Partly allowed

M. Mohandas Hegde v. Suresh Nayak

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2021WP/17521/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed writ petitions challenging the appointment of a Receiver and rejection of temporary injunction. Court quashed the receiver appointment order, directing handover to plaintiffs, but dismissed the injunction challenge at current evidence stage.

What did the court decide?

W.P.No.17521/2018 allowed; receiver order quashed; possession directed to first plaintiff. W.P.No.25168/2018 dismissed pending further evidence.

M. Mohandas Hegde Vs Suresh Nayak — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.17521/2018 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION No.25168/2018 (GM-CPC)

¶8

IN WRIT PETITION NO.17521/2018

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

M.MOHANDAS HEGDE

¶11

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE P.VITTALA SHETTY MANAGING TRUSTEE SHRI MANIBETTU MAHATHOBARA MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE MATTARU POST, SHIRVA VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 201

¶12

SRI.MAHALINGESHWARA DEVARU MANIBETTU MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE MANAGED BY SHRI MANIBETTU MAHATHOBARA MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE TRUST REP: BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE SRI MOHANDAS HEGDE S/O LATE P.VITTALA SHETTY AGED 70 YEARS MATTARU POST, SHIRVA VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 201 … PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADV.)

¶14

AND :

¶15

SURESH NAYAK S/O SRINIVASA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NEKKARE KAMBALA HOUSE

¶16

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶17

¶18

MATTARU POST, SHIRVA VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 201

¶19

RAGHU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS S/O SANKAMMA SHEDTHY R/AT SHIVA PRASAD NILAYA MANIBETTU MATTARU POST, SHIRVA VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 201 (R-2 DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DTD:02.02.2021)

¶20

DEVADAS NAYAK AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O DEVAPPA NAYAK R/AT GUNDRAI HOUSE BELANJALE, KATTIMGERI POST SHIRVA VILLAGE, UDUPI – 576 201

¶21

RAGHUPATHI @ GUNDU BHAT AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE BHOJA BHAT R/AT SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NILAYA NEAR SHIRVA MARIGUDI BALLADI KARE, SHIRVA POST AND VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 201

¶22

LOKNATH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O JAGANNATH SHETTY R/AT MUDUMANE, MANIBETTU NEAR MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE MATTARU POST, SHIRVA VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 201

¶23

GOPAL NAYAK AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF SHRI DURGAPARAMESHWARI RICEMILL, MATTARU POST SHIRVA VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 201

¶24

VENKATESH NAYAK AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O PANDURANGA NAYAK

¶25

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶26

¶27

SORPU, SHIRVA POST UDUPI TALUK – 576 201

¶28

SANTHOSH ACHARY

¶29

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O ANANTH ACHARY R/AT MANIBETTU NEAR MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE MATTARU POST SHIRVA VILLAGE, UDUPI – 576 201

¶30

MATTAR RATHNAKAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE NADAYAPPA HEGDE R/AT MOOKAMBIKA NILAYA NEAR BAILOOR MAHISHAMARDINI TEMPLE 76, BADAGABETTU, BAILOOR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK – 576 201

¶31

N.S.HEGDE AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE SHIVANNA SHETTY R/AT PENIMON HOUSE MANIBETTU SHIRVA VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 201 … RESPONDENTS

¶32

(R1, R3, R4, R5, R6, R8, R9 AND R10 ARE SERVED, R2 STANDS DELETED V/O DATED 02.02.2021, NOTICE TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:06.09.2021)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION QUASHING DATED 22.01.2018 IN M.A NO.4/2017, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE –H, PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT UDUPI, AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2017 ON I.A. NO.6 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI IN O.S.NO.605/2014, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS.

¶34

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶35

¶36

IN WRIT PETITION NO.25168/2018

¶37

BETWEEN :

¶38

M.MOHANDAS HEGDE AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE P.VITTALA SHETTY MANAGING TRUSTEE SHRI MANIBETTU MAHATHOBARA MAHALINGESWARA TEMPLE MATTARU POST, SHIRVA VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 201

¶39

SRI.MAHALINGESHWARA DEVARU

¶40

MANIBETTU MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE MANAGED BY SHRI MANIBETTU MAHATHOBARA MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE TRUST REP: BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE SRI MOHANDAS HEGDE S/O LATE P.VITTALA SHETTY MATTARU POST, SHIRVA VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 201 … PETITIONERS

¶41

(BY SRI.H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADV.)

