Karnataka High Court
Dr. Sandeep Jagadish Patil Ors vs Sunanda W/O Purushottam Gudi Ors on 28 August, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRP NO.2009/2012
Between:
1. DR. SANDEEP JAGADISH PATIL
AGE: 44 YEARS
OCC: DOCTOR
R/O ALMEL
TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
2. GURURAJ B MUNDIWADI
AGE: 66 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ALMEL
TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
3. SHAMRAO GOVINDRAO DESHPANDE
AGE: 54 YEARS
OCC CLEARK
R/O ALMEL
TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
4. SIDDAPPA GHASHAPPA UPPIN
AGE: 64 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O ALMEL
2
TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
5. VASUDEV VENKAPPACHRYA PUROHIT
AGE: 65 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ALMEL
TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
6. LACHAPPA BALAPPA GALAGALI
AGE: 62 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ALMEL
TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
7. PRADEEP VENKATRAO DESHPANDE
AGE: 45 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 169
8. GURURAJ KESHVRAO PATIL
AGE: 46 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 169
9. GANGADHAR MONAPPA BADIGER
AGE: 37 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O ALMEL,TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
10. RAGHAVENDRA DATTATRAY KULKARNI
AGE: 36 YEARS
OCC: SERVICE
R/O ALMEL, TQ. SINDAGI,
3
BIJAPUR- 586 202
11. BASAYYA SARANGAMTH
AGE: 56 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ALMEL,TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
12. RAJENDRA RAMMURTHY SANSHIKAR
AGE: 42 YEARS
OCC BUSINESS
R/O ALMEL,TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
13. JAGDISH KESHVBHAT JOSHI
AGE: 37 YEARS
OCC BUSINESS
R/O ALMEL,TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
14. TAMANNA KRISHNAJI KULKARNI
AGE: 38 YEARS
OCC: CONTRACTOR
R/O ALMEL,TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
15. SIDDAPPA HATTARKIKAL
AGE: 49 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ALMEL,TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
16. RAVINDRA SHAMRAO KULKARNI
AGE: 38 YEARS
OCC BUSINESS
R/O ALMEL,TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
4
17. CHINTAMANI SHAMRAO KULKARNI
AGE: 42 YEARS
OCC BUSINESS
R/O SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 169
18. GURUBASAYYA SANGAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 59 YEARS
OCC: SERVICE
R/O SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 169
19. YALGURESH VASANTRAO MIRJELAR
AGE: 37 YEARS
OCC BUSINESS
R/O SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 169
20. SHANTAPPA MALLAPPA BIRADAR
AGE: 52 YEARS
OCC: SERVICE
R/O SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 169
21. MUTTAPPA REVANEPPA JANGAMSHETTY
AGE: 52 YEARS
OCC: PRINCIPAL
R/O SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 169
22. AVADUTH CHANDRABHAT JOSHI
AGE: 55 YEARS
OCC: SERVICE
R/O ALMEL, TQ.SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
23. SANGAMESH CHANDRABHAT JOSHI
AGE: 44 YEARS
OCC: SERVICE
R/O ALMEL, TQ.SINDAGI
5
BIJAPUR - 586 202
24. GUNDU NARAYANACHARYA JOSHI
AGE: 44 YEARS
OCC: SERVICE
R/O ALMEL, TQ.SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
25. PRALHAD JADHAV
AGE: 59 YEARS
OCC BUSINESS
R/O SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 169
26. HANMANT SHIVPUR
AGE: 46 YEARS
OCC BUSINESS
R/O ALMEL, TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
27. ARVIND GURURAO KULKARNI
AGE: 51 YEARS
OCC BUSINESS
R/O ALMEL, TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
28. LAXMIKANT JEEVANBHAT JOSHI
AGE: 58 YEARS
OCC: PRIEST
R/O ALMEL, TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
29. SHANKAR HALLEVI PATIL
AGE: 55 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O ALMEL, TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
6
30. SHANKAR KARNAL
AGE: 59 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O ALMEL, TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
31. SHADAKSHARAYYA NANDIKOL
