Karnataka High Court
Ravindranath vs Bhavaji Mutt With on 1 March, 2023
-1-
CRP No. 61 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 61 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. RAVINDRANATH
S/O NAGAPPA JOGI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3664, 2ND FLOOR,
NATH INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,
VISHWANATH BUILDING,
NEAR HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION,
BHAVANI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560100.
2. RAMACHANDRA H.N.
S/O NAGAPPA JOGI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O HAITHUR VILLAGE,
HEBBARIGE POST,
SAGAR TALUK-571112.
3. SREEDHARA
S/O K. RAMA JOGI,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
by SUMA R/O TUMBE VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF EDAGIGALAMANE POST,
KARNATAKA SAGAR TALUK-571112.
4. SREEDHARA RAMAKRISHNA
S/O MANJAPPA JOGI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O 3RD CROSS, JANATH NAGAR,
SAGAR CITY-571112
5. SMT. SARIKA NATH
W/O RAVINDRANATH,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT NO.3664, 2ND FLOOR,
NATH INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,
VISHWANATH BUILDING,
NEAR HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION,
-2-
CRP No. 61 of 2016
BHAVANI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560100.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAMESH H.E., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BHAVAJI MUTT WITH
LORD KALABHAIRAVESHWARA TEMPLE,
BHAVAJIMUTT PREMISES,
SRIRAMPURA EXTENSION,
SAGAR CITY,
REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE
JOGI SAMAJA SAMITHI, SAGARA
BY ITS SECRETARY
PURUSHOTTAM B.S.
SRI BAVAJIMUTT PREMISES.
SRIRAMAPURA EXTENSION.
SAGAR CITY-571112.
2. JOGI SAMAJA SAMITHI, SAGAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI SITARAM JOGI,
AGED 46 YEARS
GANDHI NAGAR, B.H. ROAD,
SAGAR CITY-571112.
3. SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O LATE SUNDAR RAO,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
R/O SRIRAMPURA EXTENSION
SAGAR-571112
DIED ON 19.10.2020 AND LRS OF R3 ARE
RESPONDENT NOS.5, 6, 7, 8 AND 9(a) TO 9(d)
WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD.
AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 02.06.2022.
4. PRAKASH RAO
S/O LATE SUNDAR RAO,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
R/O SRIRAMPURA EXTENSION,
SAGAR-571112.
-3-
CRP No. 61 of 2016
DIED ON 17.12.2019
REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.,
4(a) SMT. PADMA
W/O LATE PRAKASHA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
4(b) PRADEEPA
S/O LATE PRAKASHA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
4(c) PRAJWALA
S/O LATE PRAKASHA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
AUTO COMPLEX 2ND CROSS
SAGAR TOWN AND TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA-577 401.
AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 02.06.2022
5. SMT. LAXMI
W/O RASHEED,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O SRIDHAR NAGAR,
SAGAR CITY-571 112.
6. SMT. RADHA
W/O SUBRAMANYA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O S.N. NAGAR,
1ST CROSS,
SAGAR CITY-571112
7. SMT. USHA
W/O VISHWANATHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O S.N. NAGAR,
1ST CROSS,
SAGAR CITY-571112
8. SMT. ANASUYA @ RATHNA
W/O KUMARA URS,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O ATHIBELE,
BANGALORE-560077
9(a) SMT. RENUKAMMA
W/O. LATE NAGENDRA RAO,
-4-
CRP No. 61 of 2016
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O. SHANTHINAGAR,
CHANNEL AREA,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-571112.
9(b) SMT. SHWETHA
W/O. S.B. RAMESHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O CHITRADONI VILLAGE,
BASAVAPATNA HOBLI,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-581112.
9(c) UMESH RAO
S/O. LATE NAGENDRA ROA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O. CHANNEL AREA,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-571112.
9(d) SMT. MANJULA
W/O. LATE SHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O. SRIDHARA NAGARA,
SAGAR CITY-571112.
10. ANNAPPA JOGI
S/O. MANJAPPA JOGI,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/O SUBHASH NAGAR,
SAGAR CITY-571112.
11. MACHENDRA NATH JOGI
S/O. SHIVARAM JOGI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O. ASHOK ROAD,
SAGAR CITY-571112.
