Back
2001 Supreme(Kar) 341
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MOHAMED ANWAR, J.
Bheemasenacharya Srinivasacharya Gudi - Appellant
Versus
Gadag Veera-narayana Dev – Respondent
Civil Revn. Petn. 3973 of 1999
Decided On : 07-06-2001
Chandrakant R.Goulay, R.B.Pasappagol, Subhash B.Adi
The Court held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, that the balance of convenience lay in their favor, and that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. The Court also held that the impugned orders of the lower courts were passed in illegal exercise of their jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed.
Headnote:
The Court allowed the plaintiffs' revision petitions and set aside the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court. The Court held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, that the balance of convenience lay in their favor, and that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. The Court also held that the impugned orders of the lower courts were passed in illegal exercise of their jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, who were the hereditary Parupatyagar and Paricharakas of the defendant-temple, filed a suit for a declaration that they were the hereditary holders of the said offices and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their rights. The defendants filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs' claim and also filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the administration of the temple. The trial court granted the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction in part and dismissed the defendants' application. The defendants appealed to the lower appellate court, which set aside the trial court's order and dismissed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. The plaintiffs filed revision petitions in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, that the balance of convenience lay in their favor, and that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. The Court also held that the impugned orders of the lower courts were passed in illegal exercise of their jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, that the balance of convenience lay in their favor, and that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. The Court also held that the impugned orders of the lower courts were passed in illegal exercise of their jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the plaintiffs' revision petitions and set aside the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court. The Court held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, that the balance of convenience lay in their favor, and that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. The Court also held that the impugned orders of the lower courts were passed in illegal exercise of their jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed.
ORDER
MOHAMED ANWAR, J.
All these three Civil revisions are filed by the eight plaintiffs in O.S. No. 14/1997 pending on the file of the Court of the III Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Gadag, and the common respondents herein are the defendants in that suit. They are filed against the respective orders of the lower appellate Court by which the plaintiff's I.A. No. 1 under Order 39 Rule-1 and 2 C.P.C. came to be dismissed and the Trial Court's order allowing defendant No. 1's I.A. No. 9 under Order 39 Rules-1 and 2 C.P.C. stands affirmed.
2. The said O.S. No. 14/1997 of the petitioners-plaintiffs was instituted in the Trial Court on 6.1.1997 against respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’) for the following main reliefs:
“(20) IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED AND SUBMITTED THAT:
(a) Plaintiffs be declared as hereditary Paricharika and Parupatyagar of Veeranarayan and other temples in the vicinity along with Defendant No. 2.
(b) The notice of termination dated 13.10.1995 and the Resolution of Defendant No. 1 dated 28.9.1995 be declared as void and not binding upon the Plaintiffs.
(c) It be declared that there are two turns (Pale) of service of Paricharika and Parupatyagar of Veeranarayan temple commencing from Kartika Shuddha Pratipada as per Hindu Calander ending with Aswin Bahula Amavase of succeeding year and that plaintiffs representing branch of Srinivasachar Pradhyumnachar Gudi have one turn and Defendant No. 2 representing branch of Balachar Pradhyumnachar Gudi has another turn.
(d) Consequently the Defendants and their men and servants etc. be restrained permanently from interfering with the plaintiffs right to render service as Parupatyagar and Paricharika of Veeranarayan and other temples during their turn.
(da) Plaintiffs be awarded a compensation of sum of Rs. 45,000/- as claimed in para 17 above.
(e) Such other reliefs deems just be awarded.
(f) Costs of the suit be awarded. Decree be passed accordingly.”
3. The plaintiff's case stated in the plaint in support of the above reliefs, briefly stated, is that:
3.1 Defendant-1 Public Trust, comprises of many temples, and a masjid as shown in the description of this defendant (‘D-1’ for short) in the plaint cause title. It is registered as a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (‘the BPT Act’ in short), Sri Veeranarayana temple being the main item of this Trust. This temple is an ancient temple said to have been built by one Jakkannachari somewhere during 13th or 14th century A.D.
3.2 The plaintiffs and defendant-2 are the hereditary Parupatyagars and Paricharakas of D-1 Trust Temples. The genealogy of their families is as given in paragraph-3 of the plaint. As could be seen from this genealogy, plaintiffs-4 to 8 are the sons of one Madhavachar, who died on 22.10.1983. Plaintiff-1 is his brother, and Plaintiffs-2 and 3 are the descendants of late Madhavachar's another brother Vasudevachar, who died on 19.9.1950. The father of late Vasudevachar, late Madhavachar and plaintiff-1 Bhimasenachar was one Srinivasachar, who died on 17.9.1950. Defendant-2 had a brother by name Narayanachar, who died issueless in 1986. They are the children of Pradyumnachar, who died on 25.7.1970. The common propositus of the parties was one late Govindabhat, who is five generations above plaintiff-1's father late Srinivasachar and defendant-2's grand-father late Balachar - who died in 1949. The correctness of this family pedigree of the parties is not in dispute.
3.3 The rights and duties of Paricharakas are stated in paragraph-4 of the plaint. The rights and duties of Parupatyagar are listed in paragraph-5 thereof. Plaintiffs and defendant-2 and their ancestors were the hereditary Parupatyagar and Paricharakas of D-1's temples. These rights are customary rights. The family members of the plaintiffs' ancestors and after them the plaintiffs are performing the duties of Paricharakas and Parupatyagar of the said temples since the time immemorial in their own exclusive right. In course of tim
