Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Claimants No.4, 5, 7 11 and 12 claimed that each of them alone are the true mathadhipati/peethadhipati/sarvadhikari/Secretary and the others including claimant No.6, 8 and 9 are the fake mathadhipati/peethadhipati/sarvadhikari/Secretary. Thus they claimed that they are entitled to receive the compensation. In addition to the above, claimant No.4 contended that in O.S.No.227/2012 he is declared to be the mathadhipati. Therefore, he alone is entitled to the compensation.

31. O.S.No.84/1970 was dismissed on 11.04.1974. On 19.09.1975 the said Shivarudriah representing Mutt filed another suit in O.S.1923/1975 before I Munsiff, Bengaluru, against the Corporation of city of Bengaluru for permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Sy.No.18 measuring 20 guntas on the ground that the property was conveyed to him by one Gurunanjaswamy of Thippashettymutt. Ex.P31 the certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.5300/1980 shows that on establishment of City Civil Courts at Bengaluru the said O.S.No.1923/1975 was transferred to City Civil Court and renumbered as O.S.NO.5300/1980. Para 3 of the said judgment shows that in that suit on 23.03.1987 the name of K.Shivarudriah was substituted by name T.N.Srikantashastry. Again by order dated 11.06.1998 one Channaveera Shivacharya Swamy came to be added as mathadhipati of the plaintiff mutt. Again on 14.06.2000 on some interim application one Suresh Kallaiah Hiremath was added as the power of attorney holder of Channaveera Shivacharya swamy. While making such additions and substitutions it was alleged in the said suit that K.M.Shivarudriah ceased to be the mathadhipati and Srikantashastry had no authority to represent Mathadhipati. Ex.P31 further shows that the said suit was dismissed with costs making observation that the suit is vexatious one.

35. Ex.P50 the judgment in W.P.No.9307/2005 (GM- R/C) c/w W.P.No.41918/2003 and W.P.No.11653/2005 dated 02.03.2009 shows that claimant No.4 was also a party in those cases and he was aware that there were rival claimants for the post of mathadhipati/peethadhipati/sarvadhikari. The perusal of the said judgment shows that present claimant Nos.5, 7 and Gnaneshwara Swamy also claimed to be the mathadhipati/peethadhipati/sarvadhikari of the said mutt. Similarly Ex.P61 the judgment of this Court WA No.3365/2005 (KLR-RR/SUR) dated 28.01.2008 shows that the said case was filed challenging the judgment in W.P.No.21904/2004 by claimant No.7 claiming to be the mathadhipati of the mutt against the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru urban Bengaluru, the predecessors in title of claimant Nos.1 and 2 and others. Claimant No.4 was the 20th respondent in that case. Present claimant No.5 was respondent No.11 and Channaveera Shivacharya Swamy was respondent No.12 in the said case who set up rival claim for the post of mathadhipati/peethadhipati/sarvadhikari of mutt. In both those judgments the parties were directed to approach the Civil Court to establish their right of mathadhipati/peethadhipati/sarvadhikari.

That was reaffirmed in O.S.No.5300/1980. Despite that K.M.Shivarudriah and his clones went on filing not only the above suits but several other cases before Civil Courts and Revenue Courts at several places and before this Court suppressing some material facts and many times without impleading necessary parties.

39. What is shocking is in O.S.No.11122/1995 (Ex.P51 to 53) present claimant No.6 was plaintiff No.4 and suit was filed against present claimant No.7, showing as if they have conflicting interest. But, claimant No.6 files MFA No.4436/2021 as his advocate which not only shows collusion between the parties but also highly unethical professional conduct. It is also to be noted that such litigations started after the rise of the value of land on urbanization. The records further show that right from 1970 whenever there used to be acquisition of the land by the Government/statutory body some cloned mathadhipati/peethadhipati/sarvadhikari used to pop up with a suit or other proceeding, suppressing the earlier proceedings before the other Courts/authorities. That creates a doubt that in the guise of rival mathadhipati/peethadhipati/sarvadhikari they are operating the real estate syndicate against the purchasers and the Government to make unlawful gain. Such conduct is not only the harassment to the adversary, but also the sheer abuse of process of the Court and diversion of resources of the Court, State and the opposite party. It is noticeable that O.S.No.5300/1980 (O.S.No.1923/1975) was dragged for about 27 years. Noting the same the Court dismissed the said suit with costs. The Reference Court appreciating all material on record judiciously has allowed only the claim petition of claimant Nos.1 and 2.