Karnataka High Court
Gosegowda vs Boregowda S/O Joganna on 16 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 624
Author: Nataraj Rangaswamy
Bench: Nataraj Rangaswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2129 OF 2012
Between:
1. Gosegowda
S/o late Devaraguddappana Kullappa
Aged about 68 years
2. Devaraju
S/o Gosegowda
Aged about 30 years
Both are residing at
Gobbaragala Village
Arakere Hobli
Srirangapatna Taluk - 571 415. .... Appellants
(By Sri V. Srinivas, Advocate)
And:
1. Boregowda
S/o Joganna
Aged about 68 years
2. Boregowda
S/o. Minakappana Kullappa
Aged about 65 years
3. Doddanna
S/o. Hombegowda
Aged about 70 years
4. Chairman Marigowda
S/o. Manchegowda
Aged about 66 years
2
5. Kontakaaranna Madegowda
S/o. Kontakaarana Nadagappana
Borappa
Aged about 51 years
All are R/o
Gobbaragala Village
Arakere Hobli
Srirangapatna Taluk - 571 415. ... Respondents
(R1 to R5 served)
This RSA is filed under Section 100 of CPC against
the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2012 passed in
RA.No.38/2009 on the file Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Srirangapatna, dismissing the appeal and confirming the
judgment and decree dated 23.03.2009 passed in
OS.No.71/2007 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn),
and JMFC, Srirangapatna and etc.,
This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This regular second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs challenging the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Srirangapatna in OS No.71/2007 dated 23.03.2009 by which the suit filed by the plaintiffs for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their right as Archakas of the temple in question was dismissed. 3 The appeal preferred therefrom by the plaintiffs in RA No.38/2009 was also dismissed by lower appellate Court in terms of the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2012.
2. The facts which are evident from the plaint in OS No.71/2007 are that the plaintiffs claimed to be the hereditary Archakas of Maramma Temple in Gobbaragala village. It is also claimed that survey No.13 measuring 3 acres 17 guntas of Gobbaragala Village was endowed to the Maramma temple. It is claimed that the uncle of 1st plaintiff Sri Poojari Kalegowda was the Archaka of the temple and after his death, the father of the 1st plaintiff was performing duties of Archaka. It is claimed that the plaintiffs were performing duties of Archaka from the date of filing of the suit and that they have received annual tasdik from the Government. They claimed that the defendants wanted to sell the suit schedule property bearing survey No.13 and thus set up 4 defendant No.5 to usurp the office of Archak of the temple. It is claimed that defendant No.5 was a messenger (Kontakara) of the village and he had never been the Archaka of the temple. With these, the plaintiffs sought for judgment and decree of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with performance of duties of Archaka of the temple in question.
3. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have filed common written statement contending that neither the plaintiffs nor their ancestors were Archaks of the temple. They claim that the plaintiffs were claiming to be the relatives of Poojari Kalegowda and that after his death, the father of defendant No.5 was appointed to look after the temple and perform pooja in the temple. It is also claimed that after the death of the father of defendant No.5, defendant No.5 is performing the duties as Archaka of the temple. Defendant No.5 is said to have received tasdik 5 allowance from the year 2006 to 2009 and thus he contended that suit for perpetual injunction was not maintainable.
4. The trial Court noticed the evidence of PW.1 wherein he had admitted that defendant Nos.1 to 4 were village heads and were responsible to look after the affairs of temple. PW.1 also admitted that all the religious activities in the temple were carried out by defendant Nos.1 to 4. The trial Court noticed the fact that defendant No.5 was paid tasdik allowance for the term 2006 to 2009. In the absence of any document to show that plaintiffs were paid tasdik allowance, the trial Court disallowed the claim of the plaintiffs that they were Archaks of the temple as on the date of filing of the suit and thus dismissed the suit.
5. Lower appellate Court considering the rival contentions and also the evidence of the parties framed points for consideration and in terms of its 6 judgment and decree dated 20.06.2012 dismissed the appeal.
6. The appellants have filed this regular second appeal and contended before this Court that the plaintiffs were hereditary Archakas of the temple and the suit for bare injunction to declare their legal character was not maintainable. It is noticed that the temple in question is a Muzarai institution governed by the provisions of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. In the face of contention of defendant No.5 that he was paid tasdik allowance, it was invariable that he was Archak of the temple as on the date of filing of the suit. In a suit for bare injunction, the Courts below could not have declared the legal character of the plaintiffs as the Archaks of the Maramme temple that too without the plaintiffs arraigning the Endowment Officer as one of the defendants. Furthermore, the remedy if any for the plaintiffs is to 7 approach the competent authorities under the provisions of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. Consequently, I find no error in the judgment and decree of the Courts below and consequently no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
Thus, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE nms