12. MANJUNATHA H.R.
S/O. RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O. BHEEMANAKONE ROAD,
1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
SAGAR CITY-571112.
13. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O. LATE.B.S. SHAVAJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
NEHRU NAGAR, B.H. ROAD,
SAGAR-571112.
-5-
CRP No. 61 of 2016
14. SMT. SHANTHA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O. MARKET ROAD,
S.N. NAGAR,
SAGAR CITY-571112.
15. SREEDHARA
S/O. R.C. BALEGAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O. GANDHINAGAR,
B.H. ROAD,
SAGAR CITY-571112.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. SHANTHA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5
TO 8 AND 9(d);
SRI. R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.10 TO
14;
NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2, 9(a), 9(b), 9(c) AND
15;
RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE DECEASED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 07.04.2022 SERVICE ON RESPONDENT
NOS.4(a) TO 4(c) IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.06.2022 RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 8, 9(a) TO
9(d) ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED
RESPONDENT NO.3)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2016
PASSED IN MISC.NO.51/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 92(1) OF CPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-6-
CRP No. 61 of 2016
ORDER
The petitioners have all challenged the correctness of the Order dated 21.01.2016 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Shivamogga (for short, 'the Trial Court') in Miscellaneous No.51/2013, by which, it granted leave to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') in terms of the plaint annexed to the said petition.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.
3. The respondent Nos.10 to 15 herein filed an application under Section 92(1) of CPC along with a proposed plaint, seeking leave to institute a suit under Section 92 of CPC in respect of a constructive Public Religious Trust known as "Bhavajimutt with Lord Kalabhairaveshwara temple", which was managed by the respondent No.2, an unregistered association of persons belonging to Jogi Community or Nath Community scattered in the Taluks of Sagara, Soraba, Shikaripura and Hosanagara in the district of Shivamogga. They contended that the respondent No.2 had appointed a Bhavaji known as Somagiri Bhavaji to take care of the daily poojas of Lord -7- CRP No. 61 of 2016 Kalabhairaveshwara who was consecrated in a Temple on an area measuring 34 feet x 25 feet. The role of Somagiri Bhavaji was to take care of the daily poojas of Lord Kala Bhairaveshwara and to manage the entire premises. They claimed that Somagiri Bhavaji used to offer poojas and receive alms and offerings by the devotees, spend a part of it for the daily poojas of Lord Kalabhairaveshwara, a part of it towards the maintenance of the temple and the premises and to spend the remaining for his living. The respondent No.2 was the Trustee, which retained and exercised control and supervision over the temple and its property namely, the suit schedule property which measured 114 feet x 140 feet situate at Srirampura Extension in Sagara Town. They contend that the said Sri.Somagiri Bhavaji passed away in 1940s and the devotees voluntarily used to go and offer their poojas, while the respondent No.2 continued to retain and exercise control over the suit schedule property as a Trustee of respondent No.1. During 1950s or 1960s, a person named Sri Hanumanthappa was appointed as the Archak by the respondent No.2 and he was permitted to reside in a part of the premises. The duties of the Archak were to offer daily poojas to Lord -8- CRP No. 61 of 2016 Kalabhairaveshwara and to receive alms and offerings from the devotees and to spend a part of it for the daily poojas of Kalabhairaveshwara and the maintenance of the temple and to use the remaining for his livelihood. The petitioners claimed that this was an ad hoc arrangement and Sri Hanumanthappa was not appointed as the Bhavaji of the temple since he was married and had a family. The petitioners claimed that Sri Hanumanthappa died somewhere during 1960s leaving behind his daughter, the respondent No.3, who was married and then living with her husband in the premises with Sri Hanumanthappa. After Sri Hanumanthappa passed away, the respondent No.3 continued to don the role of Sri Hanumanthappa by offering daily poojas as men and women were treated on an equal pedestal in the matters of pooja karyas in the nath community. They contend that the respondent No.3 continued to offer daily poojas, receive alms and offering by the devotees, spend a part of it for the daily pooja karyas and the remaining for the maintenance of the temple and the rest for her maintenance. The petitioners contend that they are members belonging to the Nath Community or Jogi Community. They contend that the Nath -9- CRP No. 61 of 2016 Community or Jogi Community in South India is not significant like in North India. They claim that Nath Community is one of the oldest sects amongst Hindus and who are non-vegetarians by birth and practice and are worshippers of Lord Shiva. They claim that the word 'Nath' represents Lord Shiva. They also contend that the Nath Community organizes Kumbamela once in 12 years on rotation at places, namely, Trayambakeshwara in Nasik, Haridwara, Prayag in Allahabad and Ujjain. The tradition is that after the Kumbamela, one of the pontiffs would be elected as Yogiraja who would be installed as Patradeva at Trayambakeshwara and who would commence his Yatra by foot towards South and visit all Mutts and reach the destination namely, Kedarmutt at Mangalore, covering a distance of about 1700 Kms. The petitioners claimed that they are all prominent members of Jogi Nath Community and are residents of Sagar City. They contended that the respondent No.2 was organizing meetings, inviting prominent members of the Community, who were capable of contributing for the development of the temple of Lord Kalabhairaveshwara in the suit schedule property. The respondent No.11 being a native of Sagara Taluk also attended some such meetings and exhibited extraordinary interest in the
