Dismissed

Smt Sundramma v. Grama Devathe

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2024MFA/2086/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an appeal challenging an order granting interim injunction restraining respondents from interfering with temple rituals performed by Plaintiff Samithi. The court held that since respondents failed to prove hereditary rights as archakas, the injunction stands until their rights are established in the main suit.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; injunction against interference with Plaintiff Samithi's temple activities maintained until hereditary right of respondents is established or further orders.

Smt Sundramma Vs Grama Devathe — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:13435 MFA No. 2086 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2086 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SUNDRAMMA W/O LATE GOVINDRAJU AGED 56 YEARS

¶8

SMT. MANJULA W/O RAGHAVENDRA D/O GOVINDARAJU AGED 33 YEARS

¶9

SMT. KAVITHA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR D/O GOVINDARAJU AGED 33 YEARS

¶10

SMT. MAHALAKSHMI W/O. RAGHAVENDRA AGED 32 YEARS D/O GOVINDARAJU

¶11

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT RADHIKA W/O SANTHOSH D/O GOVINDARAJU AGED 35 YEARS

¶13

ALL ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.11^TH MAIN, 11^TH CROSS, NEAR VIDYA JYOTHI SCHOOL HONGASANDRA, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560068

¶14

SMT. SHANTHALAKSHMI W/O. HARISH AGED 30 YEARS D/O. GOVINDARAJU R/AT MARUTHI KRUPA

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13435 MFA No. 2086 of 2024

¶16

NEAR SSIT COLLEGE SARASWATHI PURAM VIVEKANANDA ROAD TUMKURU

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. MONESH KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

GRAMA DEVATHE SRI MARAMMA TEMPLE SAMITHI (R) VIDE REG. NO.495/99-00, VENKATAPURA REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY AGED 59 YEARS S/O. RAMAIAH NO.5/5, 8^TH CROSS V.S. BUILDING, VENKATAPURA, BENGALURU-560034

¶21

SRI. SIDRAMAYYA CHANNABASAYYA MATADA S/O. CHANNABASAYYA MATADA AGED 23 YEARS NO.74, 8^TH CROSS, V.S. BUILDNG, VENKATAPURA, BENGALURU-560034 TEMPLE POOJARY

¶22

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N. UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.857/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH43, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13435 MFA No. 2086 of 2024

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The defendants in O.S.No.857/2024 on the file of XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru have filed this appeal challenging an order dated 21.03.2024, by which, they were restrained from interfering with the activities of Sri. Maramma Temple and from disturbing the performance of Pooja rituals by the plaintiff No.2 in the temple.

¶28

The suit in O.S.No.857/2024 was filed for the following reliefs:

¶29

"a) Declare that the Plaintiff Samiti is the rightful legal authority empowered to administer the affairs of the Temple mentioned in the schedule.

¶30

b) Grant the relief of mandatory injunction by directing the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to hand over the Keys of the Temple.

¶31

c) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and their Legal heirs supporters, executives or any person claiming through or under them from interfering with the daily administration of the Plaintiff Samiti, and

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13435 MFA No. 2086 of 2024

¶33

d) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deem fit in the fact and circumstances of the case."

¶34

The plaintiffs contended that Sri. Maramma was a village deity and a temple was consecrated by the residents of Venkatapura village. They contended that an association was formed for maintenance of temple under the guidance of the village head Sri. Muniswamappa and other villagers which was duly registered in the year 1999-2000. They contended that the Samithi was maintaining the temple and was performing various rituals and religious functions. They claimed that Sri. Govindaraju, the husband of the defendant No.1 and the father of defendant No.2 was an Archaka, who was conducting the Pooja and other rituals in the temple from the year 2001 till he died on 09.06.2023. They claimed that the defendant No.1 being the wife of said Govindaraju declared herself as the priest and commenced Poojas unauthorisedly along with her family members. They claimed that on 24.10.2023 during the Vijayadashaimi festival, the defendant No.2 forcibly tried to perform a ritual named "ambhu hodeyuvudu" which normally was performed by a male as per the customs. The villagers

