Bangalore District Court
Sri Muneshwara Temple Trust vs Estate Officer on 28 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 30)
Dated this the 28th day of April 2018
PRESENT: SMT. NAGAJYOTHI. K.A., LL.M.,
XXIX ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
O.S.No. 649/2013
PLAINTIFF: Sri Muneshwara Temple Trust,
Kadirayanapalya Main Road,
Indiranagar,
Bengaluru.
Represented by it's President,
Smt. Radha,
W/o. Late Srinivasa Swamy,
Aged about 45 years.
(By Sri N. Devaraj, Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANTS: 1. Estate Officer,
M.E.G. Centre,
Shivan Chetty Garden Post,
Bengaluru - 560 042.
2. Union of India,
Chief Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Samsad Bhavan,
New Delhi.
(D.1 & D.2 - KMJ, Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit 21/01/2013
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote. Suit for declaration and Permanent Injunction
possession suit for injunction,
etc.)
Date of the commencement of 03/04/2014
recording of the evidence.
Date on which the judgment 28/04/2018
was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
05 03 07
2 O.S.No.649/2013
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of entrance to the temple premises and not to interfere with usage of the temple, entrance etc., for performing pooja within the temple premises and to direct the defendants to restore the closed road leading to the temple from Kadirayanapalya Main Road, which is now closed by the defendants, and for such other reliefs.
2. It is averred in the plaint that, after registration of the temple trust, it started managing the Sri Muneshwara Temple, which was established in the year 1883. During the year 2003, the Defence Authorities started fencing the area which were belonging to them. However, under the guidance of the 2nd defendant, it blocked the way to the temple, by putting up fence around the temple area. Immediately, many representations were made to the 1st defendant to remove the fencing around the temple area. So, the defendants removed the fencing around the temple area. During June 2005 under the instructions of defendant No.2, the defendant No.1 started fencing once again around the temple area and closed the entry to the temple from Kadirayanapalya Main Road, which was only entry and exit to the devotees of temple. Even after several representations, the defendants were not allowed any persons 3 O.S.No.649/2013 to perform pooja in the temple. Hence, she issued legal notice to the defendants. After lot of pressure from the residents and devotees to enter the temple premises through the main entrance, wherein the devotees had to walk nearly 5 kilometers to reach the temple to perform pooja and it becomes difficult for the plaintiff to manage the temple. Then the Priest of the temple himself filed O.S.No.17205/2005 seeking permanent injunction to restore the way to the temple. However, this court was dismissed the suit, as the Priest does not have any personal interest or right in the subject-matter of the suit. If he wants to seek the remedy for public purpose or for trust purpose, he should bring the suit in a representative capacity. Hence, this suit.
3. The defendants have appeared through their counsel and submitted in the written statement that, the suit is hit by res judicata for the reason that the plaintiff had already filed similar suit in O.S.No.17205/2005 for the similar relief claimed in the suit. The defendants are defence authorities, as they abide by the law of land. In the year 1963, Sy.No.84 of Binnamangala Village, measuring 4 acres 2 guntas was acquired by Ministry of Defence. The position of the land was taken by the Ministry of Defence after paying the compensation to the original owner. Since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The plaintiff in connivance with other villagers in order to knock of the defence land planted the 4 O.S.No.649/2013 few idols and constructed small stones, overnight by encroaching, trespassing and thereafter created the alleged trust. There is no material to show that, the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff. After it was brought to the notice, during the acquisition proceedings, the area of temple would have deleted. But, the same was not held, it only shows there exists no temple as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants were not erected any fencing as alleged by the plaintiff. Since there is threat of encroachment by civilians and also security risk, the defendants fenced their land in the year 2003. Later, the defendants constructed permanent compound wall to avoid encroachment. Plaintiff is attempting to make out a case by second round litigations for the purpose of encroaching the defendants' land. Hence, prays for dismissing the suit with exemplary costs.
4. In proof of their case, the plaintiff has got examined himself as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents Exs.P.1 to P.35. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 & 2 were examined. Exs.D.1 to D.7 were marked.
5. Heard arguments.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances and the material available in the matter, my predecessor has framed the following issues as under:
5 O.S.No.649/2013
ISSUES (1) Whether the plaintiff trust proves the existence of suit road and use of the suit road by the public?
