ORDER

1. The State of Karnataka, defendant in the original suit, is in appeal questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in the second appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit land i.e. temple and surrounding area, claiming to belong to him. The trial court decreed the suit after appreciating the evidence placed on record in the light of the pleadings of the parties and issues that were raised. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial court, the State filed first appeal. The first appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The plaintiff, not being satisfied with the judgment of the first appellate court, filed a second appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment of the first appellate court and restored the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

3. As is evident from the impugned judgment, the second appeal had been admitted on the following question of law:

"Whether the Government making a paltry grant of Rathothsava and maintenance of the ratha or chariot,