Karnataka High Court
Laxmibai W/O.Kushal Wader vs Shiddappa Shiddappa @ Balappa Wader on 25 February, 2021
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
W.P.No.100400/2021 (GM-CPC)
Between:
1. Laxmibai W/o. Kushal Wader,
Age 74 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
2. Chamaraj S/o. Kushal Wader,
Age 48 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
3. Yuvaraj S/o. Kushal Wader,
Age 41 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
4. Arunkumar S/o. Kushal Wader,
Age 74 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
... Petitioners
(By Shri Jagadish Patil, Advocate)
And:
1. Shiddappa Shiddappa @ Balappa Wader,
:2:
Age 66 yers, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
2. Malakari Shiddappa @ Balappa Wader,
Age 62 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
3. Khanappa Shiddappa @ Balappa Wader,
Age 62 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
4. Lagamma Shiddappa @ Balappa Wader,
Age 56 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
5. Doddawwa Shiddappa @ Balappa Wader,
Age 62 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Yalaparatti - 591 220,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Vidya, Advocate for R1 to R5)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the
impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,
Raibag in Ex.P.No.30/2020, dated 12.01.2021,vide Annexure-E and
thereby allow the application.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing orders, this
day, the Court made the following:
:3:
ORDER
1. It is not in dispute that a decree was granted in favour of the petitioners in O.S.No.47/1973 and the said operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:
"The plaintiff's suit is decreed. The defendants 1 to 5 are hereby permanently restrained from interfering with plaintiff's right to performing pooja of aranya Shidda Deva Deity in the temples at Khamlapur and Yelparatti in his turn of worship and also in receiving offerings, daxinas and other perquisites in his turn of worship of the deity in the two temples. In view of the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs."
2. It is also not in dispute that this decree was confirmed by the Appellate Court and also by this Court in RSA No.297/1987.
3. The plaintiff decree holder contending that the decree was disobeyed and he was not permitted to perform pooja and filed an execution petition and sought for Police help to implement the decree by filing an application.
4. In the execution petition, the Executing Court has stated that the JDRs were third parties and were not pujaries of the Temple and they were also not concerned with the temple. However, the Executing Court has proceeded to reject the application stating that if the application was granted, hardship :4: and inconvenience would be caused to the legal heirs of original trustee namely the deceased Siddappa Yallappa Wadeyar.
5. In my view, the grant of the decree of injunction is not in dispute. As a matter of fact the said decree has been confirmed.
6. The Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and could not have refuse to implement the decree of injunction by citing that some inconvenience may be caused to the legal heirs of the deceased trustee.
7. I am therefore of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside.
8. As a consequence, I.A. filed by the decree holder is allowed. The jurisdictional Police shall ensure that the decree dated 12.01.2021is implemented.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE Vnp*