Karnataka High Court
Sri Uttaradi Mutt vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2023
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
WP No. 103449 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 103449 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI UTTARADI MUTT
THROUGH ITS PONTIFF
SHRI SHRI 1008,
SHRI SATYATMA TIRTHA SWAMIGALU,
REPRESENTED BY THE
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SHRI VEEDYDHEESHACHAR R. GUTTAL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, R/O. BENGALURU,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE,
AT: FIFTH CROSS,
SHANKARPURAM, BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU.
...PETITIONER
VIJAYALAKSHMI
(BY SRI JAIKUMAR S. PATIL, AND SRI AMITKUMAR
M KANKUPPI
High Court of
DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSELS FOR SRI SATISH S.
Karnataka,
Dharwad RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY,
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583231.
-2-
WP No. 103449 of 2023
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL, TALUK: KOPPAL,
DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-583231.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
GANGAVATHI,
TALUK: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-583231.
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KOPPAL, TALUK: KOPPAL,
DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-583231.
6. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
RURAL POLICE STATION,
GANGVATHI,
TALUK: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-583231.
7. SHREEMANYAYASUDHA SAMARPANA
SAMSMARANOTSAVA
ANEGUNDI/GANGAVATI,
THROUGH ITS SIGNATORY,
NANJANGUDU SRI RAGHAVENDRA
SWAMY MUTT,
ANEGUNDI, GANGAVATI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.6;
SRI K. SUMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI I.Y.PATIL,
ADVOCATE, SRI PANIRAJ S. KASHYAP AND SRI GANAPATI G.
BHAT, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30-05-2023 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 IN FILE NO.KOM/DEVASTHANA/2023-24
DATED 30-05-2023, IN SO FAR AS THE OBSERVATION THAT
THE ORDER OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IS TO BE SOUGHT
-3-
WP No. 103449 of 2023
FOR IS CONCERNED, THE COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A,
AND CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE
RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO DEPUTE POLICE PERSONNEL
TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER TO ORGANIZE
AND CONDUCT ARADHANA MAHOTSAVA OF SHRI
RAGHUVARYA TIRTHARU AT THE HOLY SITE OF MOOLA
BRINDAVANA OF SHRI RAGHUVARYA TIRTHARU IN THE
ISLAND NAMED NAVABRINDAVANA GADDI BEARING
SY.NO.192 OF ANEGUNDI AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned Senior counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, on behalf of learned counsel Sri Satish S. Raichur for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel Sri K.Suman on behalf of learned counsel Sri Paniraj Kashyap for the caveator/respondent No.7 and also learned HCGP representing respondents No.1 to 6.
2. Since the main prayer sought in the writ petition is to quash the order passed by the 3rd respondent/The Assistant Commissioner and the interim prayer being the same, any order that would be passed on the interim prayer is as good as order on main petition. -4- WP No. 103449 of 2023 Hence with consent of learned senior counsels' main matter is heard for disposal.
3. Urgency is put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner expressing that the performance of religious rituals and Aradhana and Shraddha are fixed to be conducted on 5th, 6th and 7th of June, 2023 i.e., beginning from today. The petitioner/Uttaradi Mutt is a main pontifical mutt in the lineage of great saint Shri Madhvacharya and involved in preaching the philosophy of Shri Madhvacharya. It is also stated that various saints adored the petitioner/Mutt by way of succession and it is the practice in Madhwa Cult that the mortal body of the departed saints shall be placed underneath ground and a structure thereon is build called Brindavana. Daily rituals are to be performed by following ritualistic traditions. On the day of saints reaching the abode of the god a celebration is performed as 'Aradhana' consisting of three days called as Poorva, Madhya and Uttara Aradhana every year.
-5-WP No. 103449 of 2023
4. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that there are nine Brindavanas' of nine saints in Nava Brindavana Gaddi, out of which, Shri Raghuvarya Theertharu is one among the nine Brindavanas. The Aradhana of said saint is performed on Jyesta Krishna Tritiya the day of his entering Brindavana every year and this year three days are falling on 5th 6th and 7th of June, 2023.
5. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner/Mutt is the owner of land which is island in Tungabhadra river by name Nava Brindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi. Shri Raghuvarya Theertharu is one of the predecessors peethadipati/Pontiff and Guru of petitioner Mutt, attained the state of eternal bliss and entered Brindavana in the said island as stated above, and is revered highly by thousands of devotees of petitioner Mutt. He further contends that the Peethadipati has a religious and spiritual duty to perform the Aradhana every year on the same date and his predecessor pontiff -6- WP No. 103449 of 2023 Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu had entered Brindavana the Holy Site in the said island named Navabrindavana Gaddi.
6. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the petitioner/Mutt has been conducting the Aradhana Mahotsava celebration of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu in the said island since time immemorial. It is also contended that more than a century they have been conducting the very same Aradhana Mahotsava of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Navabrindavana Gaddi. The panchanga published on behalf of the petitioner/mutt decides the dates of conducting the 'Aradhana' to be performed which may change according to the year and the panchanga. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that several decades ago an illegal attempt was made by Shri Raghavendra Swami Mutt and another Mutt to include their names in the revenue records of Sy.No.192 along with the name of petitioner Mutt on assumed false and illegal pretext that the said two Mutts have an alleged right to perform certain religious rituals at the Holy -7- WP No. 103449 of 2023 Brindavanas of nine Gurus existing in the very same island. It is stated that due to the rival claim, a suit came to be filed in O.S.No.65/1959-60 before the Civil Judge Court. The said suit came to be decreed in favour of the petitioner Mutt and attained finality. The Judgment and Decree was challenged before the Appellate Court and the same came to be dismissed. Thereafter, a perpetual injunction suit was filed in O.S.No.130 of 1978 due to the interference of Shri Vyasaraja Mutta who suffered the earlier decree, which also ended in favour of the petitioner mutt. This being the state of affairs Shri Raghavendra Swami Mutt tried to interfere with the possession of petitioner Mutt on the very same Island of Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Aneggundi interfering with the performance of Aradhana of Shri Padmanabha Teertharu, Shri Vageesha Teertharu and Shri Kaveendra Teertharu. All these three Brindavanas are among nine Brindavanas located in Nava Brindavana Gaddi, due to the alleged interference by Shri Raghavendra Swami Mutt, the petitioner was perforced to file a suit against respondent -8- WP No. 103449 of 2023 No.7 herein i.e., Shri Raghavendra Swami Mutt for a decree of perpetual injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed and an appeal preferred by the petitioner herein came to be partly allowed. Aggrieved by the same, Shri Raghavendra Swami Mutt preferred Regular Second Appeal in RSA No.100446/2015 and same is pending before this Court.
7. It is the vehement contention of learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil that the pendency of the Regular Second Appeal is misused and taking advantage of the said pendency, respondent No.7 is interfering with the performance of Aradhana that is conducted by the petitioner/Mutt at the Navabrindavana Gaddi. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel that since centuries they have been conducting the Aradhanas and Shraddhas of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu every year without any interference and due to the latest alleged interference i.e., by the 7th respondent the petitioner/mutt was perforced to make a request by way of petition to the 3rd respondent -9- WP No. 103449 of 2023 seeking police protection to avoid untoward incidents and peaceful conducting of Aradhana at the Navabrindavana Gaddi as a preventive measure.
8. Learned Senior Counsel vehemently contends that the subject matter of the original suit in O.S.No.193/1992 and thereafter renumbered as O.S.No.74/2010 lead to the filing of Regular Second Appeal does not pertain to the present Shri Raghuvarya Teerthara Aradhana as the subject matter of the suit and RSA and SLP are pertaining to Shri Kaveendra Teerthara Aradhana and Shri Vageesha Teerthara Aradhana and Shri Padmanabha Teerthara Aradhana. Therefore, he draws a difference between the subject matter of the religious rituals being conducted in the form of Shri Raghuvarya Teerthara Aradhana on the specified day every year based of panchanga and the present one falling on 5th, 6th and 7th of June, 2023 is not the subject matter in the RSA and neither was subject matter in the suit stated (supra). So also before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was not the subject
- 10 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023matter which is now sought for by the petitioner to conduct the religious rituals in a peaceful manner without causing any hindrance or any untoward incidents to the public and devotees while performing such Aradhana.
