In this regular second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC challenging a judgment and decree in a property suit involving temple management rights, the single judge dismissed the appeal holding that no substantial question of law arises.
Appeal dismissed; other applications dismissed as unnecessary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.902 OF 2013 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka
1(c) SRI C.R. SHANKAR BABU, S/O LATE C. RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A NO.809, NEAR KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK, SANTHANURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 402.
1(d) SRI R.MANJUNATH, S/O LATE C. RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NO.1842, BASAVANAGUDI BEEDI, WARD NO.2, 13TH CROSS, MANGALAVARAPETE, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
NC: 2024:KHC:51757 RSA No. 902 of 2013
…APPELLANTS
[BY SRI V.F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:51757 RSA No. 902 of 2013
R/O MUDAGERI VILLAGE, MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATANA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 11.2.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.35/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., CHANNAPATTANA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.1.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.176/2007 THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., CHANNAPATNA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and decree dated 11.02.2013 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapattana, in R.A.no.35/2012 and judgment and decree dated 06.01.2011 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Channapatna, in O.S.no.176/2007, this appeal is filed.
petitions were dismissed on 29.07.2013, with certain
clarifications contained in paras no.8(d to h) and 9 as follows:
"8. Point No.1:
d. On perusal of the above observations in the impugned judgment, it gets clear that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.128/1958 were restrained by means of permanent injunction from interfering with the rights of plaintiffs, defendant Nos.4(a) and 4(b) and 5 to manage the temple and the temple properties. This further implies that defendant Nos.4(a) and 4(b) and defendant No.5 were also having right to manage the temple and its properties. This further implies that the plaintiffs in the said suit were not given exclusive right of management of the temple and its properties. As such the plaintiffs in the said suit can not interfere with the right of the defendant nos.4(a), 4(b) and 5 in the said suit to manage the temple and its property. Similarly the defendant nos.4(a) and 4(b) in the said suit can not interfere with the right of the plaintiffs and defendant no.5 in the said suit to manage the temple and its property and defendant no.5 in the said suit can not interfere with the right of the plaintiffs and defendant no.4(a), 4(b) in the said suit to manage the temple and its property as all of them are having right to manage the temple and its properties.
e. On perusal of the above discussion it gets clear that there is no any mistake in the interpretation of the operative portion of the judgment in O.S.No.128/1958.
f. Further on perusal of the operative portion of the judgment in O.S.No.128/1958, it gets clear that no exclusive right to manage the temple and
its property has been conferred upon the ancestors of the petitioners herein.
g. As such there is no necessity to review the impugned judgment and decree passed by this court.
h. Hence I answer the above point accordingly.
9. Point No. 2:
For the reasons discussed herein above, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Both the petitions in R.P.No.1/2013 and 2/2013 for review of judgment of this court in R.A.No.35/2012 and 59/2012, are dismissed.
2. The original of this order shall be kept in R.P.No.1/2013 and a copy of this order shall be kept in R.P.No.2/2013."
questioned order passed in review petitions. It is seen said clarification would address concern of plaintiffs in suit. Hence, impugned judgment and decree would not call for any interference in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises
for consideration. Hence, appeal is dismissed .
In view of dismissal of appeal, other applications are dismissed as unnecessary.
NC: 2024:KHC:51757 RSA No. 902 of 2013
In case, any of parties have any other grievances, they
are at liberty to work them out in separate proceedings.
Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE
GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment and decree in the regular second appeal calling for interference as it does not call for any interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C. Rajashekar, since deceased rep by his LRs
Basavaraju
Ravi V Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