(2) Whether it further proves the fencing and blockage of suit way by defendant defence authority in 2003?
(3) Whether the plaintiff trust proves the alleged interference by defendants defence authority in the usage of temple?
(4) Whether suit is hit under principles of res judicata?
(5) What decree or order?
7. My findings to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative. Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative. Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative. Issue No.4 : In the Negative.
Issue No.5 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.4:- It is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of entrance to the temple premises and not to interfere with usage of the temple, entrance etc., and to restore the closed road leading to the temple from Kadiarayanapalya Main Road. It is submitted in the written statement that, suit is bad for res judicate, as the same prayer referred in the earlier suit O.S.No.17205/2005, and the suit was dismissed. In view of the same, I perused the judgment of the said suit, it was marked as Ex.P.2. Admittedly, herein defendant is same, the relief is same. Whereas, the crucial fact is judgment in the said 6 O.S.No.649/2013 suit dated 04.12.2012 was passed under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of CPC. Admittedly, the said suit was filed by the plaintiff in his individual capacity. The subject on behalf of the devotees of the temple and it also not referred I.A. under Order I, Rule VIII of CPC, even after filing of the suit. So, the subject of the suit property and it's closure of entrance were not even discussed and not made any opinion on the subject of the suit. Rectifying the said error, plaintiff trust approached the court here as a temple trust i.e., on behalf of the devotees and also produced the registered trust deed, it was dated 14.09.2005. Immediate after the earlier suit, i.e., earlier suit filed on 14.09.2005, the trust deed was registered. It is pertinent to note that, even after evidence of the suit, the representative of the suit was also died. Then immediately after that, the trust appointed another representative i.e., widow of earlier representative. So, there is a trust deed and also it was represented by President and none of the facts were disputed in the evidence. On perusal of the evidence shows V. Srinivasa Swamy deposed as P.W.1. He is the earlier representative. He says he is the President of the trust. Earlier to him, one Narayanaswamy was the President and now he is not alive. P.W.1 has signed on plaint and vakalath. It is admitted that, the trust has not made resolution authorizing him as representative of the trust. He was managing the temple from the period of 1986. Whereas, on perusal of the trust deed, it shows in the first line, it is 7 O.S.No.649/2013 mentioned V. Srinivasa Swamy, Priest by occupation, Sri Muneshwara Temple, Kadirayanapalya Main Road, Indiranagara, Bngaluru - 560 038, is the executor, administrator and representative of the ONE PART to show V. Srinivasa Swamy is the authorized representative of trust and referred 10 members as trustees. In page No.4 says "The TRUSTEES have at the request of the said SETTLOR agreed to act as the Trustees." It shows all the trustees agreed to represented by V. Srinivasa Swamy. Further, in page No.9, it says "The Trustees appointed by these presents will be for life. If any Trustees dies, retires, becomes unfit or incapable to act, the continuing or surviving Trustee or Trustees will be competent to appoint a Trustee in place of the Trustee so dying, retiring or becoming unfit or incapable to act either for life or otherwise." They have authorized the Manager of the Trust property. The Head Office is Sri Muneshwara Temple Trust, Kadirayanapalya Main Road. The trust created is an irrevocable. Page No.5 of Trust Deed refers "the object is to manage Sri Muneshwara Temple which was established in the year 1883 at Kadirayanapalya, for the public workshop of the residents of Kadirayanapalya and surrounding areas, and the welfare of the poor by the Settlor, his family and relatives and friends". So, these facts clearly shows the trust is authorized representative of temple and it's welfare activities. So, it clearly shows by rectifying the technical errors noted in the earlier suit, this suit has been filed. Section 11 of 8 O.S.No.649/2013 CPC refers "Res judicate - No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court." It is true that, the subject is the same, the property is the same, the issues also raised, but it was not finally heard and decided. It was decided only on technical ground on maintainability of suit by single person representing the temple by the plaintiff in his individual capacity, is questioned. Hence, appreciating the same, it clearly shows the subject of the suit is not finally decided in the earlier suit. Accordingly, I hold Issue No.4 in the 'Negative'.