¶42

AND :

¶43

SURESH NAYAK AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O SRINIVASA NAYAK R/AT NEKKARE KAMBALA HOUSE MATTARU POST, SHIRVA VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 201

¶44

DEVADAS NAYAK AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O DEVAPPA NAYAK R/AT GUNDRAI HOUSE BELANJALE, KATTIMGERI POST SHIRVA VILLAGE, UDUPI – 576 201

¶45

RAGHUPATHI @ GUNDU BHAT AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE BHOJA BHAT R/AT SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NILAYA

¶46

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶47

¶48

NEAR SHIRVA MARIGUDI BALLADI KARE, SHIRVA POST AND VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 201

¶49

LOKNATH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O JAGANNATH SHETTY R/AT MUDUMANE, MANIBETTU NEAR MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE MATTARU POST, SHIRVA VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 201

¶50

GOPAL NAYAK AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF SHRI DURGAPARAMESHWARI RICEMILL, MATTARU POST SHIRVA VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 201 6. VENKATESH NAYAK AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O PANDURANGA NAYAK SORPU, SHIRVA POST UDUPI TALUK – 576 201

¶51

SANTHOSH ACHARY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O ANANTH ACHARY R/AT MANIBETTU NEAR MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE MATTARU POST SHIRVA VILLAGE, UDUPI – 576 201 8. MATTAR RATHNAKAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE NADAYAPPA HEGDE R/AT MOOKAMBIKA NILAYA NEAR BAILOOR MAHISHAMARDINI TEMPLE 76, BADAGABETTU, BAILOOR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK – 576 201

¶52

N.H.HEGDE AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE SHIVANNA SHETTY R/AT PENIMON HOUSE

¶53

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶54

¶55

MANIBETTU SHIRVA VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 201 … RESPONDENTS

¶56

(R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R7 AND R8 ARE SERVED; R6 AND R9 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD: 06.09.2021)

¶57

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION QUASHING THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.01.2018 IN M.A NO.3/2017, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE –H, PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT UDUPI, AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2017 ON I.A. NO.2 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI IN O.S.NO.605/2014, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS.

¶58

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶59

O R D E R

¶60

Aggrieved by the rejection of their application (IA No.II) for Temporary Injunction and allowing of the application filed by the defendants (IA No.VI) for appointment of Receiver to manage the plaint Temple, the plaintiffs have preferred these petitions.

¶61

Petitioners filed O.S.No.605/2014 against respondent Nos.1 to 12 initially for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the management of Manibettu Mahalingeshwara Temple. Pending the suit they amended the plaint

¶62

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶63

¶64

seeking declaration that, they have hereditary right of management of the said temple and petitioner No.1 is the Managing Trustee of the said temple.

¶65

For the purpose of the convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth with their ranks before the trial court.

¶66

The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: i) That Sri Mahathobara Mahalingeshwara temple, Manibettu popularly known as Manibettu Aranthade temple is the family deity of the first plaintiff. The temple was being managed by the family and right of the plaintiff to manage the temple is traced to a registered partition deed and award of the year 1945. Having regard to the vibration of deity, in the course of time, the villagers and also the surrounding villagers of all communities started to visit the temple and offer their prayers. Having regard to large number of public devotees, the plaintiff’s family constituted the Temple Management Committee consisting of family members

¶67

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶68

¶69

and outsiders. One Vishnumoorthy Upadhyaya was appointed as priest of the temple.

¶70

ii) Taking advantage of the leniency of members of the family of the plaintiff, the said Vishnumoorthy Upadyaya got occupancy rights of some of the lands over which the temple situates. The defendants in collusion with the said Vishnumoorthy Upadhyaya started interfering with the management of the temple by the first plaintiff.

¶71

iii) The first plaintiff is the Managing trustee of the second plaintiff-temple. The Trust was a family trust. The defendants with the help of the rowdy elements attempted to lock the office of the temple and prevented the first plaintiff from entering into the temple premises. Therefore the plaintiffs are forced to file the suit for permanent injunction and declaration.

