact remains undisputedly the plaintiffs are managing the affairs of the temple as of now. Number of public are visiting the temple situated in the suit schedule property. Incase if the management of the temple is disturbed now, the devotees at large will suffer. Therefore, in our considered opinion interest of justice will be met, if the management of the temple continues with the plaintiffs until the State Government takes over the management in accordance with law. By the said process, no prejudice or injustice will be caused to devotees at large as well as to the State. Hence, point for determination No.(c) is answered accordingly.
30
19. In view of the same, the following order is made:
ORDER Appeal is allowed in part as under:
i) The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit for declaration is set-aside.
ii) The decree for permanent injunction is modified in the following terms;
The plaintiffs are permitted to manage the affairs of the temple property and choultry till the State Government takes over the management of the temple in accordance with law.
iii) It is open for the plaintiffs to develop the temple properties including choultry in the interest of devotees at large and in the interest of the State.
However, such development made by the plaintiffs will not enure to the benefit of the plaintiffs and that they can not claim equity based on the same.
31
iv) The suit schedule property including Temple Complex vests with the State Government under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act.
A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka as well as a copy to the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Commission, Government of Karnataka with a direction to take suitable action in the light of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE GH