AGE: 50 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 169
32. DR. MAHESH PRALHADRAO KULKRNI
AGE: 44 YEARS
OCC: DOCTOR
R/O SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 169
... Petitioners
(By Sri D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCTE )
And:
1. SUNANDA W/O PURUSHOTTAM GUDI
AGE: 56 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O 06, "SHAM ASHISH" SARASWAT COLONY,
NEAR OLD PANCHAYAT WELL,
DOMBIVALI (EAST)
MAHARASTRA STATE - 400 140
2. VINEETA W/O VIKAS JOSHI
AGE: 52 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O 002, GROUND FLOOR, NEAR CHAITALI
VILLA, CHS NEAR SUNIL NAGAR
DOMBIVALI (EAST)
MAHARASTRA STATE - 400 140
7
3. MANJU W/O MOHAN PATIL
AGE: 50 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O C/O M.D. PATIL, AVATI GALLI,
NEAR RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE,
KILLA AREA, GOKAK
DIST. BELGAUM - 591 307
4. NISHA W/O ANIL KATHOTE
AGE: 46 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O B/34, IIIRD FLOOR, MULUND KUNJ,
NEAR SARITA INDRAPRATHA PARK,
90 ROAD, MULUND (EAST)
MUMBAI - 400 081
5. SHAKUNTALABAI
W/O HANAMANTH
@ VASANTRAO DESHPANDE
AGE: 56 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O NEAR MARUTI TEMPLE
NEW RAGHAVENDRA COLONY
GULBARGA - 585 103
6. LAXMAN @ RAMRAO VENKATESH
@ APPASAHEB DESHPANDE
AGE: 80 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O AJAREKAR CHAWL
BIJAPUR- 586 101
7. BAPURAO VENKATESH DESHPANDE
AGE: 76 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ALMEL
TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
8
8. SHAMRAO VENKATESH DESHPANDE
AGE: 70 YEARS
OCC. SERVICE
R/O ALMEL
TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
9. MADHAVRAO VENKATESH DFESHPANDE
AGE: 65 YEARS
OCC. SERVICE
R/O ALMEL
TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
10. ALKABAI W/O TRIAMBAKRAO JOSHI
AGE: 78 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O ALMEL
TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
11. NETRAVATI W/O MANOHARPANT VAIDY
AGE: 72 YEARS
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O C/O VASANTRAO DESHPANDE
ALMEL, TQ. SINDAGI
BIJAPUR - 586 202
12. KUNDABAI S. KULKARNI
AGE: 60 YEARS
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O S.H. KULKARNI NO.224/A
18TH MAIN 1ST CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE
INDIRA NAGA, BANGALORE - 560 038
13. IRANNA GURULINGAPPA KULSHETTY
AGE: 70 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O C/O VASANTRAO DESHPANDE
ALMEL, TQ. SINDAGI
9
DIST. BIJAPUR - 586 202
14. DEVAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA GUNARI
AGE: 54 YEARS
OCC. BUSINESS
R/O ALMEL
TQ. SINDAGI
DIST. BIJAPUR - 586 202
15. SUTIREPPA HANAMANT KALLUR
AGE: 48 YEARS
OCC. BUSINESS
R/O ALMEL
TQ. SINDAGI
DIST. BIJAPUR - 586 202
16. MAHADEV BHAGVANT MAHINDRAKAR
AGE: 48 YEARS
OCC. BUSINESS
R/O ALMEL
TQ. SINDAGI
DIST. BIJAPUR - 586 202
17. NAGAYYA IRAYYA RASTAPURMATH
AGE: 76 YEARS
OCC. TAILOR
R/O ALMEL
TQ. SINDAGI
DIST. BIJAPUR - 586 202
18. SHIVAMMA SIDDAYYA MATHAPATI
AGE: 70 YEARS
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O C/O MATHPATI STATIONERY SHOP
ALMEL, TQ. SINDAGI
DIST. BIJAPUR - 586 202
19. SALIM MODINSAB MELINMANI
10
AGE: 44 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O ALMEL
TQ. SINDAGI
DIST. BIJAPUR - 586 202
20. MALLAPPA MONAPPA BADIGER
AGE: 26 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURE
OCC. BUSINESS
R/O C/O MONAPPA BADIGER
HARMONIUM REPIAR SHOP,
ALMEL, TQ. SINDAGI
DIST. BIJAPUAR - 586 202
21. THE SECRETARY
OFFICE OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT
R/O ALMEL, TQ. SINDAGI
DIST. BIJAPUR - 586 202
... Respondents
(BY SRI SANJEEV KUMAR C. PATIL,
ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R9;
NOTICE TO R1, R2, R4, R13, R14, R15,
R16, R17, R18, R20, R21 ARE SERVED
& UNREPRESENTED,
APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST R3, R5, R6, R10 TO
R12 V/O DATED: 21.09.16,
APPEAL ABATED AGAINST R19 V/O DATED:21.11.16)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED: 9.12.11 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT
JUDGE, BIJAPUR IN CIVIL MISC. NO.33/2006.