¶72

Only defendant No.10 filed written

¶73

statement in the suit. His defence is as follows:

¶74

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶75

¶76

It was denied that the temple is the family property and plaintiff No.1 is the managing trustee of the temple. The suit is bad for non-joinder of the said family trust or the other members of the family trust. The partition award based on which the plaintiff claimed the temple to be the family property was disputed. The interpretation of such award is incorrect. The part of the temple situates on the Government land. The deity of the temple is being worshiped by the villagers residing in and around Shirva village. The villagers periodically constituted the Managing Committees to look after the management of the temple. The said committee consisted of various office bearers including the representative of the first plaintiff family. The first plaintiff family imposed on itself obligations to perform certain Viniyogas (religious acts) to the second plaintiff deity by utilising the portion of income derived from certain properties belonging to it. Therefore, The representative of the said family was entitled only to receive the honorarium. The self-claim set up by the first plaintiff does not exist. Since from 1950 Rama

¶77

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶78

¶79

Moorthy Upadyaya the father of the Vishnumoorthy Upadhyaya was performing the pooja and managing the temple. Sri Vishnumoorthy Upadhyaya was officiating as priest. The lands were granted to Vishnumoorthy Upadhyaya, in view of the tasthik amendments made to Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961. The public devotees were donating funds for day-to-day management of the temple. Even the Government of Karnataka sanctioned funds for maintenance and development of the temple many times. The first plaintiff was not the resident of Shirva village. He was employed in some other place. After his retirement he started visiting the temple and collecting the funds of the temple. When that was questioned by the Managing committee, the present suit was filed. Therefore, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶80

When the suit was pending, the plaintiffs filed IA No.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking injunction to restrain the defendants or anybody

¶81

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶82

¶83

claiming through them from interfering with the management of the temple of the first plaintiff through their family trust and against trespassing into the temple premises.

¶84

Defendants Nos.1 to 9 filed memo to adopt the written statement filed by defendant No.10 as the statement of objections to IA No.2. Pending IA No.2 defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7 and 10 filed IA No.6 under Order XL Rule 1 read with section 151 of CPC seeking appointment of Receiver to administer and manage the properties and affairs of plaintiff No.2 temple. The same was opposed by the plaintiffs.

¶85

The trial Court by separate orders dated 04.01.2017 rejected the IA No.2 filed by the plaintiff for injunction on the ground that plaintiffs have failed to show that they have exclusive right over the affairs of the temple and allowed IA No.6 filed by the aforesaid defendants and permitted defendants/applicants to appoint Receiver to manage the property and affairs of plaintiff No.2-temple.

¶86

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶87

¶88

The plaintiffs challenged those orders before the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Udupi in MA Nos.3 & 4 of 2017. The first appellate Court by common order dated 22.01.2018 dismissed the said appeals and confirmed the order of the trial Court.

¶89

Aggrieved by the order on IA No.6 WP.No.17521/2018 is filed and aggrieved by the order on IA No.2 W.P.25168/2018 is filed by the plaintiff. Despite service of notice, none of the respondents have appeared to contest the matter.

¶90

Sri Pavan Chandra Shetty H, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners seeks to assail the impugned order on the following grounds:

¶91

i) The trial Court and the first appellate Court have over-looked the family partition award of the year 1945 and the records produced by the plaintiffs.

¶92

ii) At the behest of the defendants, the Taluka Executive Magistrate invoked power under Section 146 of Cr.PC, attached the properties and appointed

¶93

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶94

¶95

Receiver. The first plaintiff challenged that order before this Court in W.P.No.13053/2015 (GM-RES). This Court on 03.11.2015 considering the merits set-aside the order of the Magistrate and directed that if there is any interference by the plaintiff, defendants can file independent suit for appropriate remedy or seek appointment of Receiver in the pending suit.

¶96

iii) The trial Court and the first appellate Court did not consider the observation of this Court in the said writ petition. The Receiver can be appointed under Order XL Rule 1 of CPC only when there is dispute about the possession of the property. The records show that the Receiver appointed by the Sub divisional Magistrate had taken possession of the property from the first plaintiff and then handed over to him only. Under such circumstances, the trial Court and first appellate Court were not justified in appointing Receiver.

¶97

iv) The trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application of the plaintiff for temporary injunction.

