Smt. B Kalpana vs Sri Dodda Matha on 8 January, 2014

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. B Kalpana vs Sri Dodda Matha on 8 January, 2014

Bench: L.Narayana Swamy

                          1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

     DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014

                     BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY

           MFA NO.998 OF 2013 (CPC)

BETWEEN

1.     SMT.B.KALPANA
       WIFE OF SRI.S.L.CHANDRASHEKAR
       DAUGHTER OF SRI BASAVARAJAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

2.     S.L.CHANDRASHEKAR
       SON OF SRI LINGAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

       BOTH RESIDING AT NO.4
       2ND MAIN, NAYANDAHALLI
       BANGALORE - 560 039
                                  ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.NATARAJU.B., ADV., )

AND

1.     SRI.DODDA MATHA
       A PRIVATE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION
       NO.231, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD
       AKKIPET, BANGALORE - 560 053

       REPRESENTED BY THE MATHADHIPATHI
       SRI SHIVA BASAVA SWAMI
                             2




2.   SRI.SHIVA BASAVA SWAMI
     THE ALLEGED MATHADHIPATHI OF
     SRI DODDA MATHA
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
     NO.231, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD
     AKKIPET, BANGALORE - 560 053
                                  ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADV., FOR R1 & 2)

    THIS MFA FILED U/O 43, RULE 1(R) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2013 PASSED ON IA
NO.1 IN O.S.NO.8583/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 37TH
ADDIITONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE IA NO.1 FILED UNDER
ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                       JUDGMENT

The appellants being aggrieved of the order dated 03.01.2013 on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.8583/2011 on the file of the Court of the 37th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-38), Bangalore, have come up in appeal before this court.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit in O.S.No.8583/2011 was filed by the appellants 3 herein who belong to Veerashiva Lingayath community and owe allegiance to the first respondent, which is a private math established by Sri.Thotadappa, ancestor of the first appellant. The main object of the suit is to preserve the glory and tradition of the first respondent and is in the interest of all those who belong to the said community. The appellants have called in question the appointment of the second respondent as the mathadhipathi and have also sought for framing of a scheme for the administration of the first respondent.

3. They filed IA No.1 under Order 39, Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC contending that the second respondent has been intending to alienate the properties of the said math. By order dated 03.01.2013 the said IA came to be dismissed. Hence this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

4. He further contends that the appointment of matadhipathi to the said math has to be strictly in 4 accordance with the directions contained in the Will Deed dated 12.08.1992, executed by Sri.Channaveera Swami, who was the then matadhipathi of the first respondent. The appointment of second respondent is not in consonance of the Will Deed. Yet he has ascended the gaddige of 1st respondent including properties which are belonging to the said math. He has taken steps to vacate the tenants who were in occupation of the said properties and he is intending to sell the said properties. None of his acts are in the interest of the first respondent. If the said act of the second respondent is not stopped it will cause irreparable loss and injury to the first respondent and requests to allow this appeal.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the averments made by the learned counsel for the appellants are frivolous and vexatious one. It is false to say that the appointment of the second respondent is illegal and it is not in 5 consonance with the Will Deed of the matadhipathi of the said muth because the proceedings of the appointment of the second respondent as the matadhipathi of the first respondent mutt has taken place on 23.10.1998, wherein the appellants were also present and participated in the ceremony. It is false to say that the second respondent is trying to alienate the mutt properties. If they are not agreeable to the above said fact, respondent will assure them that he will not alienate the property but he will try to develop the property.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Perused the materials available on record.

8. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the appeal stands disposed of directing the respondent No.2 not to alienate the property. However, he is permitted to develop the property.

Trial court/Court below is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.8583/2011 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

JUDGE Bsv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court