Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayanaswamy vs Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple Trust on 15 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36662
RFA No. 1702 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1702 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O LATE GOPALAPPA
2. SRI MAHESH
S/O SRIRAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
3. SRI K T NARENDRA BABU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
4. SRI ASHOK KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M 5. SRI K T PRABHU
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
COURT OF S/O LATE THIMMAPPA
KARNATAKA
6. SRI K T YASHWANTH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O LATE THIMMAPPA
7. SRI K M VINAY KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE GAYATHRI
8. SRI RAMA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE ASHWATH NARAYANAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36662
RFA No. 1702 of 2023
HC-KAR
9. SRI MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O LATE ASHWATH NARAYANPPA
10. SRI VENKATANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O LATE ASHWATH NARAYANPPA
11. SRI RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE ASHWATH NARAYANPPA
12. SRI PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
13. SRI PRASANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
APPELLANTS ARE RESIDENTS OF
3RD CROSS, KANAKAPPA GARDEN
KANAKANAPALYA, KOLAR CITY-563101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: HEGDE RAMAKRISHNA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE TRUST
REPRESENTING BY ITS
MANAGING TRUSTEE
BANGARPET MAIN ROAD
KURUBARPET, KOLAR CITY-563101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: M SHIVAPRAKASH., ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41
RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
03.02.2023 PASSED IN OS No. 13/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:36662
RFA No. 1702 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2023 passed in OS No.13 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short). By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the suit is one for declaration to declare the title and ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.275/1 measuring to an extent of 18 guntas (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). The case of the plaintiffs are that the suit property originally belong to Venkatappa Nayaka. He has 4 sons namely, Dasappa, Venkatappa, Ramayya and Kanakappa. Except Dasappa, the other 3 sons divided the joint family properties -4- NC: 2025:KHC:36662 RFA No. 1702 of 2023 HC-KAR through a registered partition deed dated 09.06.1958. The suit property was divided into 3 shares. The deceased Dasappa went out from the joint family by taking his legitimate share in the joint family properties to an extent of 1/4th share out of 18 guntas in the suit property. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 are the legal representatives of the late Dasappa. Plaintiff Nos.5 to 7 are the legal representatives of late Venkatappa. Plaintiff Nos.8 to 11 are the legal representative of late Ramayya and plaintiff Nos.12 and 13 are the legal representative of late Kanakappa and they claim succession over the suit property.
3. The case of the plaintiffs are that the suit property was always been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and their ancestors. No alienation, transfer or dedication was made by them to the defendant and their agents. It is averred that the khata of the property was mutated in the name of defendant - Trust recently without the plaintiffs knowledge and consent and the name of ancestors were deleted from the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:36662 RFA No. 1702 of 2023 HC-KAR revenue records without notice and thus such revenue entries were illegal, fabricated and not binding on them. That on the strength of manipulated records, the defendant - Trust began to assert ownership and was attempting to dispossess the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit for declaration of ownership and title over the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from causing any interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
4. Defendant appeared before the Trial Court and filed its written statement inter alia contending and denying that the suit property originally belonged to Venkatappa Nayaka and was validly partitioned under the 1958 deed. The defendant denied that the plaintiffs or their ancestors ever had ownership, possession or enjoyment over the suit property. The specific averment of the defendant was that the suit property is a temple property belonging to Sri Anjenayaswamy Temple, Kurubarpet, Kolar and the property was donated by the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:36662 RFA No. 1702 of 2023 HC-KAR family and the ancestors of the plaintiffs for the maintenance of the temple. Further, that one Ramanujaiah (Archaka of the temple) mismanaged the temple properties around 1986 and consequently, the devotees filed OS No.3 of 1986 under Section 92 of CPC which was decreed in favour of the devotees, declaring the temple as a Public Religious and Charitable Institution. Further, that the Appeal in RFA No.159 of 1997 preferred before this Court came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the SLP No.2605 of 2009 preferred by the Archakas before the Apex Court, came to be dismissed.
5. It is submitted that, pursuant to the Court orders, Execution No.8 of 2013 was instituted and there was a formation of the temple Trust and approval of the trustees. The Assistant Commissioner way back in the year 2014 ordered entry of the property in the Government name on behalf of the temple, confirming it as an inam land and religious endowment. Further that the family of -7- NC: 2025:KHC:36662 RFA No. 1702 of 2023 HC-KAR the Archaka also filed OS No.88 of 2012 against the devotees and the present plaintiffs seeking declaration and injunction, which is still pending against the plaintiffs and the some other devotees. The defendant - Trust sought impleadment, which was refused and MFA was pending consideration before this Court. The specific contention of the defendant was that the suit property is not a private property but a public temple property, vested with Government and managed by temple - Trust after long standing litigation and the plaintiffs are attempting to re- agitate the matter in the second round of litigation in collusion with the Archakas.
6. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment and decree, held that the decree in OS No.3 of 1986, confirmed in RFA No.159 of 1997 and SLP No.2605 of 2009, held the temple to be a Public Religious Institution and property to be inam land vested in Government binding on the plaintiffs, who are related to Archak's family. Further, the revenue entries in the name of -8- NC: 2025:KHC:36662 RFA No. 1702 of 2023 HC-KAR plaintiffs were temporary and colourable and the present RTC stands in the name of temple. Further, the Trial Court observed that the plaintiffs own witness admitted that the suit property belonged to the temple and enjoyed by the defendant - Trust since 1986. The Trial Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.M.Sundaram @ Meenakshi Sundaram Vs Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu1, to hold that the dedication of a property to a temple need not be by express dedication or document and can be inferred from long uninterrupted enjoyment for religious purposes. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the suit and held that the plaintiffs has failed to establish the ownership and the defendant - Trust is in possession as owner by virtue of the dedication and prior suit decree. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs are before this Court in this Regular First Appeal.