¶98

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶99

¶100

Having regard to the submissions and the

¶101

material on record, the question that arises for consideration of this Court are:

¶102

i) Whether the trial Court and first appellate Court were justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction?

¶103

ii) Whether trial Court and first appellant Court acted in accordance with order XL Rule 1 of CPC in appointing the Receiver by the impugned order?

¶104

Plaintiffs claim that, Sri Mahathobara Mahalingeshwara temple, Manibettu is the family temple of plaintiff No.1. To substantiate their contentions to claim temporary injunction the plaintiffs have to satisfy that they have prima-facie case of their right, injury to such right and that balance of convenience lies in their favour and if injunction is not granted, they will be put to irreparable injury.

¶105

So far as appointment of Receiver the reading of Order XL Rule 1 of CPC makes it clear that

¶106

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶107

¶108

the Court can appoint the Commissioner where it appears to be just and convenient. Order XL Rule 1 of CPC empowers the Court to remove any person from the possession or custody of the property and commit the same to possession, custody and management of the Receiver.

¶109

Order XL Rule 1(2) of CPC is in the nature of exception to order XL Rule 1 (1) of CPC. Order XL Rule 1(2) of CPC says that nothing in the said rule shall authorize the Court to remove from the possession or custody of property any person not being a party to the suit whom any party to the suit has not a present right so to remove.

¶110

It is settled position of law that the Receiver can be appointed only if there is dispute with regard to the possession of the property and if there is imminent threat of loss or damage to the property. So far as right of the plaintiff or the temple being plaintiff’s family temple, plaintiff relied on the registered partition award dated 09.06.1945.

¶111

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶112

¶113

Defendants did not dispute that the first plaintiff belongs to the clan of the parties who partitioned the properties under the said award. Para No.6 of the said award shows that the first party by name Mahabal Hegde was given the right of utilising the lands shown in ‘A’ schedule to the award for service of the temple and utilise the surplus for his maintenance.

¶114

Para No.7 of the said award further shows that said Mahabal Hegde was entitled to the management of the temple and to receive the privileges which may be rendered to the family by the temple and on his demise, the elder male member of the family is entitled to perform the offering and receive all those privileges. Para No.7 further indicates that, Mahabal Hegde was imposed with an obligation of providing Rice and other required articles to the temple once in every year and if there is any excess expenses, he can collect the same from other parties to the award for the purpose of maintenance of the temple.

¶115

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶116

¶117

Para No.29 of the award shows that though family was shouldered with the obligation of providing the several articles for the temple, the priests were not entitled to claim it as a right from the family members.

¶118

The first appellate Court itself refers to the proceedings in O.S.No.142/1954 which shows that there was a dispute between ancestors of the plaintiff No.1 and the same was amicably settled amongst them in FDP No.1/1972. The copies of the joint memo filed in FDP No.1/1972 and final decree in FDP No.1/1972 arising out of O.S.No.142/1954 show that there was a dispute between the members of the family of the first plaintiff after partition under the 1945 award. O.S.No.142/1954 was filed for partition by Rathnavathi Heggedthi. The parties filed joint memo in Lok Adalat and the properties were partitioned. Based on that the final decree was drawn on 24.10.1998.

¶119

In paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said joint memo dated 24.10.1998, reference is found to plaintiff No.2/temple and the rights of the family to perform

¶120

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶121

¶122

viniyogas in the temple. The said paragraph reads as follows:

¶123

“ The viniyogas of the family deities will have to be performed by senior most male member of the family and the chavadi portion of the family house will be made over to him during the said period for performance of viniyogas without any hindrance. In case

¶124

the senior most male member of the family is not willing to perform the viniyogas, then in that event, the said viniyogas shall be performed by the Santhathi kavaru to whom the family house has been allotted , at its own cost. All the family members are requested to participate in the performance of the viniyogas on the invitation of the person performing the same. Every member of family has got a right of worship to the family deities, SanthathiKavaru shall not cause obstruction.

¶125

Smt.Rajeevi Heggadthi shall have right of residence in the family house allotted to the Santhathi Kavaru of Smt.Sudharathna Heggedthi till her lifetime.

¶126

The viniyogas of Sri.Mahalingeshwara Temple, Manibettu will have to be performed

¶127

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶128

¶129

by the managing Trustee. On this account, no income is set apart for the said purpose.”

