Karnataka High Court
Sri B Subhaschandra Naik vs Sri U Sanjeeva Shetty on 6 March, 2014
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR
W.P.Nos. 8922 - 8923 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
1. SRI B SUBHASCHANDRA NAIK
S/O LATE B SADHASHIVA NAIK
R/AT ULLIPADYGUTTU HOUSE
MALALI POST AND VILLAGE
VIA KINNIKAMBLA
BANTWAL TALUK.
2. SRI ARUNKUMAR ALVA
S/O LATE H SHANTHA ALVA
R/AT ULLIPADYGUTTU HOUSE
MALALI POST AND VILLAGE,
VIA KINNIKAMBLA
BANTWAL TALUK ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA BHAT FOR
M/s. SUBBARAO & CO, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. SRI U SANJEEVA SHETTY
S/O LATE MANJAYYA SHETTY
R/AT 8TH CROSS
2
2ND BLOCK R T NAGAR
BANGALORE 32
2. SRI U JAGANNATHA SHETTY
S/O LATE PADMANABHA SHETTY
R/AT JAGAN NIVAS
UALIBETTU VILLAGE,
POST GURUPURA,
MANGALORE TALUK.
3. SRI U TARANATHA ALVA
S/O LATE K C ALVA
R/AT KAVIRAJ
KADRI KAMBALA ROAD,
COSOS LANE KADRI
MANGALORE.
4. SRI RAMESH NAIK
S/O LATE VENKAPPA NAIK
R/AT ODDUR FARMS
GANGIPAMATA VILLAGE AND POST
MANGALORE TALUK.
5. RAJRAJESHARI TEMPLE,
POLALI
REP.BY THE MANAGING TRUSTEE
POLALI KARIANGALA VILALGE
BANTWAL TALUK
6. CHERA SORRAYANARAYANA RAO
TRUSTEE OF RAJRAJESHARI TEMPLE
POLALI KARIANGALA VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK.
7. SRI MADHAVA BHAT
TRUSTEE OF RAJRAJESHARI TEMPLE
3
POLALI KARIANGALA VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK.
8. DR A MANJAYYA SHETTY
TRUSTEE OF RAJRAJESHARI TEMPLE
POLALI KARIANGALA VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.R. RAVIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI R RAJAGOPALAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R1, R2, R5-R8 ARE SERVED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.3.2.12, MADE IN
IA.NO.4 IN OS.NO.50/11 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
CIVIL JUDGE [JR.DN] BANTWAL, PRODUCED AT ANN-J AS
THE SAME SUFFERS FROM ERROR APPARENT ON THE
FACE OF THE RECORD.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER
The plaintiffs have preferred these Writ Petitions challenging the order passed by the trial Court returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.
2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for a declaration that the office of the hereditary trusteeship of Sri 4 Rajarajeshwari Temple, Polali and Ulipady Guttu vest with the senior male members of Akkama's branch only by succession to the exclusion of other members who have got separated and for a declaration that plaintiff No.1 as the present hereditary trustee of defendant No.5 as he being the present senior male member in Akkamma's branch and consequently for an injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 to 4 from interfering with the management and administration of the temple.
3. The said suit was filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bantwal, D.K. In the said suit, 4th defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC to return the plaint to present it before the proper Court defined under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. The trial Court after considering the rival contentions held that, the senior Civil Court is the competent Court and the plaintiffs have not produced any document to show that the Civil Court (Junior Division) is coming under the 5 definition of 'subordinate Court' under the Act and, therefore, it was of the opinion that Senior Civil Court is the competent Court to decide the hereditary rights of the trustee and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, it allowed the application, directed return of the plaint to be presented before the Senior Civil Court. In coming to the said conclusion it was relying on a judgment rendered under the Charitable Endowment Act, 1961 where a subordinate Court is designated as a Senior Civil Court.
4. The law which is applicable on the date the suit was filed and the date of passing the order is the Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1977 where, the 'Court' has been defined under Section 2(11) to mean, in relation to a charitable endowment or Hindu Religious Institutions in an area , the District Court having jurisdiction over such area. Therefore, the Senior Court is not the Court as defined under the Act. Though the order returning the plaint to be presented to the proper Court is proper, the direction to present it before the Senior Court is 6 improper. It should be to the District Court having jurisdiction over such area, i.e., District Court at Mangalore. With this, the impugned order is modified accordingly. Hence, I pass the following order : -
(i) Writ Petitions areSW allowed in part.
(ii) The plaint shall be re-presented before the District Court at Mangalore.
All other contentions are kept open to be agitated after the plaint is re-presented before the proper Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckl/-