The jurisdiction of the civil courts to decide questions relating to the rights to the office of Hereditary Trustee of a Family Temple is not absolutely excluded under section 68 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions And Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 even after the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act 2011. The court also emphasized the requirement to comply with the principles of natural justice while exercising powers under section 20-A(1)(d) and section 20-A(2)(vii) of the Act.

B.M. SHYAM PRASAD, J.

1. The appellant has impugned the decision taken by the Rajya Dharmika Parishat an authority constituted under the provisions of Section 20 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short, 'Act of 1997') and hereinafter referred to as the 'Dharmika Parishat' - on 23.3.2018 in its 14th Meeting, and the consequential Order dated 26.3.2018 by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments (for short, the 'Commissioner for HRI & CE). By these impugned decision/order the respondent No.7 is appointed as the Hereditary Trustee and the respondent No.8 is appointed as the successor to the office of the Hereditary Trustee of the Temple, Sri. Mahatobara Veerabhadra Temple situated at Hiriyadaka, Bommarabettu Village, Udupi Taluk respondent No. 6..

2. The appeal arises in the background of the following facts and circumstances as pleaded and canvassed in this appeal:

2.1 Sri Mahatobara Veerabhadreshwara Temple was declared as an 'Excepted Temple' (hereafter referred to as the 'Temple'] under the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927 (for short, 'Act of 1927'). The Temple was managed by the hereditary trustees, and these trustees were from 'Alva Hegde' and 'Kurla Hegde' families. The "Kurla Hegde" family has three branches viz., (i) Vonthibettu, (ii) Anjaru Beedu and (iii) Mombettu, and the 'Alva Hegde' family has four branches viz., (i) Padambeedu Padupalu, (ii) Padambeedu Mudupalu, (iii) Padambeedu Kallubettu and (iv) Padambeedu Kapyadi. The respondent No. 7 is from the Mombettu branch of the 'Kurla Hegde' family, and the respondent No.8 is from the Padambeedu Padupalu branch of the 'Alva Hegde' family.

2.2 The members of these family have been agitating over the years inter alia as regards the questions who should be the Hereditary Trustee/s, who, as a 'Fit Person', should be managing the affairs of the Temple until the declaration of Hereditary Trustee/s, whether only "Kurla Hegde" family is entitled to the office of the 'Hereditary Managing Trustee/Trustee" and whether the members of the 'Alva Hegde' family have abandoned or lost their right to be appointed to the office of the 'Hereditary Trustee'. The multiple litigations amongst the members of these families could broadly be classified as (a) disputes ensuing from the declaration of Sri. Vittal Hegde from the 'Alva Hegde' family as a Hereditary Trustee and (b) disputes resulting from the appointment of a 'Fit Person' after the demise of Sri. Balakrishna Hegde from the 'Kurla Hegde' in the year 2009. A 'Fit Person' is appointed as a temporary measure until the declaration/ appointment to the office of the Hereditary Trustee is made.

2.3 Sri Vittal Hegde from the 'Alva Hegde' family was declared as the 'Hereditary Trustee' vide the Order dated 02.7.1990. Sri Balakrishna Hegde from the 'Kurla Hegde' family disputed such appointment in an appeal before the Commissioner for HRI & CE. This appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner for HRI & CE by his order dated 4.2.1991. Sri Balakrishna Hegde impugned these two orders before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in a revision petition. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowed the revision petition and quashed the order dated 2.7.1990. Sri Vittal Hegde impugned the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal before the High Court of Karnataka in a writ petition in W.P.No.41041/1995. This writ petition was disposed of by the writ court holding that the revision petition could not have been entertained by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, and any person aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner for HRI & CE ought to have approached the appropriate Civil Court.

2.4 Sri Balakrishna Hegde commenced the suit in O.S.No.101/1996 seeking inter alia declaration that he was entitled to function as Hereditary Managing Trustee/Trustee of the Temple and for declaration that Alva Hegde family represented by Sri Vittal Hegde had no right to fu