- 10 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016matter of development of Lord Kalabhairaveshwara situated in the suit schedule property. At the desire of the respondent No.11, the respondent No.2 decided to permit a Trust to be constituted involving the respondent No.11 and others for the purpose of development of the temple and its precincts and in that regard, a letter was written on behalf of the respondent No.2 in March 2012 intimating the respondent No.11 that he could take steps to form a Trust for the development of the temple and its precincts. The petitioners came to know that in response to the letter written in the first week of March 2012, the respondent No.11 wrote a letter dated 08.03.2012 enclosing a draft of a deed of trust to be established for the development of the temple involving the respondent No.11, the respondent No.2 and some of its members and also others. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 again met in Sagar and decided to permit the respondent No.11 to establish a Trust with certain modifications as were suggested by the respondent No.2 in terms of a letter dated 23.08.2013. The petitioners indicated that they had no objections for the development of the temple and its premises, but had made it clear that under no circumstance, the original character of the respondent No.1
- 11 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016would be allowed to be changed and all development should only go on in the name of the respondent No.2 which is the representative of the entire Jogi or Nath Community of Shivamogga District. The petitioners thereafter came to know that the respondent No.11 taking advantage of the fact that certain revenue entries of the property stood in the name of the respondent No.3, conspired with her and respondent No.10, who executed a deed of sale in favour of the respondent No.15 who is none other than the wife of the respondent No.11. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.11 thereafter authored a Trust known as "Divine Lord Kalabhairaveshwara Swamy Temple Trust" (for brevity, 'Trust') and got it registered in the office of the Sub-registrar on 18.06.2013 with a declaration that the Trust is formed to carry out the objects as are incorporated in the objects clause which provided amongst others, "Whereas, there has been a temple of Kalabhairaveshwara Swamy in Sagar, which is an old temple managed and administered by local people all through;, Whereas, the devotees and the villagers have felt that there should be some permanent and eternal arrangement for the administration, management and development of the temple;
- 12 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016Whereas, a congregation of the people at large comprising of devotees and villagers have felt the necessity of the Trust as an eternal arrangement; Whereas, the devotees and residents of Sagar and surrounding villages have authorized to constitute a Trust for the purpose stated to in the aims and objectives of the Trust in the deed and accordingly, I hereby declare and constitute the Trust with a direction that the Trust shall be administered and managed as hereinafter referred to above and the Trust comes into existence and operation with immediate effect." The petitioners contend that there was no congregation of the people of Sagar and the surrounding villagers and the authorization conferred on the respondent No.11 to constitute and establish a Trust was false. The petitioners accuse the respondent No.11 that he had created a Trust to hold it as a veil for the developmental activities that he proposed to carryout in the suit schedule property. They also accused the respondent No.11 of converting a public religious Trust into a private family Trust. They further contend that the respondent No.11 claimed himself to be the author of the Trust and its President while his brother - respondent No.12 is shown as the Vice-President of the Trust, respondent No.13 who is
- 13 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016none other than the nephew of respondent No.11 is shown as Secretary, respondent No.14 who is again related to respondent No.11 is shown as Joint Secretary, the respondent No.15 who is wife of respondent No.11 is shown as Treasurer, even without whispering about the transfer of title by respondent Nos.3 and 10 in favour of respondent No.15. The respondent No.3 was also shown as the Trustee of the Trust. The petitioners accused the respondent No.11 that he made the members of the respondent No.2 believe his promise to develop the temple. They further contend that the onslaught on the property of the Trust continued with the respondent Nos.3 to 10, who were the legal heirs of Sri Hanumanthappa, who filed a suit for partition in O.S.No38/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sagara, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. They contend that the respondent No.3 had executed a deed of gift dated 09.02.2009 in favour of her predeceased son namely, Sri Shekhar who is none other than the husband of the respondent No.10 and notwithstanding the gift deed, the respondent No.3 again executed a sale deed dated 25.04.2013 in favour of the respondent No.15. They contend that by mere execution of a
