Partly allowed¶97

S. Malleshappa v. Basavanahalli Ranganna

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2025WP/6315/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temple archakship/dharmadarshi dispute (Shree Anjaneya Swami Temple, Ojugunte village, Sira); res judicata cannot be adjudicated at the temporary-injunction stage under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC; Article 226 writ against concurrent rejection of injunction; interim continuation of archaka duties subject to suit outcome; one-year trial completion deadline; liberty to produce additional evidence; WP No. 6315 of 2018 (GM-CPC), decided 04-03-2025 by M.G.S. Kamal J; NC: 2025:KHC:9278.

What did the court decide?

Petition partly allowed: plaintiffs permitted to continue performing archaka duties of Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple without interfering with management/administration or the defendants' rights of worship; Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit within one year; parties free to produce additional evidence; no opinion expressed on merits.

S. Malleshappa Vs Basavanahalli Ranganna — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶97

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit O.S.No.205/2013 is barred by res judicata in view of the earlier suit O.S.No.216/2004, and whether the First Appellate Court could record such a finding while deciding applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC at an interlocutory stage. +2 more

¶78

Court's answer

The First Appellate Court erred in giving its opinion and reasoning that the suit is barred by res judicata while dealing with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC; such a bar could be determined only after a full-fledged trial and by framing a specific issue on res judicata. This irregularity warranted interference by this Court to that limited extent.

¶81

Ratio / Principle

Subject to the result of the suit on the dharmadarshi claim, the plaintiffs are permitted to carry on the functions of performing the duties of archaka of Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple, without in any manner interfering with or influencing the management and administration of the temple.

¶98

Key takeaways

Under the guise of performing archaka functions pursuant to this order, the plaintiffs shall not even remotely interfere with the rights of the defendants in offering pooja and other rituals in the temple.ratio¶99
Since the matter is pending from 2013, the Trial Court is directed to take up the suit for disposal on main as expeditiously as possible, within an outer limit of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.ratio¶102

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M.G.S. Kamal J) partly allowed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the rejection of temporary injunction applications (Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC) in O.S.No.205/2013 concerning archakship and dharmadarship of Shree Anjaneya Swami Temple, Sira. Held: the First Appellate Court erred in declaring the suit barred by res judicata on account of the earlier O.S.No.216/2004 at the interlocutory stage; such a plea is determinable only after a full-fledged trial with a framed issue on res judicata. Plaintiffs were permitted to continue archaka functions without interfering with temple management or the defendants' rights of pooja; the Trial Court was directed to decide the suit within one year; parties were allowed to adduce additional evidence; no opinion was expressed on merits.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:9278 WP No. 6315 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6315 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

S. MALLESHAPPA

¶9

S/O LATE POOJARA SANNAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O OJUGUNTE VILLAGE, SIRA TALUK NOW R/AT JYOTHINAGAR SIRA TOWN -572 137.

¶10

S. VISHWANATH S/O LATE M R SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O NO.48, IST CROSS SHANTHIVANA SHAKARINAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 092.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. S.P. SHANKAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. MAMATA G KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

BASAVANAHALLI RANGANNA S/O LATE RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶16

SIDDANNA S/O LATE BOMMANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶17

MUDDAIAH

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:9278 WP No. 6315 of 2018

¶20

S/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶21

NAGARAJA S/O LATE MALLANNA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶22

1(a) MAMATHA W/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶23

1(b) LAKSHMI @ CHANDAN D/O LATE NAGARJU AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER MAMATHA.

