Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Mr. Arijeet Shukla, Adv. Mr. Tarun, Adv. Mr. B.k.prasad, Adv. Mrs. Rajini.k.prasad, Adv. Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Mr. Akhil Ranganathan S., Adv. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Maurya, Adv.

Key Points of the Judgment

1. Nature and Background of the Dispute

• Protracted century-old conflict between two families over hereditary wahiwatdar pujari rights at Amogasidda temple (Samadhi of saint from 600 years ago) in Mamatti Gudda, Jalgeri, Arkeri, Karnataka, including rights to perform puja, receive devotee offerings, and hold annual Jatra. (!) (!)
• Respondents/plaintiffs claim continuous puja performance (plaintiff No.1 with 8 annas share, others in rotation); appellants/defendants deny this, relying on 1901 decree (O.S. No. 287/1901) favoring their ancestor Gurappa. (!) (!) (!)

2. Litigation History

• 1944 Suit (O.S. No. 88/1944): Appellants' predecessor sued for possession/puja rights (alleging plaintiffs' forcible entry); dismissed by trial court (28.03.1945); appeal withdrawn with liberty for fresh suit (15.06.1946), but no fresh suit filed for 36+ years. (!)
• 1967 Suit (O.S. No. 347/1967): Respondents sued for injunction against puja obstruction; ex-parte decree, later dismissed for non-prosecution. (!)
• 1982 Suit (O.S. No. 56/1982): Respondents sought declaration of hereditary pujari rights + injunction after appellants' obstruction (20.03.1982, with police aid). (!) (!)
• Trial Court (18.11.1986): Partly decreed shared puja rights, rejected injunction. (!)
• First Appellate Court (05.07.1990): Allowed respondents' appeal, declared them sole hereditary pujaris. (!)
• High Court (24.07.1992): Reversed in favor of appellants, citing Section 80 Bombay Public Trusts Act bar. (!)
• Supreme Court (28.03.2003): Remanded for merits (no Section 80 bar). (!)
• High Court post-remand (04.10.2012): Dismissed appellants' appeals, upheld respondents' rights. (!)

3. Parties' Arguments

• Appellants: Relied on 1901 decree; criticized reliance on withdrawn 1944 suit; rejected respondents' revenue records. (!) (!)
• Respondents: Supported concurrent findings via evidence of continuous possession/puja. (!)

4. Court's Analysis and Observations

• Limited Supreme Court Interference: Article 136 jurisdiction sparing for concurrent factual findings unless manifestly perverse; both lower courts favored respondents based on evidence/admissions. (!) (!)
• 1901 Decree Undermined: Appellants' 1944 possession suit admits lack of possession (no explanation for loss); settled possessor wouldn't sue for possession. (!) (!)
• Post-1944 Conduct: Withdrawal without fresh suit for 36 years implies acquiescence to respondents' possession. (!)
• Documentary Evidence: Revenue records (RTC) name respondents' ancestors for temple service lands (granted by British Govt.); appellants absent. (!)
• Key Admission: Appellants' DW-1 (Ogeppa) admitted lands linked to suit temple, cultivated by respondents. (!)
• Pleading Defects: Appellants' written statement lacked specifics on possession timeline, puja start/obstruction, or interim actions; oral evidence can't fill gaps. (!)
• Respondents' Proof: Consistent via records, DW-1 admission, independent devotee testimony. (!)

5. Ratio Decidendi and Result

• Rights determined by continuous exercise, evidence, conduct, and admissions over old decrees contradicted by actions (e.g., 1944 suit). (!)
• Civil Appeals Nos. 7181-7182/2016 Dismissed (no perversity); no costs. (!) (!)
• Subject: Civil Law - Property Rights (hereditary puja under Bombay Public Trusts Act, S.80). [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred]