Disposed

Sri Maruthi Temple v. Sri. Y. N. Srinivasa

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024MFA/6031/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs appealed rejection of interim injunction applications concerning a family temple on jointly owned property. Two appeals were closed in light of the defendants' undertaking not to interfere; the third was disposed of granting liberty to approach the trial court against any detrimental acts.

What did the court decide?

MFA Nos. 6031/2023 and 6042/2023 disposed on defendants' undertaking; MFA No. 6049/2023 disposed granting liberty to approach the trial court against detrimental acts.

Sri Maruthi Temple Vs Sri. Y. N. Srinivasa — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37301 MFA No. 6031 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6042 of 2023 MFA No. 6049 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6031 OF 2023

¶6

C/W.

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6042 OF 2023 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6049 OF 2023 (CPC)

¶8

IN MFA No. 6031/2023

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. MARUTHI TEMPLE, A PRIVATE FAMILY TEMPLE REPRESENTED BY ITS DHARMADHIKARI, SRI. Y. A. CHETHANKUMAR, NO.21, 15H CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, HIG HOUSES, RMV II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶12

SMT. LATHA MANJARI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, D/O. LATE L. N. ASHWATHAMMA, R/AT NO. 13, 15^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, HIG HOUSES, RMV II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶13

SRI. Y.A. CHETHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. LATE L.N. ASHWATHAMA, R/AT NO. 13, 15^TH CROSS,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:37301 MFA No. 6031 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6042 of 2023 MFA No. 6049 of 2023

¶16

5^TH MAIN, HIG HOUSES, RMV II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶17

SMT. Y. A. GAYATHRI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, C/O. H. V. NANDAKUMAR, R/AT NO. 57, CHARIS, CAMPBELL ROAD, COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005.

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

SRI. Y. N. SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, S/O. LATE L. NARAYANASWAMAPPA.

¶22

SMT. SURAKSHA S., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O. Y. N. SRINIVASA

¶23

SRI. ATHISH GAGANVAS AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SRI. Y.N. SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, S/O. LATE L. NARAYANASWAMAPPA,

¶24

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 14, 11^TH 'A' CROSS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37301 MFA No. 6031 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6042 of 2023 MFA No. 6049 of 2023

¶26

II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 086.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R2 AND R3)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN OS.NO.8927/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-12, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶29

IN MFA NO. 6042/2023

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

SRI. MARUTHI TEMPLE, A PRIVATE FAMILY TEMPLE REPRESENTED BY ITS DHARMADHIKARI, SRI. Y. A. CHETHANKUMAR, NO.21, 15H CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, HIG HOUSES, RMV II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶32

SMT. LATHA MANJARI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, D/O. LATE L. N. ASHWATHAMMA, R/AT NO. 13, 15^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, HIG HOUSES, RMV II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶33

SRI. Y.A. CHETHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. LATE L.N. ASHWATHAMA, R/AT NO. 13, 15^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, HIG HOUSES,

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:37301 MFA No. 6031 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6042 of 2023 MFA No. 6049 of 2023

¶36

RMV II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶37

SMT. Y. A. GAYATHRI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, C/O. H. V. NANDAKUMAR, R/AT NO. 57, CHARIS, CAMPBELL ROAD, COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005.

¶38

...APPELLANTS

¶39

(BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

SRI. Y. N. SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, S/O. LATE L. NARAYANASWAMAPPA.

¶42

SMT. SURAKSHA S., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O. Y. N. SRINIVASA

¶43

SRI. ATHISH GAGANVAS AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SRI. Y.N. SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, S/O. LATE L. NARAYANASWAMAPPA,

¶44

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 14, 11^TH 'A' CROSS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 086.

¶45

...RESPONDENTS

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37301 MFA No. 6031 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6042 of 2023 MFA No. 6049 of 2023

¶47

(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R2 AND R3)

¶48

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2023 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 2 IN O.S.NO. 8927/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-12), REJECTING I.A. NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶49

IN MFA NO. 6049/2023

¶50

BETWEEN:

¶51

SRI. MARUTHI TEMPLE, A PRIVATE FAMILY TEMPLE REPRESENTED BY ITS DHARMADHIKARI, SRI. Y. A. CHETHANKUMAR, NO.21, 15H CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, HIG HOUSES, RMV II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶52

SMT. LATHA MANJARI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, D/O. LATE L. N. ASHWATHAMMA, R/AT NO. 13, 15^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, HIG HOUSES, RMV II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶53

SRI. Y.A. CHETHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. LATE L.N. ASHWATHAMA, R/AT NO. 13, 15^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, HIG HOUSES, RMV II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶54

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37301 MFA No. 6031 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6042 of 2023 MFA No. 6049 of 2023

¶55

SMT. Y. A. GAYATHRI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, C/O. H. V. NANDAKUMAR, R/AT NO. 57, CHARIS, CAMPBELL ROAD, COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005.

¶56

...APPELLANTS

¶57

(BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)

¶58

AND:

¶59

SRI. Y. N. SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, S/O. LATE L. NARAYANASWAMAPPA.

¶60

SMT. SURAKSHA S., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O. Y. N. SRINIVASA

¶61

SRI. ATHISH GAGANVAS AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SRI. Y.N. SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, S/O. LATE L. NARAYANASWAMAPPA,

¶62

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 14, 11^TH 'A' CROSS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 086.

¶63

...RESPONDENTS

¶64

(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R2 AND R3)

¶65

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37301 MFA No. 6031 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6042 of 2023 MFA No. 6049 of 2023

¶66

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2023 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 4 IN O.S.NO. 8927/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-12), REJECTING I.A. NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶67

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶68

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶69

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

¶70

Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 dated 21.07.2023, the plaintiffs are before this Court. The plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking the following reliefs:

¶71

1] Judgment and Decree declaring that the gift deed dated 04-05-2018 executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 which is registered at the office of the Sr. Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bangalore as Document No.YAN-101015-2018-19, Book No.1 and stored in CD No.YAND 662 dated 04-05-2018 as fraudulent and not binding the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property.

¶72

2] Pass Judgment and Decree declaring that the gift deed dated 04-05-2018 executed by the

¶73

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:37301 MFA No. 6031 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6042 of 2023 MFA No. 6049 of 2023

¶74

Defendant No.1 in favour of the Defendant No.3 in respect of portion of the suit schedule property which is registered as Document no.YAN-1-010112018-19 of Book No.1 and stored in CD No.YAND 662 dated 04-05-2018 as fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiffs.

¶75

3] Consequently to issue necessary directions to the Senior Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bangalore to cancel the registration of the above said 2 gift deeds in respect of suit schedule property.

¶76

4] Pass Judgment and Decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, their agents, their servants, from damaging or destroying or meddling with the Temple existing on the suit schedule property.

¶77

5] Pass a Judgment and Decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing any obstruction or objection to the ingress or egress into the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs and from objecting against the plaintiff's performing any rituals ceremonies poojas in the temple existing on the suit schedule property.

¶78

6] Pass such other orders of further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case and so as to meet the ends of justice and equity."

¶79

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:37301 MFA No. 6031 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6042 of 2023 MFA No. 6049 of 2023

¶80

Aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial Court, MFA Nos. 6031/2023, 6042/2023 and 6049/2023 are filed. As all these IAs. are arising out of the same suit, they have been disposed of by way of a common judgment. This Court is also disposing of all these appeals by way of a common judgment.

¶81

The reliefs as far as IA Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that they have already filed an undertaking before the trial Court that they will not do any of the acts as sought by the plaintiffs and in view of that, no adjudication is required on IA Nos.2 and 3. In the light of the same, the respondents are restrained from doing any of the activities as sought for in IA Nos.2 and 3. Then coming to IA No.4, the plaintiff is seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing or causing any obstruction or objection to plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 from maintaining the Temple and its properties and meet all requirements of maintenance, upkeep of the temple and for this purpose, unrestrictively to enter and exit the schedule property so as to meet the ends of justice and equity. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property, where the temple is situated is purchased by her husband and defendant No.1

¶82

10 -

¶83

NC: 2024:KHC:37301 MFA No. 6031 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6042 of 2023 MFA No. 6049 of 2023

¶84

jointly by way of registered sale deed dated 09.09.1968. In between the parties, a partition deed was executed on 30.12.2022. Even though in the said partition deed, they have mentioned about this property where the temple is situated, but in that there was no partition and it was in joint possession of the parties. Thereafter, on 22.01.2006, a rectification deed was executed. Even in the said rectification deed also, the temple property remains to be in a joint possession of the parties. It is stated that the husband of the plaintiff died on 30.10.2010. Even as on 27.03.2018, the Katha stands in the name of the husband of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Learned counsel has pointed out that there is a another fabricated document in that the name of the plaintiff's husband do not find place. According to the plaintiff, thereafter, the property by way of gift deed was given by the defendant to his wife and to the son. Now, the suit is filed seeking cancellation of all these gift deeds and also a declaration. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have been managing the temple and now, they seek an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the same.

¶85

11 -

¶86

NC: 2024:KHC:37301 MFA No. 6031 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6042 of 2023 MFA No. 6049 of 2023

¶87

Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that the defendants are managing the property from a very long time. No doubt, they have also not filed any documents in support of their case. Basing on the weakness of the defendants case, there can’t be an injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and basing on their evidence, the Court has to consider the injunction application. Considering all these aspects, the Court had rightly not granted injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from doing any acts as sought for in IA No. 4.

¶88

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

¶89

submits that the plaintiff's husband and defendant No.1 are the joint owners of the property. By filing the documents before the court, the plaintiffs could prima-facie establish the same. According to the counsel, it is the prima-facie case. Now, if the defendants are meddling with the property and doing the acts, which are not in the interest of the temple and the devotees, who are visiting the temple, the plaintiffs cannot be a mute spectator to that and they have every right to resist the defendants from doing any of the acts, which are not in the interest of the temple.

¶90

12 -

¶91

NC: 2024:KHC:37301 MFA No. 6031 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6042 of 2023 MFA No. 6049 of 2023

¶92

As far as this submission of the learned counsel for

¶93

the appellants is concerned, this Court finds that there is a force in his argument. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that MFA No.6049/2023 can be disposed of by giving liberty to the plaintiffs to bring to the notice of the trial Court whenever any act of the defendants detrimental to the interest of the temple, the same shall be brought to the notice of the trial Court by making an appropriate application and the trial Court shall consider the same on the merits of the matter. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶94

ORDER

¶95

(i) MFA No. 6031/2023 and MFA No. 6042/2023 are disposed of, in the light of the undertaken given by the defendants before the trial Court that they will not do any of the acts as per the relief sought in IA Nos.2 and 3.

¶96

(ii) MFA No.6049/2023 is disposed of giving liberty to the plaintiffs to bring to the notice of the trial Court whenever any act of the defendants is detrimental to the interest of the temple, the same shall be brought to the notice of the trial Court by making

¶97

13 -

¶98

NC: 2024:KHC:37301 MFA No. 6031 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6042 of 2023 MFA No. 6049 of 2023

¶99

an appropriate application and the trial Court shall

¶100

consider the same on the merits of the matter.

¶101

(iii) Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.

¶102

(iv) All IAs. in these appeals shall stand closed.

¶103

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶104

KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT:SNN

Sri Maruthi Temple v. Sri. Y. N. Srinivasa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Maruthi Temple v. Sri. Y. N. Srinivasa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust Vs B N Narasimha Murthy

Sri J. Raghu Vs Sri S Govindaiah

Suman Vs Smt C G Meenakshi

Smt. Sharadamma Vs Sri. Doddakempaiah

Sri Kanakaraj J Vs Smt Archana R

Sri. R. Shivakumar Vs Smt. Lakshmamma