A petitioner whose Order I Rule 10 CPC impleading application in an execution petition was rejected challenged that order. The High Court held the decree favoured the family deity, not one individual, directed impleadment of defendant No.196 and safeguards against individual rights being carved out during execution.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:34670 WP No. 8623 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 8623 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PANDITH M NARASIMHA ACHARAYA S/O LATE M MADHAVA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT ACHARYA MUTT, S V TEMPLE CAR STREET, MANGALURU 575001
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAKESH KINI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT OPPOSITE VAISHNAVI APARTMENT, DONGERKERY, MANGALURU 575003
CAR STREET, MANGALURU, REP. BY MANAGING TRUSTEE SRI JAGANNATH KAMATH S/O LATE MADHAVARAYA KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT ARKA MAHA GANAPATI, BOOTHAMASTANA, MANGALURU 575001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAMA BHAT O., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. N.S.SRIRAJ GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 03.08.2023, PASSED BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, D.K.MANGALURU IN EX.C.134/2022, (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, D.K.MANGALURU IN EX.C/134/2022, UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 R/W S.46/47/151 OF CPC 1908(ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner who had filed an impleading
application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to implead himself in the Execution Petition
NC: 2024:KHC:34670 WP No. 8623 of 2024
No.134/2022 is before this Court on rejection of the said application.
Administrator/Receiver etc. A judgment was passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru on 30.11.2020 by framing a fresh scheme for the management of the Temple.
the Board of Trustees of the Temple shall recognize the rights of the family of the appellants-defendant Nos.38
and 196 to perform duties of thanthrikship/purohits and purana vachakas in accordance with law. Pursuant thereafter Execution Petition was filed by defendant No.38. The petitioner herein claiming to be a member of the family of defendant No.38 viz., Bhadra Narasimha Devaru filed an impleading application while alleging that Sri Jayantha Acharya, who has filed the execution petition on behalf of the family is trying to create rights only for himself to the detriment of the members of the family. The application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 03.08.2023 on the ground that the applicant has not made any efforts to get himself impleaded as one of the parties to the proceedings before the District Court or before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:34670 WP No. 8623 of 2024
defendant No.196. At that juncture, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 fairly submitted that he would implead respondent No.196, since a decree has been passed by this Court even in favour of defendant No.196. However, insofar as the impleading applicant/petitioner herein is concerned, learned Counsel would submit that the petitioner never tried to implead himself during the course of the proceedings before the Trial Court nor before this Court. Therefore, it was submitted that no infirmity can be found in the impugned order.
family and ensure that no separate rights or individual rights are carved in favour of Sri Jayantha Acharya. On the other hand, if there is any inter se dispute between the family members of Sri Bhadra Narasimha Devaru, that has to be considered by the competent authority in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions And Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. For that purpose, the Executing Court shall take note of the fact that the Commissioner of Religious and Charitable Endowments, Karnataka has passed an order on 01.01.1994 in case bearing No.ADM.7. AP.12/93-94.
NC: 2024:KHC:34670 WP No. 8623 of 2024
District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangaluru, to ensure impleadment of defendant No.196, without whose presence the decree cannot be executed.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE
JT/CT: JL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a family member claiming rights under the decree could be impleaded in an execution petition after his application was rejected.
How should the decree in favour of the family deity be executed without conferring individual rights on one member?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri. Pandith M Narasimha Acharaya
Shri. Bhadra Narasimha Devaru rep. by Sri Jayantha Acharya
Shri Venkataramana Devaru, Sri Venkataramana Temple, rep. by Managing Trustee Sri Adige Balakrishna Shenoy
Shri Venkataramana Devaru, Sri Venkataramana Temple, rep. by Managing Trustee Sri Sowkar M Kiran Pai
Shri Venkataramana Devaru, Sri Venkataramana Temple, rep. by Managing Trustee Sri Sathish Prabhu
Shri Venkataramana Devaru, Sri Venkataramana Temple, rep. by Managing Trustee Sri Jagannath Kamath
R DEVDAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