- 14 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016Trust deed, the role of respondent No.2 in the maintenance of the temple and the interest of the members of Nath Community cannot be usurped by the Trust. The petitioners therefore sought for leave to file a suit under Section 92 of CPC by claiming that the cause of action for the proposed suit arose in the first week of September 2013 when they came to know of about the execution of a sale deed by respondent Nos.3 and 10 in favour of respondent No.15 on 25.04.2013 and the creation of a Deed of Trust dated 18.06.2013 by respondent No.11 appointing the respondent Nos.11 to 15 as the trustees of the Trust.
4. The respondent No.11 filed a separate written statement contending that the property purchased by the respondent No.15 is the ancestral property of the respondent No.3 and that the ancestors of respondent No.3 had constructed an house in an area measuring 34 feet x 25 feet and installed a deity within their house known as Sri.Kalabhairaveshwara, who was their family God. He contended that as told by Sri Hanumanthappa Bavaji Mutt, after construction of the house, all the family members of the respondent No.3 including her father late Hanumanthappa went
- 15 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016to Kashi and met Sri Krishnagiri Bavaji at Kashi and explained their woes. Then Sri Krishnagiri Bavaji after listening to the family difficulties, instructed to install the deity of Lord Shree Kalabhairaveshwara in their deity room and perform homas for 108 days. After hearing this, the ancestors of respondent No.3 requested Sri Krishnagiri Bavaji to accompany them to the suit schedule property. Later, Sri Krishnagiri Bavaji came along with the family members of Sri Hanumanthappa to Srirampura at Sagar and installed the deity of Shree Kalabhairaveshwara at their deity room, performed poojas and gave the title of Bavaji to one of the ancestors of Sri Hanumanthappa. In memory of the installation of the deity, a plaque was also installed. They claimed that except the dwelling house and deity room, there was no temple and no Swamiji was appointed. Since the ancestors of respondent No.3 were Marathas, people used to refer their house as Marati's house and in the course of time, it also came to be known as 'Matadavaramane', which subsequently changed to the ancestral surname and became 'Bavaji Mutt'. They claimed that when Sri Hanumanthappa Bavaji Mutt was alive, he had instructed his daughter i.e., the respondent No.3 to continue the poojas in the deity room and
- 16 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016also perform occasional poojas at the ancestral samadhi. They contend that on 29.01.2008 when the respondent No.3 went on a pilgrimage to Chandragutti in Sorab Taluk to offer prayers to Sri Renukamba deity and while climbing the hill to reach the temple, she saw a statue of Lord Shri Kalabhairaveshwara and enquired in and around the locality and gathered information that a mutt belonging to Jogi Community and Shri Renukamba Temple has been constructed by the Jogi Community at Chandragutti. The respondent No.3 came to know that the temple at Shri Renukamba was managed by Sri Sri Sri Yogi Peer Lakshmannath Swamiji as Vahivatudar. The respondent No.3 is stated to have requested the Swamiji to visit her house to perform pooja to Lord Shri Kalabhairaveshwara installed in one of the rooms of her residential house and to bless her and her family members. The said Swamiji accepted the offer and informed that he would attend the function at Sagar on 03.02.2008 that was being arranged by the Jogi Samaj and that he would visit the suit schedule property along with Samaj leaders and further asked her to keep everything ready to perform the pooja. Respondent No.11 claimed that the Swamiji visited the suit property accompanied by Sri Sri Sri Aneknath
- 17 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016Bavaji of Siddeshwara Bhairava Natha Halavari Jogi Mutt, Kundapur Taluk and Samaj leaders and performed pooja and offered bhakthi to samadi of her ancestors on the request of the respondent No.3. He delivered a speech to his disciples. He claimed that the Town Municipality, Sagar during the year 1945s and 1946s had ordered to register the khata in the names of the persons in possession of land in Sy. Nos.10 and 12 of Sannamane village. Consequently, the name of the father of respondent No.3 namely Sri Hanumanthappa Bhavaji Mutt was entered. Respondent No.11 further claimed that during the lifetime of Sri Hanumanthappa and after his death, respondent No.3 had been paying the tax to the Municipality which was evident from the tax paid receipts from the year 1962 and onwards. He therefore, contended that the suit schedule property was a residential house of Sri Hanumanthappa Bhavaji Mutt and the same was succeeded by the respondent No.3.