9. Accordingly, in order to avoid any such untoward incidents they made a representation to the Assistant Commissioner who instead of considering the representation and adverting to whether police protection/assistance is to be granted to maintain law and order adverted to a rival claim which is also made by the 7th respondent for performance of 'Nyayasudha Samarpana Samskarotsava' at Navabrindavana Gaddi on the very same days of 5th, 6th and 7th of June, 2023 has strangely directed both the parties i.e., petitioner herein and respondent No.7 to approach this Court to obtain suitable orders in view of the verdict of this Court in Writ Petition No.102614/2022(GM-RES) dated 15.07.2022 and has passed an order that in case any persons performed any functions without the orders of the Hon'ble High
- 11 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023Court, suitable action would be initiated against them. It is this order that is questioned in this writ petition.
10. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil contends that the order passed by the 3rd respondent is perverse and illegal as what was sought for was to provide police help and protection and maintain law and order situation, if any that would arise in view of the rival claim made by the 3rd respondent threatening to conduct samarpane on the same dates. He also contends that it is since century and decades the petitioner has been conducting the said Aradhana and Shraddas towards Shri Raghuvarya Teertha, whereas the 7th respondent/the Raghavendra Swami Mutt has recently started interfering with the Aradhana performed by the petitioner Mutt only with an intention to stall the performing of the Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu by the petitioner. He also contends that never in the history the 7th respondent had conducted any such Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu which was conducted by the petitioner Mutt.
- 12 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023Hence, he seeks to allow this petition and permit the petitioner to conduct the Aradhana and direct the 3rd respondent to provide suitable Police protection and also maintain law and order situation in case of any untoward incidents which may create an unholy atmosphere during the religious rituals due to the rival claims/threats made by the respondent No.7.
11. Per contra, learned Senior counsel Sri K.Suman, vehemently contends that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as what is sought for before this Court is already the subject matter in the Regular Second Appeal stated (supra) and in fact it was taken up to the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP mentioned along with statement of objections Annexure-R2, wherein the Regular Second Appeal proceedings have been stayed by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.Suman vociferously contends that the petitioners are trying to approbate and reprobate on their whims and fancies and
- 13 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023they have approached this Court when already the matter is ceased in the Regular Second Appeal proceedings having culminated out of the original suit and the regular appeal. He further contends that the petitioner suppressed the material facts, the real dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.7 in this writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that respondent No.7 has made an application to the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 for conducting religious function i.e., Sreemanyayasudha Samarpana Samsmaranotsava in the island of Navabrindavana Gaddi especially Moola Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that based on historical facts out of nine Brindavans, Shri Jaya Teerthara Moola Brindavana is at Navabrindavana Gaddi. The petitioner has suppressed the material facts with regard to rejection of the contention of petitioner in the writ petition No.102614/2022 dated 15.07.2022 and has conveniently not produced the order of the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the argument of the petitioner's counsel
- 14 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023with regard to the dispute in RSA No.100446/2015 is restricted only to three Brindavanas and does not pertain to Shri Raghuvarya Teertha Aradhana which cannot be gone into by this Court in the writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. It is further contended that Shri Raghavendra Swami Mutt and its disciples have been without interruption continuously performing the aradhana of Shri HH Jayateertharu at Navabrindavana Gaddi for the past 40 years. In fact, the predecessor pontiff Shri HH Sushumindra Teertharu had also performed the aradhana of Shri HH Jayateertharu at Navabrindavana Gaddi which is evident from the Nirupas and photographs and paper cutting for having performed the aradhana of Shri Jayateertharu. Whenever, it is inconvenient for the Peetadhipathi, the disciples were performing the aradhana.