9. Issue No.1:- The suit schedule property referred as all the piece and parcel of the Sri Muneshwara Temple, situated at Sy.No.82, Kadirayanapalya Main Road, Indiranagar Post, Bengaluru - 560 038, measuring 50 X 500 feet, bounded on East by : vacant land, West by : Kadirayanapalya Main Road, North by : vacant land, and South by : Ganapathi Temple Aralimara Old Madras Road, Bengaluru. It is submitted that, the alleged temple is existing since from 1883. The schedule survey number was allotted after occupation by acquiring the schedule property to the defendants. Whereas, to put up the 9 O.S.No.649/2013 fencing, closing the entrance at Western side in respect of the existence of road, it is averred that, it has devotees surrounding the place at Kadirayanapalya, Binnamangala, Cox Town, Murphy Town etc. In the year June 2005, the defendant started fencing once again and entry to the temple from Kadirayanapalya Main Road, which was the only entry and exit point to the devotees of the temple.
10. On behalf of the plaintiff trust, V. Srinivasa Swamy, the earlier President deposed as P.W.1 and produced the different paper publications published on closure of the temple. He denied the suggestion that, the temple was not in existence from 1883. He was managing it from 1986. Earlier one Narayanaswamy was managing. The temple is existing in Sy.No.82 of Kadirayanapalya. On perusal of the cross- examination, it shows the defendant was not objected on fact the entrance from Kadirayanapalya. The fact that, it has entrance from Kadirayanapalya is not disputed. It only disputes in respect of fencing and putting wall around the temple. Earlier they put fencing. Thereafter, they put the wall. It was suggested by the defendant that, the plaintiff themselves built a small temple by keeping some idols and property. The same was denied. Whereas, when it is the case of the defendant that, he was also produced material to show that the propertied acquired and delivered possession in the year 1972 itself, how plaintiff started constructing the temple or keeping the idols 10 O.S.No.649/2013 without the knowledge of the defendant is not explained. They have a specific police wing and expertise knowledge in tracing such acts. So, if they are making such allegation of idol kept and built the temple, they could have collected the evidence. So, without giving any materials it was baldly made the suggestion. When P.W.1 replies that, prior to 2005, there is Muneshwara Temple Development Committee. In respect of the same, he was also produced any document. Ex.P.26 is the letterhead clearly refers as Sri Muneshwara Temple Development Committee. Ex.P.26 is the letter authorizing Srinivasa Swamy to represent the temple trust. The same was not denied. So, it clearly shows on existence of development committed prior to the temple trust. He was not even questioned in respect of the temple.
11. On behalf of the defendants, George K.Y. IC-43130W Colonel deposed as D.W.1. In the cross-examination, he replied that, surrounding Sy.No.82, Binnamangala and Kadirayanapalya are existing and not Indiranagar, Cox Town and Murphy Town, and also admitted that, prior to 2003, the people surrounding the Sy.No.82 visit the plaintiff's temple. It was suggested that, after 2003 when the dispute arose between the defendant's Officers and the staff of the temple, the defendant put up the fence. The same was denied and says to protect the land, defendant put up fencing. When the people raises objection for fencing, it was removed by the defendant. 11 O.S.No.649/2013 Further, he admitted that thereafter in the year 2005, suddenly they put up compound wall. For this, he gave an explanation that the devotees used to animals sacrificing and it violated the defendant's rules. So, they put up the compound wall. He himself admitted of visiting the temple several time and identified the photo that after this compound wall, public road is existing. The distance between temple and the compound wall is only 3 feet and prior to the compound wall from this road, the people access the temple within 2 seconds. It is also admitted that, because of this compound wall, the devotees have to surround their area of 5 feet to reach the temple. It is also true that, many devotees and staff visit the temple. However, he denied the suggestion that, only with an intention to avoid them, they put up the compound wall. The crucial is, he was suggested that, if the devotees stops the animals sacrificing, whether they removed the compound wall and allow the devotees to enter the temple premises. For this, he says the temple was built by trustees and compound wall was put up for protection of defendant's land and it cannot be removed. So, it clearly shows the reason of animal sacrificing is not true. Only to avoid the devotees, defendant constructed the compound wall. Further, he was suggested that, if the compound wall put up separately for the temple by allowing the entrance, he says he has no objection. For this, the devotees are permitted to make separate application. "¥ÀæwªÁ¢ E¯ÁSÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ ¨ÀsPÁÛ¢UÀ½UÉ D 12 O.S.No.649/2013 zÉêÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV §gÀ®Ä PÉêÀ® zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ PÀlÖqÀPÉÌ ªÀiÁvÀæ UÉÆÃqÉ ºÁQ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ eÁUÀPÉÌ gÀPÀëuÉUÁV ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ UÉÆÃqÉ ºÁQPÉƼÀî®Ä M¦àzÀ°è £À£Àß vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ E®è." So, it clearly shows the admission of the defendant on erecting the compound wall.
