The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper procedure for appointing trustees for the management of temples and their properties, emphasizing the importance of selecting trustees with a genuine interest in serving the temples and no personal interest in the temple properties.

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. With their consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. The facts leading to filing of the impugned order dated 15.11.2014 in an scheme suit bearing O.S. No. 21/1949-50 pending on the file of Court of the District Judge, Bangalore as follows:

"Two persons by name Seebaiah and Narasimaiah had filed a scheme suit under Section 92 of CPC relating to the management of two temples namely Bhuvaneshwari Temple and Anjaneyaswamy Temple which are situated in the Sira Taluk and properties belonging to these two temples as described in the schedule (a) and (b) appended to the plaint."

3. The suit came to be filed in terms of Section 92 of CPC read with Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC on behalf of the members of the Lauder community for declaration to the effect that right of management of two temples situated in Sira Taluk and immovable properties attached to those temples vests in the community constituted by the devotees at the meeting held on 22.10.1946. The said suit came to be filed against 6 persons namely Lakshmana Rao, Yellappa, Yelu Nagappa, Siddappa, Venkatappa Subbaih. Further, reliefs had been sought for appointment of proper trustees for the management of the trust and the property and directing enquiries and accounts if necessary and to grant such other relief. Ultimately, the said suit ended in a compromise. On the basis of the compromise petition filed, decree came to be passed on 7.9.1951 by the then learned Principal District Judge with the following terms:

"It is ordered and decreed that the suit be and is hereby decreed in the terms of the said compromise petition a copy whereof is annexed hereto:--

1) That the first defendant Lakshman Rao, second plaintiff Narasimhaiah and the sub-Division officer, Madhugiri sub-division, shall constitute the committee of management of suit ' A ' and ' B' schedule properties and that the properties do and is here by ordered to be vested in the committee of Trustees.

2) That the committee shall have power to appoint the archak or arhaks of the 'A' schedule temple, who will manage the 'B' schedule properties and that the said archak or archaks shall be under the control and supervision of the above said committee of Management:

3) That the aforesaid committee of management shall have power to remove any or both the archaks if they do not perform their duties properly and satisfactorily.

4) That the parties may apply to the court by means of an application for suitable directions in regard to management, if need be.

5) That all proceedings held and all acts done hither to by the committee of Management formed on 22-10-45 alleged and referred to in Para 4 of the plaint shall have no effect whatever and

6) That in case of death or disabilities of any of the trustees, the court shall have power to fill in the vacancy so caused.

It is further ordered and decreed that the parties to the suit do bear their own costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court 7th day of September 1951."

4. Consequent upon the compromise entered into between the parties therein, and same being accepted by the then learned Principal District Judge, a committee was appointed which was inclusive of defendant No. 1 Lakshmana Rao and plaintiff No. 2 Narasimaiah to manage the suit schedule (a) and (b) properties and Revenue Sub Divisional Officer of Madhugiri, Sub division would be the Ex-officio trustee of the Committee constituted for the management of the temples and schedule property.

5. After sometime, Lakshmana Rao died and Ramanna nephew of Lakshman Rao made an application to the learned Principal District Judge to come on record as member of the managing committee and that application was considered in detail on 21.4.1973. The then learned Principal District Judge satisfying himself with the credentials of Ramanna, appointed Sri Ramanna as trustee of the managing committee. This was opposed and inclusion of Ramanna was challenged by