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13435 MFA No. 2086 of 2024

¶36

resisted the act of defendant No.2 which disrupted the celebration. Therefore, the plaintiff No.1 appointed plaintiff No.2 as the Poojari as per the desire of the devotees of the village. The plaintiffs further contended that the defendants with the assistance of some individuals and the local police, instigated unnecessary problems on 24.10.2023 and were disturbing the daily activities in the temple. They further claimed that the defendants were duty bound to handover the keys of the temple and gold ornaments worth 155 grams and 14 kilogram of silver and other documents, but failed to hand it over to the plaintiff No.1 or to any responsible person in the village. They claimed that due to the perpetual nuisance and trouble caused by the defendants, a resolution was passed on 13.01.2024 appointing the plaintiff No.2 as an Archaka of temple. However, the defendants upped their acts of interference first on 24.10.2023, when they deviated from the established rituals followed for decades and on 16.01.2024 when they failed to comply with the directions issued by the Samithi. They claimed that during the month of April of every year, an annual festival would be conducted and therefore, the defendants had to be reined in, so that the festivities in the

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:13435 MFA No. 2086 of 2024

¶38

temple can continue unhindered. An application for interim injunction was also filed by the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from interfering with the activities of the Samithi in the temple and not to disturb the Pooja rituals conducted by the plaintiff No.2.

¶39

The suit was contested by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are the daughters of Sri.Govindaraju. They denied that the plaintiff No.1 was formed under the guidance of Village Head - Sri. K.Muniswammpa and other locals. They also denied that the plaintiff No.1 undertook the renovation of the temple using the funds and donations collected by devotes. They also denied that the plaintiffs had appointed Sri. Govindaraju as the Archaka of temple to conduct Pooja rituals in the temple in the year 2001. The defendants admitted that Sri. Govindaraju who was performing the duties of the Archaka had passed away on 09.06.2023. They denied that the defendant No.2 unauthorisedly claimed to be the Archaki of the temple and that she forcibly tried to perform a ritual on 24.10.2023 during Vijayadashami celebration. They denied that the defendants disrupted Vijayadashiami celebration and that the villagers were not happy with functions and festivities in the

¶40

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:13435 MFA No. 2086 of 2024

¶41

temple. They admitted that the plaintiff No.1 had appointed plaintiff No.2 as the Archaka, but alleged that it was not the wishes of devotees of the village. They generally denied the other allegations made against them in the plaint. They claimed that Sri. Maramma Temple was in existence in Venkatapura village for over 400 years and that since the year 1860, the family members of the defendants were performing the Pooja and other religious activities without any hindrance. They claimed that their great grand father Poojari Kempanna was performing duties as an Archaka in the temple and after his demise, his wives Chikka Muniyamma and Dodda Muniyamma were doing the Pooja. Later Sri. Muniyappa was performing the duties as the Archaka which was followed by his two sons Venkatesh and Govindaraju. They claimed that defendant No.1 is the wife of Govindaraju who was performing the Pooja as a hereditary Archaki. They claimed that the temple was small and congested and during the year 1997, Govindaraju undertook to construct a new temple and by the time a temple could be completed, there were shortage of funds and therefore, Govindaraju formed the Samithi in the year 1999 with the help of villagers and the temple was thrown open to

¶42

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:13435 MFA No. 2086 of 2024

¶43

the devotee public in the year 2001. The defendants contended that they were the fourth generation who were performing duties of Archaka in the temple and therefore, the plaintiff No.1 had no authority to appoint the plaintiff No.2 as Archaka of the temple. The written statement filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 was adopted by defendant Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6. They contested the application filed for injunction on similar lines and claimed that it is the defendant No.1 who is entitled to perform the Pooja as hereditary Archaka of the temple and therefore, no injunction could be granted against her.

¶44

The Trial Court after considering the contentions urged by both the parties, allowed the application filed for interim injunction by the impugned order on the ground that the defendants did not produce any documents to establish that the position of Archaka at Maramma Temple was held hereditarily. It held that the pleadings in the case indicated that the temple was not a notified temple under the provisions of Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. It held that the temple in question was a private temple established by the villagers of the Venkatapura village and therefore, the defendants could not claim that they were the

¶45

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:13435 MFA No. 2086 of 2024

¶46

hereditary Archakas of the said temple. It also relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.625/2016 decided on 15.06.2012 in the case of Poojari

¶47

Puttaramaiah Vs. Govinda Reddy where it was held that mere performance of Pooja did not confer hereditary rights and therefore, the question whether the defendants had any hereditary right to perform Pooja has to be answered after a trial and pending disposal of the suit, the defendants cannot be permitted to overreach the process of law. Therefore, it passed the impugned order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the activities of Sri. Maramma temple. They were also restrained from disturbing the performance of Pooja rituals by the plaintiff No.2 in the temple.

¶48

Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have filed this appeal.