12. Here, I like to refer the evidences record of O.S.No.17205/2005 and they are all marked Exs.P.29 to P.35. Ex.P.29 is the written statement, where it says that during 1986 few idols have been placed by the few land grabbers by encroaching in defence land. The same defence is not proved and denied by their own witnesses. Herein, it says the compound wall was threat of encroachment by civilian. Whereas, there is no iota of evidence for serious threat of encroachment. P.W.1 was also examined in the earlier suit and then he replied in the cross-examination that, "according to me, our temple is situated in the land of Byrashetty. According to me, only at the Western side there is a defence land. At the Southern side there is a road. At the Northern side there is a private property so also at the Eastern side". It is specifically denied the suggestion that, the temple is existing in the middle of the defence land. He specifically denied the defence suggestion that, keeping of idol in the period of 1986 - 1987 and denied the suggestion that, the defendants were not objected the devotees. It is denied the suggestion that, the devotees' entry through this place. At East and Southern side, there is Nagarakatte and beyond Nagarakatte, there is sewerage water area. Beyond that 13 O.S.No.649/2013 fencing, there is a road leading to Kolar. To the North side of Nagarakatte in the distance of 100 feet, the temple is existing. At the Western side of Nagarakatte, the defendant put up fencing and they left the space of 1½ feet only to entry to the devotees. It is specifically denied the suggestion that, the defendant's personnel were not objecting the devotees to use this road as entrance. So, it clearly shows on existence of passage and it was completely blocked. Even I perused the photocopy/Ex.P.4 and this clearly shows the existence of temple there is approaching road blocked by the compound wall. The photocopies of Exs.P.7 to P.14 clearly shows presence of devotees for the pooja clearly concludes plaintiff's contention. Further, the paper cuttings marked as Exs.P.16 to P.20 are all clearly concludes on performance of pooja. Accordingly, I hold Issue No.1 in the 'Affirmative'.
13. Issue No's.2 & 3:- D.W.1 himself admits the construction of compound wall. Further the earlier evidence also shows on behalf of the plaintiff, Sri. Lakshminarayana, Prakash and Rajendra deposed on behalf of the plaintiff, on blocking the temple entrance and these are also not disputed in the cross-examination. These witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the defendant. One S. Umapathy also deposed as D.W.1 in the earlier suit, where he says there was no pooja performed. Whereas, the photocopies specifically nullifies the defence. The chief-examination also says the temple place is 14 O.S.No.649/2013 situated on the on the other side of the boundary. There were no festival, pooja, Hindu rituals etc., or renovation were taken place for the suit schedule land as alleged. At no point of time, their department interfered, encroached the plaintiff's property or the suit schedule land much less dethroned the temple or idols. But, in the cross-examination, this witness also replied that, there is no temple, there is only a Linga in the said premises, it is not constructed like a temple. There is no foundation of stones. People use to offer pooja to the said Linga. Now, the area is covered by compound wall. The road is existing outside the compound. There are several idols are kept under the Aralimara. He also says that, they are opening the gate only in the daytime. Further, he admits that, it is true that they have closed the small gate. They have no objection for using the main gate. So, it clearly shows people walk around 5 kilometers. So, the evidence of the defendant also shows they are causing interference. Subsequent evidence also shows the small entrance also closed, hence it established the interference.