11
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated : 9.12.2011 passed by Principal District Judge, Bijapur in Civil Misc.No.33/2006 and consequently to allow the said miscellaneous petition and permit the petitioners to remove some of the trustees as the petitioner's trust is a public trust.
2. The case of the petitioners before the Principal District Judge is that Sri. Ramachandra Deva of Almel village, Sindagi Taluk Dist.Bijapur is a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Rules, 1951 and it is claimed that the said trust was registered on the application of one Sri.Venkatesh Hanamant Deshpande, by the order 12 dated : 9.12.1952. After the death of said Venkatesh Deshpande, the names of his legal heirs came to be entered in the PTR of the Trust as per Enquiry Nos.35 & 60 of 1972 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum. The respondents no.1 to 9 and deceased Padmavatibai Venkatesh Deshpande, Godhabai Venkannacharya Jagirdar and Vatsalabai Murari Desai are the legal heirs of late Venkatesh Hanamant Deshpande. The respondents no.1 to 6 being the male heirs are exclusively managing and administering the trust and respondents no.7 to 9 being the female heirs, did not take any interest in the affairs etc., It is contended that the said deity has got thousands of devotees visiting the temple and offering kanikas etc., The members of the trust are unfortunately using all the income for their self survival and they are neglecting the development and not spending 13 the amount of the trust income for up keeping the trust properties. Therefore, making lot of allegations against the trustees, the petitioners who claimed to be the devotees of the trust have prayed for removal of the trustees from the said trust claiming the trust to be a public trust.
3. It is also worth to mention here that one Keshav Bhat and Pramod Timmaji Patil have preferred MFA No.3384/2003 calling in question the order passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Bijapur in Civil Misc.No.17/1991 wherein in the said miscellaneous petition, the District Judge has held that the said trust as a public trust and the same shall be enjoyed by the respondents therein namely i.e. Hanamant S/o Venkatesh Deshpande etc., who are the respondents under the impugned order also. This Court in above MFA No.3384/2003, while 14 holding that, it is a public trust, however as the petitioners have claimed that the said property is a private trust and they claimed for removal of the trustees and to permit them to enjoy the property and worship deity. In the said writ petition, it is clarified that the property i.e. Sri.Ramachandra Deva temple of Almel is to be treated as public trust but an opportunity was afforded to the respondents therein to avail all remedies that may be available in law on question of fact which the respondents may raise in an appropriate proceedings are left open.