1 2022 Live Law (SC) 612 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:36662 RFA No. 1702 of 2023 HC-KAR
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit property originally belonged to Venkatappa Nayaka and was partitioned in the year 1958 amongst his 4 sons. Plaintiffs being the legal heirs have succeeded to their respective shares and the appellants relies upon the partition deed - Ex.P4 and submits that the plaintiffs and their ancestors have been in settled possession continuously and enjoyment, which is corroborated with Exs.P5 and 6 - encumbrance certificate and Ex.P7 - the RTC. It is submitted that neither the plaintiffs nor their ancestors have executed any gift, donation or Will or a deed of dedication in favour of the temple or any person and as such the respondent therein cannot claim ownership without valid transfer document. It is submitted that the defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs possession on the strength of fabricated
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36662 RFA No. 1702 of 2023 HC-KAR documents and revenue entries, has made the plaintiffs to file the present suit for declaration and injunction. The Trial Court has totally erred in relying upon the judgment and decree in OS No.3 of 1986, RFA 159 of 1997 and SLP 2605 of 2009, where plaintiffs are not parties and finding regarding inam lands vested in Government are not conclusive of plaintiffs title in the property.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the property is a temple property, having donated by the public and the plaintiffs ancestors for religious purpose. Further that OS No.3 of 1986 under Section 92 of CPC, it has declared the temple a Public Religious and Charitable Institution and ordered removal of the Archaka's family. RFA No.159 of 1997 and SLP No.2605 of 2009 upheld this findings, holding that the suit property to be the inam land vested in the Government. It is submitted that plaintiffs being the descendants and relatives of the Archakas family are bound by those decree. Further, it is submitted that the order of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36662 RFA No. 1702 of 2023 HC-KAR Assistant Commissioner's at Ex.D9 directed the revenue entries in the Government's name on behalf of the temple and the said order has attained finality. That the plaintiffs are colluding with the Archakas descendants to revive the claims already rejected by the Court. The suit has rightly been dismissed by the Trial Court, which warrants no interference by this Court.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court warrants any interference?"
11. The property in dispute was already the subject matter in OS No.3 of 1986, where the temple was declared as Public Religious and Charitable Institution. The Trial Court in OS No.3 of 1986 - Ex.D.4 framed Issue No. 2 -
"Whether the plaintiffs prove that the plaint schedule properties belong to the Kurubarpet Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Kolar Town, which is a public religious and charitable institution?" The Trial Court, while answering the said issue held that
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36662 RFA No. 1702 of 2023 HC-KAR Kurubarpet Anjaneyaswamy Temple is a Religious and Charitable Institution and directed the Archaka's family to deliver vacant possession of the temple properties including item No.5 to the temple. That judgment and decree was confirmed in RFA No.159 of 1997 and held that Item Nos.3 to 5 are inam land and vested in the Government. The operative portion of the order in RFA 159 of 1997 reads as under:
"24. xxx We are of the opinion that the items No.3 to 5 are imams land and vested in the Government. Therefore, either the plaintiff or defendants cannot claim any title over these items since they are governed by the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act."
12. It is significant to note that item No.5 in the earlier suit, OS No.3 of 1986, was the very same property which forms subject matter in the present suit. In that suit, instituted under Section 92 of CPC, this Court has already declared the temple as a Public Religious and
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36662 RFA No. 1702 of 2023 HC-KAR Charitable Institution and directed that the possession of the schedule properties including item No.5 be delivered to the Trust. Later the same was confirmed in SLP No. 2605 of 2009 and has attained finality.
13. The Appellate Court while considering the same noted that the lands in question were held to be the inam lands vested in the Government. Once vesting occurs, the private rights extinguish and any claim under the partition deed of 1958 cannot confer any ownership. Thus, the plaintiffs title itself was untenable. The plaintiffs relied heavily upon RTC's extracts and mutations entries. Law is well settled that the revenue entries are not a proof of title. The entry in the name of a particular person is only for the limited exchange of revenue, if it is not evidenced by any registered documents. Moreover, the Assistant Commissioner's order - Ex.D9 directed the entry in the Government's name on behalf of the temple. The Trial Court by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.M.Sundaram @ Meenakshi Sundaram
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36662 RFA No. 1702 of 2023 HC-KAR (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that dedication of a property as religious endowment does not require an express dedication or document and can be inferred from the circumstances. Extinction of private character of a property can be inferred from the circumstances and facts on record, including sufficient length of time which shows user permitted for religious or public purposes. The plaintiffs' alleged discovery of entering of the name of defendant in 2021 is not acceptable. The records demonstrate that the entries in the revenue records in the name of temple was normal. The plaintiffs have failed to establish their title or possession, while the defendants proved ownership and possession over the property through the decree confirmed in RFA and in SLP. The Trial Court's dismissal of the suit was based on the sound appreciation of evidence and settled proposition of law, which warrants no interference.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36662 RFA No. 1702 of 2023 HC-KAR
14. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Regular First Appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court stands confirmed.
Sd/-
____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA BGN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26