14. Learned Senior Counsel vehemently contends that the matter has been dealt with in W.P.No. 102614/2022, wherein this issue when raised on the
- 15 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023earlier occasion in the writ petition it was contended by the petitioner herein that respondent No.7 should have filed an application before the pending RSA which could have gone into the records and pass necessary suitable orders as the Navabrindavanas were the subject matters of the Regular Second Appeal. The learned Senior Counsel brings to the notice of this Court the earlier writ proceedings in W.P.No.102614/2022 which was preferred by respondent No.7 for conducting of aradhana/ samarpane wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at paragraph No.9 has held that the petitioner Mutt was required to approach this Court by filing appropriate application seeking permission of the Court to conduct Aradhana at Navabrindavana Gaddi. The question as to whether the dispute in RSA No.100446/2015 is restricted only to three Brindavanas or is spread across the island is something which cannot be gone into by this Court in the writ proceedings. Further, at paragraph No.10 this Court held, "moreover in this writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 what is required to be considered is whether
- 16 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023there is any impropriety in the impugned orders enforcing section 144 in the Navabrindavana Gaddi during the days mentioned herein. The District Administration is well within its powers to impose the sanction contained under section 144 Cr.P.C. to ensure public peace and tranquility. It is further held that the authorities have found that conducting of Aradhana in such a situation has all the potential of disturbing the public peace, the authorities are well within their powers to impose section 144 of Cr.P.C.
15. Learned Senior Counsel lays stress on this finding of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a similar situation of a religious rituals/Aradhana to be conducted by respondent No.7, wherein imposition of section 144 of Cr.P.C. to ensure public peace and tranquility came to be upheld. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.Suman contends that in the above said writ petition the petitioners herein had approbated and reprobated and now they are trying to seek the very same relief which was earlier sought by respondent No.7 for conducting the religious rituals which
- 17 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023squarely came to be rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by directing the parties to file application before the pending Regular Second Appeal No.100446/2015. Hence, even in this case petitioners should be relegated to file necessary application before the RSA proceedings.
16. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that respondent No.7 also intends to conduct the religious rituals as stated supra which would not hinder the rituals or the ceremonies which is going to be conducted by the petitioner and he is also agreeable that if the religious ceremonies are permitted to respondent No.7 equally for few days, he is agreeable for conducting as per the orders passed by this Court, wherein equal number of days are given to both the parties to perform religious rituals to the satisfaction of the Mutt, the devotees and the public to maintain law and order situation without any disturbance or peaceful tranquility. This is however a second line of argument as an alternative argument but primarily he contends that the writ petition itself is not maintainable.
- 18 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023The same is to be rejected as the parties are already at lis before the RSA proceedings.
17. I have heard both the learned Senior Counsels. The learned HCGP sustains the order of the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 in the guise that in view of the parties already having approached this Court in the Regular Second Appeal and the matter having reached the Hon'ble Apex Court, and certain guidelines have been issued, with regard to following certain procedures for performing of aradhana and rituals, the Assistant Commissioner in order to maintain peace and tranquility between the parties and the public at large has passed the orders at Annexure-A which cannot be found fault with as the parties are already at lis before this Court in earlier writ petition and Regular Second Appeal stated supra.
18. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels for both the parties at length and the learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 6 State, on perusal of the impugned order, I am of the opinion that a strange order has been
- 19 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023passed by the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 on the application made by both the parties for grant of protection to both the parties for performing the religious rituals instead of either allowing or rejecting the request made by both the parties. The Assistant Commissioner as respondent No.3 has directed both the parties to approach this Court to obtain an order to perform the religious rituals and ceremonies in consonance with the earlier writ petition W.P.No.102614/2022 dated 15.07.2022 and perform necessary religious rituals/pooja and failing which suitable action would be initiated. Respondent No.3 has washed of his hands without applying his mind and on the basis of earlier writ petition has misconceived and misinterpreted the order to direct the petitioner as well as respondent No.7 to approach this Court, which in my opinion is not the correct way to deal with the representation.
19. It is not in dispute that the parties had initially filed a suit in O.S.No.65/1959-60 and O.S.No.193/1992
- 20 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023thereafter are transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.74/2010 and on dismissal of the said suit the parties having filed regular appeal, and thereafter having culminated in Regular Second Appeal and the matter presently being stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the SLP stated supra, all these aspects are not in dispute.