¶49

The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the Pooja and other rituals in temple were performed by the husband of the defendant No.1 and his forefathers from yore and therefore, the defendants have inherited the rights to perform Pooja in the temple. He submitted that the plaintiff

¶50

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:13435 MFA No. 2086 of 2024

¶51

No.1 came into existence in the year 1999-2000, while the temple was in existence for more than 400 years and it is the predecessors of the defendants who were performing Pooja in the temple and therefore, the plaintiff No.1 without any authority of law could not have appointed the plaintiff No.2 to perform Pooja in the temple. He further contends that the basis for granting an order of injunction is the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.625/2010 which was on the premise that female members cannot be appointed as Archaks of temple. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mst.Raja Kali Kuer Vs. Ram Rattan Pandey - AIR 1955 SC 493 and contended that a Hindu female is entitled to succeed to the hereditary priestly office of Poojary held by her husband in a temple and to receive the emoluments there of. He therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is in violation of rights of the defendants who have inherited the right to perform Pooja in the temple. He also submitted that the plaintiffs have sought for two reliefs in a single application which is not permitted under Rule 23 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967.

¶52

11 -

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:13435 MFA No. 2086 of 2024

¶54

Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the temple in question is consecrated by the villagers of Venkatapura village and the plaintiff No.1 admittedly is constituted by the deceased Govindaraju in the year 1999-2000 for the maintenance and upkeep of the temple. He submitted that the defendants are yet to prove that they have a hereditary right to perform Pooja in the said temple, though they have asserted that they have inherited the rights. He contends that there are certain rituals which are to be performed by a male Archaka in the temple and therefore, the defendant No.1 cannot usurp the functions of an Archaka in the temple. He contends that all the members of the plaintiff No.1 are residents of Venaktapura village and therefore, it is an unanimous decision of villagers of Venkatapura village to appoint plaintiff No.2 as Archaka and accordingly a resolution was passed by the plaintiff No.1 to appoint the plaintiff No.2 as an Archaka to keep the Pooja and other ceremonies going on in temple. He submits that the infighting between the plaintiff No.1 and the defendants has resulted in stoppage of the Pooja and other ceremonies in the temple and since the annual Jatra is around the corner, this confusion would mar the Jatra and

¶55

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:13435 MFA No. 2086 of 2024

¶56

people may not participate in the festivities. He further submits that the defendants though claiming hereditary rights of an Archaka, have virtually laid siege to the temple by locking it and not allowing the devotee public to visit the temple and in not allowing the plaintiff No.1 to enter the temple. He therefore, contends that unless there is a resolution of the dispute whether the defendants have any hereditary rights, the plaintiff No.2 should be permitted to perform Pooja in the temple without any objection, hindrance or obstruction by the defendants.

¶57

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. I have also perused the pleadings as well as the application filed for injunction and the objections and the written statement filed by the defendants. I have also perused the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

¶58

The fact that the temple in question is established by the villagers of Venkatapura is not in dispute. The defendants claimed that plaintiff No.1 was constituted by the deceased Govindaraju who was the Archaka of temple.

¶59

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:13435 MFA No. 2086 of 2024

¶60

Therefore, the defendants cannot now contend that the plaintiff No.1 did not represent the best interest of the temple. It is also not the case of the defendants that the members who constituted plaintiff No.1 are not the residents of Venkatapura village. No doubt if a person or a family has continuously performed poojas and other rituals for more than three generations, it can be held that the descendants could claim that they have hereditary right.

¶61

The question whether the defendant No.1 had inherited the right to perform the Pooja as an Archaki in the temple is contested by the plaintiffs and the same needs to be resolved. The defendants did not take any steps and did not produce any documents to establish their claim that they are the hereditary Archaks entitled to perform Pooja Sri. Maramma Temple. Thus, until the defendants established their status as hereditary Archaks, the Pooja and other rituals in the temple cannot stop and therefore, the appointment of the plaintiff No.2 by the plaintiff No.1 cannot be held to be illegal or unauthorised.

¶62

14 -

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:13435 MFA No. 2086 of 2024

¶64

In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 21.03.2024 passed in O.S.No.857/2024 by the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru does not warrants interference at this stage.

¶65

However it is clarified that the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court shall remain in force, until the defendants established their hereditary right to perform duties of Archak of Sri. Maramma temple or until any interim order is passed by the Court in those proceedings that may be initiated by the defendants.

¶66

With the above observation, this appeal is disposed

off.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Smt Sundramma v. Grama Devathe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sundramma v. Grama Devathe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Natarajan Vs Mr Narasimhan

Sri. Devaraju Vs Smt. Veeramma

Shivananjegowda Vs Ramakrishnegowda

Smt Jayamma Vs Shri T R Basavaraju

Smt Jayamma Vs Smt Puttama

Mr Narendra Mohan Dube Vs Mr Shivaraj