Karnataka High Court
Sri Gurusiddayya Hiremath vs Kalmatha Guttala on 24 January, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1863
WP No. 103960 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 103960 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GURUSIDDAYYA HIREMATH,
PRESENTLY RENAMED, NOMINATED, RECOGNISED,
CALLED AND IDENTIFIED AS
SRI. Ma. Ni. Pra. GURUSIDDA MAHASWAMIGALU,
BIN GURU SANGANABASAVA SWAMIJI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PEETHADHIPATHI,
KALMATHA GUTTAL AND
PRABHUSWAMYMATH AGADI,
HAVERI-TALUK AND DISTRICT-581128.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR SHASTRI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M. R. HIREMATHAD &
SRI. PRAKASH R. BADIGER, ADVOCATES)
AND:
KALMATHA GUTTALA,
GIRIJA A REPRESENTED BY (SELF DECLARED),
BYAHATTI
SRI. Ma. Ni. Pra. PRABHUMAHASWAMIGALU,
Digitally HINDU, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
signed by GUTTALA, HAVERI-TALUK DISTRICT-581108.
GIRIJA A
BYAHATTI ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION
IN THE NATURE OF WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07-
06-2023 PASSED ON MEMO DATED 14-11-2018 FILED BY THE
PLAINTIFF IN O.S. NO. 21/2010, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HAVERI,
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-P AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1863
WP No. 103960 of 2023
IMPLEAD HIMSELF AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
DECEASED DEFENDANT NO.1., ALTERNATIVELY DIRECT THE
LEARNED JUDGE TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY UNDER ORDER
XXII RULE-5 OF CPC., AND TO DETERMINE THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED DEFENDANT NO.1 AND
PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION OR GRANT RELIEF
AS THIS HON' BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
"To issue Writ of Certiorari or any other order or direction in the nature of writ quashing the order dated 07-06-2023 passed on memo dated 14-11- 2018 filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.21/2010, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Haveri, produced at ANNEXURE-'P' and permit the petitioner to implead himself as the Legal Representative of the deceased Defendant No.1., alternatively direct the learned Judge to conduct an enquiry under order XXII Rule-5 of CPC., and to determine the Legal Representative of the deceased Defendant No.1 and pass such other order or direction or grant relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.21/2010 for grant of injunction against Defendant No.1 Peethadhipathi Sri.Mu.Ni.Pra.Sanganabasava Swamiji, claiming that the plaintiff was the Peethadhipathi and -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:1863 WP No. 103960 of 2023 holding Peetha. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 Peethadhipathi expired on 23.07.2018. In that background, the plaintiff is stated to have filed a memo on 14.11.2018, claiming that the plaintiff was appointed as Peethadhepathi on 04.04.1992 and there are no living legal representatives of defendant No.1. The said memo having been accepted vide order dated 07.06.2023, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. Sri. Vighneshwar Shastri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, by accepting the memo, the plaintiff has been treated as the legal representative of defendant No.1, when in fact it is the petitioner/defendant No.2, who is the legal representative. It is defendant No.1 who had appointed defendant No.2 as his successor and Peethadhipathi.
4. Sri. Shivasai M. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that, the issue of whether a person has been appointed as a Peethadhipathi or not -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:1863 WP No. 103960 of 2023 is the subject matter of trial and that would have to be decided by the trial Court after evidence is led by both sides and as such, there is no finding today as regards who is the legal representative. As such, he submits that the contention of the petitioner is fallacious in nature and the petition is required to be dismissed.
5. Heard Sri. Vigneshwar Shastri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Shivasai M. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the papers.
6. The suit in O.S.No.21/2010 having been filed by the respondent seeking for injunction and certain reliefs against defendants No.1, 2 and others, defendant No.1 expired on 23.07.2018. Both the petitioner and respondent do not dispute that defendant No.1 was the Peethadhipathi. However, the dispute only lies in whether defendant No.1 had appointed the plaintiff as Peethadhipathi in the year 1992 or whether defendant No.1 had appointed defendant No.2 as Peethadhipathi -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:1863 WP No. 103960 of 2023 on 14.10.1993 and registered Will having been executed on 27.05.1994.
7. The dispute is relating to the office of the Peethadhipathi and not as regards any personal property of defendant No.1, since the property under the Will was always and will always be under the ownership of the Math and not of the Peethadhipathi, who is only a manager, the property belonging to the math. The Peethadhipathi being only the manager of the said math and even if any of the properties stands in the name of Peethadhipathi, the said properties are held by him in trust for the math and not in his individual capacity.
8. If at all there are certain private properties of the Peethadhipathi, the same cannot be subject matter of the suit which has been filed, since the suit relates to the office of the Peethadhipathi and not the individual property of defendant No.1.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1863 WP No. 103960 of 2023
9. Thus, the appointment as Peethadhipathi claimed by the plaintiff and defendant No.2 would have to be adjudicated independently of whether there are legal representatives or heirs or not, by verifying whether the appointment has in fact been made and if made, whether it is made properly and whether it has been acted upon. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.2 claiming to be the blood relatives or claiming the devolution of the individual estate of defendant No.1 in their favour, they cannot be said to be legal representatives in terms of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such, there would be no requirement for holding an enquiry in terms of Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The requirement of holding such an enquiry would only arise if there are cross-claims or counter claims made by certain persons claiming to be the legal representatives.
10. In the present case, as observed supra, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.2 claim to be the legal -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:1863 WP No. 103960 of 2023 representatives, but are claiming to have been appointed as Peethadhipathi. The memo which has been filed, insofar as the statement made therein that there is no living legal representative, is proper and correct. Insofar as the other statements made as regards the plaintiff being appointed as a Peethadhipathi on 04.04.1992, that is the fact which the subject matter of the suit and subject matter of trial and the acceptance of the memo as regards legal representatives are living or not, will not amount to acceptance of the appointment of the plaintiff as a Peethadhipathi on 04.04.1992. Hence no grounds have been made out.
11. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.
12. The trial Court is free to decide as to who has been appointed as Peethadhipathi. The suit being of the year 2010, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:1863 WP No. 103960 of 2023 period of 18 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13. Since defendant No.1 has expired during the pendency of the matter and defendant No.2 claims to be appointed as Peethadhipathi, liberty is required to be granted to defendants No.2 to 5 to have their say in the matter in the form of written statement, which shall be filed within a period of 60 days from today.
14. In view of disposal of the main matter, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab/Ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 117