5. Respondent No.11 further stated that the respondent No.3 had executed a gift in favour of her son, namely Sri Chandrashekar on 09.02.2009 and that the respondent No.3 had decided to sell the suit property and the respondent No.15 offered to purchase the suit property and
- 18 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016after prolonged negotiations, it was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.50,65,000/-. Thereafter, the municipal records of the suit property were changed to the name of respondent No.15. Later, the daughter-in-law of the respondent No.3 and her two sons filed O.S. No.38/2013 before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Sagar, for partition and separate possession of the suit property. Therefore, respondent No.11 contended that the suit property was self acquired and separate property of the respondent No.3 and it was not a public property of the Jogi samaj as was sought to be contended by the petitioners. Therefore, he claimed that the application for leave to file a suit was untenable. He claimed that the respondent No.2 was not a registered body and it has been founded by certain people of Jogi community for their convenience. He claimed that he belonged to Jogi community and lord Kalabhairaveshwara deity was installed by the respondent No.3 in her house. He contended that he suggested to the respondent No.2 to purchase the suit property and convert it into Lord Kalabhairaveshwara temple to offer prayer for his community people and in that connection, he wrote a letter to the respondent No.2 on 09.11.2011. He claimed that
- 19 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016the people belonging to the Jogi community gathered at Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to discuss about purchasing the suit property and the General Secretary of the respondent No.2 forwarded a consent letter to the respondent No.11 to purchase the suit property but thereafter despite repeated demands, the people of the respondent No.2 did not cooperate and did not show any interest to purchase the suit property. He claimed that when the people of the respondent No.2 failed to purchase the suit property, the respondent No.15 purchased it for valuable consideration on 25.04.2013. The respondent No.15 was requested to form a Trust to develop and also to construct a temple in the portion of the suit schedule property and she was also requested to be one of the Trustees. Fortunately, she consented for the same and accordingly, the Trust was registered on 18.06.2013 and subsequently, the Trustees have undertaken the developmental works in the suit schedule property. He contended that after the formation of the Trust, the respondent No.2 sent a welcome letter dated 01.08.2013 informing that the meeting was convened on 18.08.2013 at Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and later issued a letter dated 23.08.2013 to develop the suit schedule property through the
- 20 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016Trust. It was then that the persons belonging to the Jogi samaj began compelling the respondent Nos.11 and 15 to transfer the suit property to respondent No.2 and their registered Trust be merged in the Trust being formed by them. Thereafter, on 08.11.2010, another Trust was formed under the name and style of 'Siddapita Charitable Trust' in respect of Sri Kalabhairaveshwara Swamy Mutt, Chandragutti, Soraba taluk which is known to all Jogi/Nath community/ies of Soraba, Sagar, Shikaripura and Hosanagar Taluks in the District of Shivamogga. There was no reference to the suit property and they contended that if really the suit property was to be under the control of Jogi Samaj, it is illogical as to why no Trust is formed for the maintenance of suit schedule property. Respondent No.11 further contended that the letters issued to the respondent No.11 itself are enough to indicate that the suit property is not the Mutt property but is a private property. Nonetheless, he contends that on 24.11.2013, certain people of Jogi Samaj lodged a private complaint and broke open the lock of the room and performed Deepotsava to create false evidence. He alleged that certain people belonging to the Jogi Samaj were trying to knock off the suit property by fabricating
- 21 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016documents. The statement of objections filed by the respondent Nos.11 and 15 were adopted by the respondent Nos.3 to 8, 10, 12 to 14.