20. It is also not in dispute that the subject matter of the original suit having culminated in the RSA pertains to Shri Kaveendra Teertha Aradhana, Shri Vageesh Teerthara Aradhana, Shri Padmanabha Teerthara Aradhana and Shri Raghuvarya Teerthara Aradhana is not the subject matter of the original suit and regular second appeal which is pending adjudication. The earlier writ petition in W.P.No.102614/2022 was filed by the respondent No.7 against issuance of an order under section 144 of Cr.P.C. by the authorities and the said petition of respondent No.7 came to be dismissed upholding the imposition of section 144 of Cr.P.C. by the authorities in order to maintain peace and ensure public
- 21 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023tranquility, so that there is no disturbance in the performance of religious rituals and aradhana by the respective Mutts.
21. This Court is in agreement with the observation made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with regard to writ Court not venturing into details of the rights and title or other aspect which are the subject matters of the Regular Second Appeal which is pending adjudication. As this Court sitting in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot conduct roving enquiry with regard to the factual aspects of the merits of the matter. As already stated above, the matter is pending in RSA proceedings, which will have to be adjudicated by the parties in the said proceedings. But however what is sought for in the present writ petition is with regard to performance of religious rituals by petitioner Mutts, which they have been conducting since centuries and admittedly certain documents have been produced to show that since more than 50-60 years the aradhanas are conducted;
- 22 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023however this Court would not venture into forming an opinion as it is disputed by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.7. However the fact remains that Shri Raghuvarya Teerthara Aradhana is not the subject matter of the original suit in O.S.No.74/2010 and neither is it a subject matter in Regular Second Appeal in RSA No.100446/2015.
22. On a query made by this Court both the learned senior counsels agree that Shri Raghuvarya Teerthara Aradhana is not the subject matter in RSA.No.100446/2015. The relief sought for by the petitioner is to permit them to direct the authorities i.e. respondent No.3 to provide suitable police help and protection and to take care of public peace and tranquility to avoid any untoward incident during the performance of the religious rituals which has been now relegated by the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 by directing the petitioner to approach this Court, in my opinion is not correct as respondent No.3 has got swayed by orders
- 23 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.102614/2022 and has played mischief by directing the petitioner and respondent No.7 to approach this Court, which appears to be ex-facie mala fide.
23. On a careful perusal of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is seen that the authorities having passed an order under section 144 of Cr.P.C. in the above said writ petition has been upheld by holding that the authorities are well within their powers to impose sanction to maintain public peace and tranquility, which would avoid any potential disturbance of public peace for conducting any rituals or ceremony/Aradhana. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 deserves to be interfered. At this stage this Court does not find any rationale in directing the respondent No.3 to re-consider and pass suitable orders on the representation of both parties, as the religious rituals have to begin from today till 7th June, 2023. Therefore, in view
- 24 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023of the urgency and time constraints and respecting the religious beliefs, faith and large number of devotees and public gathering in the interest of public peace and tranquility immediate orders are required to be passed. Accordingly I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed in part.
ii) Order dated 30.05.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 in File No. Kom/Devasthana/2023-24 is quashed to the extent of directing the petitioner to approach this Court to obtain order to perform the religious rituals.
iii) The Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 shall provide suitable protection for maintenance of public peace and tranquility and would be at liberty to impose or pass an order for maintenance of public peace and tranquility including issuance of an order under section 144 of Cr.P.C. to permit the petitioner to conduct the
- 25 -WP No. 103449 of 2023
rituals only with regard to conducting of Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, on fifth, sixth and seventh of June, 2023, at the Holy site of Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu in the island of Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi.
iv) It is however made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter including other issues in dispute other than conducting Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu.
v) This Court also does not express any opinion with regard to the question of rights of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu or rights of Shri Jayateertharu in the Navabrindavana Gaddi. This aspect would have to be decided in the pending proceedings between the parties to the lis, if any.
vi) This Court further observes that in view of the fact that both the parties are claiming lineage of the great saint Shri Madhwacharya and adored by several thousands of people, this Court hopes that both the parties would
- 26 -
WP No. 103449 of 2023maintain public peace and tranquility for the religious rituals of Aradhana and Shraddha being conducted in the said Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu of the Nava Brindavana Gadde.
vii) All rights of the parties are kept open.
SD/-
JUDGE CKK,MRK