The judgment emphasized the importance of substantial compliance with statutory notice requirements and highlighted the spirit of brotherhood among Hindus and Muslims at the shrine.

( 1 ) THE present appellant was the second defendant in the original suit before the trial Court of the District Judge at Chickamagalur in which the plantiffs-respondents 1 and 2 had sued the appellant as well as State Government, the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments, Karnataka and 5th respondent Sajjada Nashin for the reliefs stated in the plaint viz. , for declaration that the quit institution is a religious institution being a holy place of worship belonging to Hindus and Mohammedans alike, that the same is not a Wakf property and inclusion of the plaint schedule property by the appellant in the list being improper and illegal does not affect the rights of plaintiffs or Hindus to the said properties and that since the appellant has no right to control or manage the said institution the administration, management and control of the schedule property be retransferred from the control of the appellant to that of the 3rd defendant - the Commissioner. They further prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs or Hindus as aforesaid. That was a representative suit on behalf of Hindu community people after observing the necessary formalities required in respect of re-presentative suit. The facts briefly stated are that there exists Sri Guru Dathathreyaswamy Peeta in Inam Dathathreya Peeta village, Jaagru Hobli in Chickmagalur taluk. This 'peeta' is situated in Inam Dathathreya Peeta village. It is also referred to as "peeta of Bababudan Giri". It has an unique distinction of having devotees among Hindus as well as Mohammadans. Hindus worship the Peeta as Sri Guru Dathatreya Swamy Peeta and Mohammadans as Darga of Dada Hayath Khalander. It is however recognised by the Government as Guru Dathathreya Bababudan Swamy's Darga and was a major Muzarai institution until the same was included in the list of Wakfs prepared and published by the Board of Wakfs.

( 2 ) IT was under the control and management of the 3rd defendant under the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927. It is an ancient once and held in high esteem both by Hindus and Mohammadans. The Paduka are reputed to be of Shri Guru Dathathreyaswamy and Nandadeepa (eternal light) is kept for the purpose of Pooja. Hindus offer worship or pooja by offering flowers and coconuts and burning holy camphor. The annual Urus is also held at the Peeta but not according to the Mohammedan Calendar. It is held three days after the Holi Festival according to the Hindu Calendar. During Urus Gandha of the Holy Sandal Wood Paste is taken in procession from Athigundi to Peeta accompanied by Hindu Musical Instruments like Kombu, Kahale and Tamate. The Head of the Peeta is a person professing Islamic faith and is called as Sajjada. But the succession to the office is regulated by the rules governing the succession of Guru to Mutt. Even Saijada recognised as Guru is exempted from personal appearance in the Civil Courts. Thus the plaintiffs emphasised that from the narration of tile custom referred to above, the institution is not exclusively a Mohammadan institution but is one belonging to Hindus and Mohammadans alike.

( 3 ) THESE being the fact, in the year 1975 the 3rd defendant passed an order directing the Tahsildar, Chickrnagalur to handover possession and control of Dathathreya Swamy Peeta to the 2nd defendant under the impression that it is a Wakf. That was in pursuance of an enquiry which was held by the 1st defendant in or about the year 1973. The Tahsildar, Chickmagalur had sought instructions about the plaint schedule institution from the Government, but it appears lie did not receive any reply. After the order referred to above was passed, the 2nd defendant-appellant in March, 1976 seized Paduka and Nandadeepa which act deprived the devotees of offering or performing Pooja. A representation of the leaders of Chikmagalur town to the Deputy Commissioner brought about settlement and by that set

Click Here to Read the rest of this document