6. The Trial Court perused the records and found from the revenue documents of the suit property for the year 1945- 56 showed that the property belonged to Bhavaji Mutt of which Sri. Somagiri Bhavaji was the vahivatudar. The area that was constructed was shown as 34 feet x 35 feet and a house measuring 21 feet x 13 feet was found. In the revenue records for the year 1949-50, it was shown as Bhavaji mutt and the area of the property was mentioned as 114 feet x 140 feet. The father of the respondent No.3 - Sri Hanumanthappa was shown as 'Vahivatudar' in the revenue records for the year 1961-62. Even in the revenue records for the year 1986-87, it was shown as "ªÀÄoÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¸À" which indicated the existence of a Mutt, which is a religious denomination. However, it is found in the revenue records for the year 1993-94 that the word "Mutt" was dropped and in view of the self assessment of the property tax, the parties had declared the property as their own property. The Trial Court also noticed that the Trust deed dated 18.06.2013 constituted by the respondent Nos.11 and 15,
- 22 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016namely 'DIVINE LORD KALABHAIRAVESHWAR SWAMY TEMPLE TRUST' indicated as follows.
"WHEREAS there has been a temple of Kalabhairaveshwara Swamy in Sagar which is an old temple managed and administered by local people al- through."
It further reads as follows:
"WHEREAS the devotees and villagers have felt that there should be some permanent and eternal arrangement for the administration, management and development of the temple."
WHEREAS a conscious of the people at large comprising of devotees and villagers have felt the necessity of the trust as an eternal arrangement."
7. Therefore, the Trial Court held that the respondent Nos.11 and 15 had consciously accepted the fact that the temple was in existence from a long time and that the deity was worshipped by the villagers and many devotees. Therefore, there was a constructive Trust constituted by the villagers for the administration of the Trust and its properties. The Trial Court therefore held that the fact that the respondent No.3 had created a sale deed in favour of the respondent No.15 indicated
- 23 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016that there was a malversation of the properties of the Trust and consequently, allowed the petition in terms of the impugned Order and permitted the petitioners to file a suit under Section 92 of CPC.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no evidence to establish that there was a constructive Trust and mere establishment of a temple in a private property will not render it to be a constructive Trust for public purposes. He submitted that the documents produced before the Trial Court clearly indicated that it was a private temple belonging to the respondent No.3 and her family. He therefore, contended that the Trial Court committed an error in allowing the application to file a suit under Section 92 of the CPC.
9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.10 to 14 herein / petitioner Nos.1 to 5 in Miscellaneous No.51/2013 submitted that the temple was consecrated not by the respondent No.3 or her husband but it was there in existence from the year 1945- 46 and there is no document to indicate that the husband of the respondent No.3 or the respondent No.3 had consecrated the deity or were in possession of the suit property as absolute
- 24 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016owners. He therefore submitted that the Trial Court was right in granting the permission to petitioners therein to file a suit.
10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners herein and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 14.
11. This revision petition is filed only by the respondent Nos.11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 in Miscellaneous No.51/2013 who are the Trustees of the Trust. These Trustees are privy to a Trust deed dated 18.06.2013 wherein it is specifically recited that a constructive Trust existed on the suit schedule property and that the villagers and devotees were worshipping the deity installed in the suit property. Therefore, in so far as these petitioners are concerned, they have no voice to now claim that there was no constructive Trust and that the suit property belonged to them absolutely based on the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.15 by the respondent Nos.3 and 10. The Trial Court has considered the same in very great detail and has rightly returned a finding that the petitioners before it were interested in the constructive Trust and due to the conveyance of the suit property in favour of respondent No.15, there was a breach of a constructive Trust. Therefore, this
- 25 -
CRP No. 61 of 2016Court does not see any error in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Trial Court and the grant of permission to petitioners therein / respondent Nos.10 to 15 herein to file a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
12. However, it is open for the petitioners herein to continue to develop the temple in the suit property in any manner taking into account the best interest of the community at large and also at the same time ensure that the suit property is improved for the benefit of the temple and the villagers and devotees.
Sd/-
JUDGE List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63 NR - para Nos.1 to 4 Sma-para Nos.5 to 12