¶24

GIRIYAPPA S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶25

KAMBAIAH S/O KURI ERANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶26

RAJANNA S/O CHIKKAMANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶27

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3, 4(a) TO (b) AND 5 TO 7 ARE ALL RESIDENTS OF OJUGUNTE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SIRA TALUK - 572 137.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. G.S. BALAGANGADHAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, R4 (a) AND R5;

¶30

SMT. K.S. ANASUYA DEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7; R4(b) MINOR REPRESENTED BY R4(a))

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9278 WP No. 6315 of 2018

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14-10-2015 PASSED IN MA 11/2015 ANNEXURE-G ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SIRA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA DATED 11.9.2015 ON THE COMBINED IAs 2 AND 3 IN OS 205/13 ANNEXURE-E AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER BOTH IAs 2 AND 3/2013 AFRESH ON MERITS AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONERS AND SUCH OTHER ORDER OR WRIT AND ETC.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.205/2013

¶36

pending consideration on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira filed by them seeking following reliefs:

¶37

'' a). For declaration that the suit schedule temple belongs to Manasenaora Gothra of Kunchitiga Community to which the Ist plaintiff is Archak and the 2nd plaintiff as Dharmadashi.

¶38

b). For consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the Management and performing daily poojas, Uthasavas and conducting the suit schedule temple.

¶39

c). For costs and such other reliefs as the Honourable Court may deems fir to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.''

¶40

An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC filed

¶41

along with plaint seeking relief of ad-interim order of temporary

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:9278 WP No. 6315 of 2018

¶44

injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from any way interfering with the management and affairs of the suit schedule temple pending disposal of the said suit in I.A.No.2/2013. Another application under the same provision is filed seeking ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants in any way interfering with the daily poojas, utsavas and jatra of the suit schedule temple by the plaintiffs in I.A.No.3/2013.

¶45

It appears initially by order dated 24.05.2013 the Trial Court had granted ex-parte ad-interim order granting reliefs as

¶46

sought for. Subsequently, on hearing the respondents/defendants by a common order dated 11.09.2015 passed on aforesaid applications in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2013, the Trial Court dismissed the said applications by holding that the plaintiffs had not produced any documents prime-facie establishing their right and entitlement for the ad-interim order of injunction as sought for. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners/plaintiffs preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal in M.A.No.11/2015 before the Senior Civil Judge, Sira who by order dated 14.10.2015 dismissed the said appeal confirming

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:9278 WP No. 6315 of 2018

¶49

the order passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court.

¶50

Necessary also to note that initially

¶51

petitioners/plaintiffs had preferred a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.598/2013 which was disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners/plaintiffs to file writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present petition.

¶52

Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt. Mamata Kulakarni, learned counsel for the petitioners/ plaintiffs taking this Court through the records submits that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have grossly erred in glossing over the documents produced by the plaintiffs without indeed applying their mind to the contents of the said documents. He specifically refers to the document produced at page No.31, which is a purported register maintained by the Administrative Committee of 'Kunchitigara Manasenora Gothrada Shree RangaswamiShree Malleshwaraswamy Temples'. He also refers to the entries made at page No.4 of the said register which is a purported letter to have been given by one Suresh son of one M.C. Mudhappa expressing and

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9278 WP No. 6315 of 2018

¶54

indicating his no objection for appointment of plaintiffs herein, who are his nephews, to the post of Archaka and Dharmadarshi respectively in respect of Anjaneya Swami Temple. Other contents of the said document appears to be a purported meeting held by the members of the Committee accepting the said no objection and conferring archakship and dharmadarshi on the petitioners/plaintiffs.

¶55

Referring to these two documents, learned Senior

¶56

counsel submits that there is a specific reference to Anjaneya Swami Temple in the said documents, which has been lost sight of by the Trial Court while assigning the reasons at paragraph No.13 of its order. Thus, he submits had the Trial Court read into these documents it would not have come to the conclusion of the said documents not referring to Anjaneya Swami Temple. He submits all the three temples, namely 'Shree Rangaswami Temple', 'Shree Malleshwaraswamy Temple' and 'Shree Anjaneya Swami Temple' are situated within the same precinct. The suit documents pertain to Anjaneya Swami Temple which has not been considered by the Trial Court.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:9278 WP No. 6315 of 2018