¶130

The above two documents came into existence much before the present suit. At that time, the parties had not foreseen any of these disputes. Those two documents clinchingly showed that the deity of the second plaintiff was the family deity of the first plaintiff and they had the right and obligation to perform pooja.

¶131

The defendants claim that the plaintiffs themselves opened the temple for public and started collecting contributions from the public, therefore, they cannot claim sole right. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court relied on the documents which came into existence subsequent to 1963 in the form of invitations and the order of Tahsildar granting Thastik during the year 1988-1990. On that basis Courts below proceeded to hold that the plaintiffs opened the temple to the public and collected contributions from the public. Therefore there is force in the contention of the

¶132

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶133

¶134

defendants that the plaintiffs alone are not entitled to manage the temple. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to address the question that whether mere collection of the contributions or allowing the public to offer pooja in family temple confers character of public institution of such temple. It is no body’s case that the temple was registered as pubic temple or public institution under any law. The First Appellate Court itself observed that the temple is not registered under any Religious Charitable Endowment Laws.

¶135

The trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to notice that the plaintiff had sought declaration of their right to manage the temple as family temple. Despite this Court in W.P.No.13053/2015 holding that if the respondents/defendants feel that the plaintiffs should not interfere with functioning of the temple, they should file an independent suit, they did not do so. Except defendant No.10, others even did not file written statement. Even after the plaintiff amending the

¶136

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶137

¶138

plaint seeking relief of declaration, none of the defendants filed any written statement nor defendant No.10 made any counter claim in his written statement.

¶139

Having failed in the proceeding under Section 146 of Cr.P.C initiated at their behest, based on the observation of this Court that the defendants can seek appointment of receiver in the pending suit, they rushed to file I.A.No.6 seeking appointment of receiver. Option given was only to file application. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court should have seen whether the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record warrant appointment of the receiver. Ignoring the documents commencing from 1945 recognizing the right of first plaintiff’s family to manage the temple and that the plaintiffs were in possession of the temple, trial Court appointed the Receiver.

¶140

It was not the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs collected contributions under any compulsion or coercion. Even otherwise, if they felt that the amount was collected by the public fraudulently or

¶141

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶142

¶143

that was misappropriated, they should have sought appropriate remedy for that.

¶144

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed serious error in appointing the Receiver and such order was contrary to the letter and spirit of Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC. The said order requires to be quashed.

¶145

So far as rejection of application for temporary injunction, the plaintiffs themselves claim that they had opened the temple to the public for offering prayers and to perform pooja. They also admitted that public were contributing to the management of the temple. Except for the defendants it was not their case that other public were interfering with the management of the temple.

¶146

Considering such aspects, the trial Court rejected the application and the First Appellate Court confirmed the said order. The said order being

¶147

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶148

¶149

discretionary one, unless it is shown that the same suffers arbitrariness, capriciousness or perversity, that cannot be interfered.

¶150

It is submitted that already the evidence of the plaintiffs is closed and the matter is at the stage of defendants’ evidence. In the light of above discussion at this stage, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order passed on I.A.No.2. Therefore W.P.No.25168/2018 is hereby dismissed. W.P.No.17521/2018 is hereby allowed.

¶151

The impugned order of the first appellate Court at Annexure-H so far it relates to IA No.6 and the order of the trial Court at Annexure-E on I.A.No.6 are hereby quashed.

¶152

I.A.No.6 filed by defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7 and 10 is hereby rejected.

¶153

The receiver appointed by virtue of the impugned order on I.A.No.6 shall handover the possession and

¶154

W.P.No.17521/2018 C/w W.P.No.25168/2018

¶155

¶156

management of the temple to the first plaintiff forthwith.

¶157

Sd/JUDGE

¶158

akc

M. Mohandas Hegde v. Suresh Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Mohandas Hegde v. Suresh Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gowramma Vs Sri. Chowdappa

Mr. K R Ramesh Vs Mr. C Sampatraj

Sri. Sathyanarayana Raikar Vs Sri. D. G. M. Kotraiah

M Mohandas Hegde Vs Suresh Nayak

Sri. Hombaiah Vs Smt. Rangamma

S. Shreyas Vs Smt. D.S. Brindamma