4. By virtue of the said liberty being given to the respondents ( respondents herein and also before the trial Court in the impugned judgment ) they have actually filed a suit in O.S.No.386/2007. The prayers sought for by the respondents herein as plaintiffs in the said suit are as follows :- 15
a) A decree declaring that the plaintiffs are jointly and severally entitled to worship the suit idol i.e., "Sri Ramachandra Dev"
and Sri Sita Devi and Laxman and that the said idols and one Silver and one Golden Crowns are the Plaintiffs"
exclusively family properties as registered on 09.12.1952 under the Bombay Public Trust Act-1950 as the hereditory Trust and that the Defendants or the whole public at large have no manner of right, title or interest over the said suit idols at any point of time, nor can they claim any right, title or interest over it, be passed;
b) It be further declared that the properties shown in the P.T.R. entered by the then Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum dtd., 09.12.1952 under his INQ No.1696/1952 were the only properties belonging to the erst-while Sri Ramachandra Dev Trust (Hereditory) of Almel and that the V.P.C.No.614 (present V.P.C.No.734) is not the property of the 16 said Trust and except the Plaintiffs, neither the Defendants nor any member of the general public has any manner of right, title or interest over the suit V.P.C.No.614 (present V.P.C.NO.734) at any point of time, be passed;
c) It be further declared that, none of the Defendants or the general public is entitled to worship the suit idol and deity as a matter of right and can claim any right, title or interest over the suit V.P.C.No.614 (present V.P.C.NO.734) of Almel village as the same are exclusively owned by the Plaintiffs, be passed;
d) A consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents or any body acting under them and any member of the general public from interfering in the peaceful worshipping the suit idol and the peaceful user of the suit V.P.C.No.614 (present V.P.C.NO.734) in any manner be passed;
e) Costs of this suit be awarded.
17
5. In the meantime, Civil Misc.No.33/2006 was filed by the deities for the purpose of claiming that the said property and the temple as public trust and also claiming for removal of the trustees which has been denied by the Principal District Judge, Bijapur in Civil Misc.No.33/2006.
6. From the above said proceedings, it is clear that a fully constituted suit is pending before the Civil Court i.e. before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Sindagi, wherein the respondents herein have filed the said suit against some of the petitioners and others for the above said reliefs.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that though learned Principal District Judge, Bijaupr in Civil Misc.No.33/2006 has come to the conclusion that a suit is already 18 pending before the Civil Court in O.S.NO.386/2007 but still made a tentative observation with regard to the temple and the temple properties and also the trust which ought not to have been made by the said Court. Those observations affect the rights of the petitioners herein during the proceedings of the suit for the purpose of effectively contesting the said suit and also the trial Court may in all probabilities rely upon those observations made by the learned Principal District Judge in Civil Misc. No.33/2006, while disposing the suit.
8. Whether it is a public trust or a private trust has to be decided by the Civil Court in O.S.NO.386/2007. If for any reasons, the Court holds that it is a private trust, then the respondents herein can exercise their rights for the purpose of continuation of their private trust. For any reason if 19 the Court comes to the conclusion that the suit has to be dismissed holding that it is a public trust, in that eventuality, deities are entitled to question the illegalities of the trustees and for removal of the trustees from the public trust.
9. Therefore, in this context, learned counsel for the petitioners is worried with regard to the observations made in the body of the order made by the Principal District Judge touching the prayers made in the suit filed by the respondents and also to some extent tentatively given finding on those prayers. In my opinion, the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners has to be taken note off.
10. Though this Court is not setting aside the impugned judgment, but, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 20 observations made by the learned Principal District Judge has to be clarified herewith. If this Court makes a clarification that whatever the observations made in the body of the impugned judgment should not have any bearing to decide the suit filed by the respondents pending before the Senior Civil Judge Sindgi in O.S.NO.386/2007, that would meet the ends of justice. Hence the following :-
ORDER The petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the learned Principal District Judge in Civil Misc.No.33/2006 is not disturbed to the extent that the District Judge has not permitted the petitioners for removal of any trustees from the public trust on the request of the devotees.21
However, it is made clear that, the devotees, if they want, they can also participate in the suit filed by the respondents in O.S.No.386/2007 by making necessary applications for their impleadment, who are not already parties in the said suit.
The trial Court i.e. Senior Civil Judge Court Sindagi, shall not in any manner persuade itself or influenced by the observations made in the body of the order passed in Civil Misc.No.33/2006, while deciding the issues that may arise in O.S.NO.386/2007.
The judgment in the said suit shall be exclusively on the basis of the pleadings and evidence that may be provided by the parties to the suit.22
It is also made clear that, if for any reason, the suit is dismissed, the petitioners can again at liberty to have their grievance by means of filing of fresh petition for removal of the trustees if the attitude of the trustees as alleged continues.
With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SGS