¶59

As regards the order passed by the First Appellate Court is concerned, learned Senior Counsel submits that the First Appellate Court ought to have applied its mind independently instead of merely nodding to the reasoning given by the Trial Court. Hence, he submits non consideration of these documents and coming to the erroneous conclusion of petitioners/plaintiffs not establishing the prime-facie case has resulted in injustice. He also refers to the interim order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in R.S.A.No.1699/2010, which has been filed challenging judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.216/2004 and R.A.No.50/2009, which is one of the documents produced by the plaintiff before the Trial Court. He submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has primefacie found the case in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs and has accordingly proceeded to confer certain interim relief in their favour in the nature of permitting them to carry on with the archakship of the schedule temple subject matter of the said proceedings. Referring to these documents, learned Senior Counsel submits that the orders passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court requires interference at the hands of this Court.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:9278 WP No. 6315 of 2018

¶62

Per contra, Sri. G.S Balagangadhar, learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants at the outset points out that since there is a concurrent finding of facts by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court with regard to petitioners/plaintiffs not having been able to establish the prime-facie case for the purpose of consideration of Applications under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, which is a discretionary relief within the jurisdiction conferred on the said Court, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may have to restrain itself from interfering with the same. He further submits that the documents which are heavily relied upon by the petitioners/plaintiffs namely a purported letter written by the son of dharmadarshi and the consequent resolution passed purportedly by a committee are brought up documents, inasmuch as there is no reference of the said documents in any proceedings earlier to the present suit. He submit this aspect of the matter has been taken note of by the First Appellate Court, which has come to the conclusion that the present suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is hit by principle of res-judicata inasmuch as the documents sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff had been adverted to, adjudicated and

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:9278 WP No. 6315 of 2018

¶65

negated in the earlier proceedings. Thus he submits no error of jurisdiction or irregularity in the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court can be found warranting interference at the hands of this

¶66

Court. Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶67

Heard and perused the records.

¶68

Present proceedings are arising out of orders passed on applications filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. The suit seeking substantial relief as noted hereinabove is still pending consideration.

¶69

The records available in this petition and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties would indicate that the parties and their forefathers have been litigating for a long time atleast from the year 1970, with regard to their respective rights not only to the post of archakaship but also to the management and control of the aforesaid temples. Earlier suit in O.S.No.216/2004 pertains to claim of plaintiffs therein to the post of 'Yajmana' and 'Gowda' in respect of two temples namely, of Shree Rangaswami Temple, and Shree Malleshwaraswamy Temple, which as noted hereinabove is pending consideration now in R.S.A

¶70

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9278 WP No. 6315 of 2018

¶71

No.169/2010 of 2010 and R.S.A.Crob.No.12/2010. The temple namely subject matter of the present suit is Shree Anjaneya Swami Temple which is stated to be forming part of the same complex within which the aforesaid two temples are also located.

¶72

The relief sought in the present suit in O.S.No.205/2013, is two fold, in which plaintiff No.1 claims to be the archaka, while plaintiff No.2 claims to be the dharmadarshi, in other words, plaintiff No.2 is claiming to have right to control and administer the affairs of Shree Anjaneya Swami Temple.

¶73

The Trial Court however on perusal of the records referred to hereinabove has come to the conclusion that the document furnished by the petitioners/plaintiffs do not pertain to the subject temple, while the First Appellate Court has gone a step ahead to hold that since the documents furnished by the plaintiffs herein were subject matter of the earlier suit in O.S.No.216/2004, as such the claim presently made is barred by principle of res-judicata .

¶74

11 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:9278 WP No. 6315 of 2018

¶76

As rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs though there is a reference with regard to Shree Anjaneya Swami Temple in the documents which is referred to by the Trial Court, it however has declined to take note of the same, while the First Appellate Court referring to the said temple as noted above has held that the same is hit by res-judicata .

¶77

Necessary to note at this juncture that claims being made by the parties are not only to the extent of archakaship but also to the administration of these three temples. No documents are produced, atleast at this juncture to indicate that there was any claim with regard to administration of Shree Anjaneya Swami Temple, which is now being claimed in the present suit.

¶78

To form an opinion at this juncture, without referring to the pleading, issues framed, evidence of the parties and the document produced specifically with regard to the Shree Anjaneya Swami Temple, it may not be appropriate to hold that the suit is barred by res-judicata while considering the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. To this extent,

¶79

12 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:9278 WP No. 6315 of 2018

¶81

this Court is of the considered view that the First Appellate Court has erred in giving its opinion and reasoning that the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is barred by res-judicata, which could only be done after a full fledged trial and that too by framing a issue regarding res-judicata .