14. On perusal of the documents shows plaintiff produced the photocopies even in the earlier suit in O.S.No.17205/2005. I perused the same. It clearly shows when the defendant put up the compound wall, the plaintiff performs pooja outside the compound by keeping 3 small stones and making poojas from outside the compound wall. They put the garland to the 15 O.S.No.649/2013 compound wall. This itself clearly reflects devotees emotional attachment with the temple and just because, they are small community or small in numbers, their feeling cannot be ignored. The clinching point in these photocopies/Exs.P.31 & P.41 clearly shows the age of the erection of the temple is 1883. It was even depicted in the walls of the temple. All these facts were not denied. Further, Ex.P.8 in the referred suit shows the defendant put up the fencing and people are making poojas. Ex.P.7 is the photocopy taken before handing over of possession. It shows beside the temple, the pathway is passing. It clearly shows people visited the temple even prior to the acquisition proceedings. Exs.P.25 & P.26 shows small space left by the defendants for ingress and egress to the temple. Exs.P.32 & P.33 shows the same was closed. Exs.P.48 & P.49 also shows there is also 'C£ÀßzÁ£À' and all photocopies clearly makes the pooja festival performing in the temple. Ex.P.1 is the survey sketch of Binnamangala. Ex.P.10 shows the photocopy, it was fenced and inside the fencing area, the defence men are watching. Ex.P.12 is the plaintiff's letter to the defendant dated 21.08.2003, it is the request for removing the fencing around the temple. Herein the word shows as follows:
"We request you with folded hands to free the undisputed temple and order the authorities to allow the every day pooja. Specially during Adi Karaga Pooja."
Ex.P.15 is the letter dated 17.08.2005, it is legal notice served to the defendant for closing the approach road to the temple. 16 O.S.No.649/2013 All these photocopies shows the existence of temple besides the road sides. Whereas, the defendant put up the compound wall to avoid them.
15. The defendants' counsel arguing the case, stresses on land acquisition proceedings and delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. Whereas, the photocopies itself clearly shows even prior to the acquisition, the building is in existence and it depicts year 1883. When the defendants came to the knowledge of existence of temple, they were not brought it to the knowledge of the Land Acquisition Authority. It is the fault of the Land Acquisition Officer for not verifying the spot specifically. Whereas, for the fault of Authoritative Officers, it cannot play with the feelings of devotees. It is also true that, the devotees made arrangements for obtaining electricity supply and also obtaining gas connection. It is also argued that, it is a Land Grabbers act. But surprisingly plaintiffs were not seeking any title on the suit property. So, it clearly shows the innocent feeling of devotees and they are not involved with the land grabbers. If the defendant argues that the photocopies are created, the defendants could have produced the photocopies which depicts the real facts of the suit property instead of defendants have not produced any such documents. It heavily relied on the land acquisition proceedings. It is further argued as follows:
17 O.S.No.649/2013
"As there was threat of encroachment by civilians and security risk to personal of the Indian Army and vested interests of society under the pretext of worship tried to encroach upon the defence land".
It also alleges that, the civilians gradually removed the fencing around the temple. He further says the compound wall was built up to safeguard the vital defence installations from civilians which posed a serious security threat to the vital installation. There cannot be any order at the stake of the National interest by any third parties, civilians or terrorist may act the nation by entering into the defence premises with an intent to fret out clarified information by getting some local land documents by forgery or other means. On perusing these contents, it clearly raises questions as on which land this defence suit land were existing and whom they are doubting. The defence is established for protection of our country land. The civilian referred is to be Indians. If at all they are robbers, certainly defendant could have collected the documents to prove it. But here they are not even seeking any right on the land. The defendant in the extent of defending their act argues on security as if suit property stands in the border area. If truly they have the interest of protecting their premises, they knew the people are coming for performing pooja. They could have put up the compound by leaving the space of temple. Certainly then there is no scope to the other to cause disturbance to the defendants. Appreciating the earlier suit of O.S.No.17205/2005 18 O.S.No.649/2013 till this year 2018, the defendant has not given any single instance of interference of civilian to the defendant's premises while coming for performance of pooja in Muneshwara Temple. The compound wall of the defendant is not the border of Government of India, it has to respect the feelings of the civilians/devotees, who are also citizens of India. On perusal of the photocopies shows they are not well educated people. So, certainly they could not have thought of challenging the acquisition proceedings. Now because of loss of years, there is no scope for questioning the land acquisition proceedings. Whereas, certainly they have the right to perform pooja in the temple, the temple is existing from the period of 1883. So, the defendants cannot question or curtail their right by causing interference in their performance of pooja. It is left to the defendants in what manner they are protecting. Whereas, the defendants cannot interfere in performance of the pooja. Accordingly, I hold Issue No's.2 & 3 in the 'Affirmative'.