¶82

In the consider view of this Court, this is an irregularity and an error committed by the First Appellate Court warranting interference to this limited extent.

¶83

Having said that, it is necessary to note when the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.598/2015 was filed by the petitioner, this Court had indeed granted interim relief to the petitioner on 23.06.2016, subsequently, that is after filing of the present writ petition and converting the said Civil Revision Petition into writ petition, this Court on 16.02.2018 had passed the following order:

¶84

''Against the impugned order passed by the trial Court, which was affirmed by the lower appellate Court, earlier Civil Revision Petition No.598/2015 was filed. This Court as long back as on 23.6.2016 while issuing emergent notice in the said Civil Revision Petition, granted an interim order which reads as under:

¶85

"Issue emergent notice regarding admission.

¶86

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9278 WP No. 6315 of 2018

¶87

In the meanwhile, the interim order which was granted in O.S. No.205/2013 is revived and allowed to be in force until this revision petition. is disposed of in the light of the fact that the very dispute in this revision petition was the subject matter of Misc. Civil 17218/2010 in RSA No.1699/2010 and also in W.P. Nos.9420-24/2012 between the same set of parties."

¶88

Subsequently this Court by an order dated 7th February 2018 while permitting the petitioners to convert CRP No.598/2015 into Writ Petition extended interim order for a period of one week only and that has expired.

¶89

Issue emergent notice to the respondents.

¶90

Interim stay as prayed for till the next date of hearing.''

¶91

On a query by this Court, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court the petitioners/plaintiffs are continuing to perform the duties archaka in the subject temple. Thus the admitted fact remains that the plaintiffs were permitted to carry on the duties of archaka both in the present proceedings in terms of the interim order granted by this Court as noted hereinabove as well as in the companion suit in O.S.No.216/2004, which is subject matter of R.S.A.No.1699/2010 where the substantial claim of

¶92

administration to the said temple is still pending consideration.

¶93

14 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:9278 WP No. 6315 of 2018

¶95

Keeping in view of the sensitivity of the matter which pertains to a temple, which is frequented not only by the plaintiffs but also by the defendants and other members of the village, this Court is of the considered view that subject to result of the suit with regard to the claim of the plaintiffs to the Office of dharmadarshi of Shree Anjaneya Swami Temple, a limited liberty be given to the plaintiffs to continue to perform the functions of archaka with the following directions;

¶96

ORDER

¶97

(i). Petition is partly allowed.

¶98

(ii). Petitioners who are the plaintiffs are permitted to carry on the functions of performing the duties of archaka of Sri.Anjaneya Swami Temple without in any manner whatsoever interfering or influencing the affairs of management, administration of the said temple.

¶99

(iii). Plaintiffs under the guise of performing functions of archaka in furtherance to this order, shall not even remotely interfere with the rights of the defendants in they offering pooja and other rituals in the said temple.

¶100

15 -

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC:9278 WP No. 6315 of 2018

¶102

(iv). Since the matter is pending consideration from the year 2013, the Trial Court is directed to take up the matter for disposal on main as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶103

(v). It is made clear, no opinion is expressed with regard to merits or otherwise of the claim made by the parties and the Trial Court shall not be influenced in any manner with the order made hereunder while disposing of the case on the merits.

¶104

(vi). It is made clear, parties are at liberty to produce additional evidence before the Trial Court in the manner known to law. Notwithstanding, the order passed by the First Appellate Court declining production of the additional documents.

¶105

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶106

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

S. Malleshappa v. Basavanahalli Ranganna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Malleshappa v. Basavanahalli Ranganna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Savithri Vs Sri. Abdul Basheer

Vijayalakshmi Vs Sripadarenu

Guarav Shangvi Vs Smt. Kantha

Smt. S. Kamala Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

Smt. K Indiramma Vs Smt. G Nagrathnamma

Rajanna Vs Gowramma