16. Issue No.5:- In view of the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit is decreed.
No order as to costs.
The defendants are hereby permanently
restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's
peaceful enjoyment of the entrance to the temple from Kadirayanapalya Main Road to use and usage of the temple for performing pooja. It is further 19 O.S.No.649/2013 directed to restore the closed road leading to the temple from Kadirayanapalya Main Road, which is closed by the defendants.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28th day of April, 2018) (NAGAJYOTHI.K.A) XXIX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs' side:-
PW.1. Srinivasa Swamy List of documents exhibited for the plaintiffs' side:-
Ex.P.1 Deed of Trust dated 14.09.2005.
Ex.P.2 Copy of judgment in O.S.No.17205/2005.
Ex.P.3 Copy of decree in O.S.No.17205/2005.
Exs.P.4}{ 11 photographs.
to P.14}{
Ex.P.15 CD.
Ex.P.16 Daily newspaper of Samyukta Karnataka
dtd.02.11.2010.
Ex.P.17 Daily newspaper of Prajavani dated 23.11.2006.
Ex.P.17(a) Portion of publication.
Ex.P.18 Daily newspaper of Udayavani dated 25.10.2010.
Ex.P.18(a) Portion of publication.
Ex.P.19 Daily newspaper of Vijaya Karnataka
dtd.07.07.2013.
Ex.P.19(a) Portion of publication.
Ex.P.20 Postal cover dated 15.10.1998.
Ex.P.21 Postal cover dated 15.07.2002.
Ex.P.22 A.D. Card.
Exs.P.23}{ 3 Postal covers.
20 O.S.No.649/2013
to P.25}{
Ex.P.26 Letter of Sri Muneshwara Temple Development
Committee dated 24.09.2005.
Ex.P.27 Authorization letter given by Sri Muneshwara
Temple Committee dated 25.09.2005.
Ex.P.28 19 Electricity bills pertaining to Sri Muneshwara
Temple.
Ex.P.29 CC of written statement by the defendants in
O.S.No.17205/2005.
Ex.P.30 CC of evidence of the plaintiff by way of affidavit in
O.S.No.17205/2005.
Ex.P.31 CC of cross-examination of plaintiff in
O.S.No.17205/2005.
Ex.P.32 CC of evidence of the P.W.2 by way of affidavit in
O.S.No.17205/2005.
Ex.P.33 CC of evidence of the P.W.3 by way of affidavit in
O.S.No.17205/2005.
Exs.P.34}{ CC of evidence of the D.W.1 by way of affidavit and & P.35 }{ cross-examination of D.W.1 in O.S.No.17205/2005.
List of witnesses examined for the defendants' side:-
D.W.1 IC-43130W Colonel George K.Y. D.W.2 IC-49697H Lieutenant Colonel B.N. Venugopal.
List of documents exhibited for the defendants' side:-
Ex.D.1 Authorization letter.
Ex.D.2 Attested copy of Mysuru State Gazette Notification
dated 20.11.1972.
Ex.D.3 Attested copy of Mysuru State Gazette Notification
dated 04.05.1972.
Ex.D.4 Attested copy of Mysuru State Gazette Notification
dated 30.11.1972.
Ex.D.5 Attested copy of Karnataka State Gazette
Notification dated 11.04.1974.
Ex.D.6 Attested copy of entire property list pertaining to
defendants' Estate.
Ex.D.7 Attested copy of document of handing over and
taking over possession dated 21.01.1977.
XXIX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City.21 O.S.No.649/2013
Judgment pronounced in open Court, vide separate judgment.
ORDER The suit is decreed.
No order as to costs.
The defendants are
hereby permanently
restrained from interfering
with the plaintiff's peaceful
enjoyment of the entrance to
the temple from
Kadirayanapalya Main Road
to use and usage of the
temple for performing pooja.
It is further directed to
restore the closed road
leading to the temple from
Kadirayanapalya Main Road,
which is closed by the
defendants.
Draw the decree accordingly.
XXIX Addl. City Civil Judge,
Bengaluru City.
22 O.S.No.649/2013