ORDER :

Though these writ petitions are listed for preliminary hearing ‘B’ group with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.

2. The legality and correctness of the order dated 22.05.2012 passed on I.A.Nos.2 and 5 in O.S.No.212/2011, which is pending adjudication on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Belgaum (Annexure-H) is questioned in these writ petitions.

3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the caveators/respondent Nos.1 to 4 at length. Respondent Nos.5 to 10, 12, 17 and 19 are served and unrepresented. Respondent Nos.11, 13 to 16 and 18 are deleted from the array of parties and perused the material on record.

4. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein have filed O.S.No.212/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Belgaum, seeking the following prayers.

“30. PRAYER:

HENCE, for these among the other reasons it is most humbly prayed that setting aside the contentions of the defendants if any, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a Decree:

(A) Declaring that the branches of plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the hereditary Archakas and wahiwatdars of the plaintiff No.1-Temple and entitled to perform the traditional Pooja and Archana and service of the plaintiff No.1-Deity Shri Laxmidevi and hence, each of the Branch of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for 1 year each by rotation on every 4th year.

OR

As an alternative relief, if this Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold that the defendant No.3 is also entitled to the hereditary Pooja and Archana and service of the plaintiff No.1, at par with other hereditary successors of Sri Laxman Sutar, then each of the branch of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 be held to be entitled for the hereditary services of the plaintiff No.1 for one year each by rotation on every 5th year.

(B) Declaring that the registration of Shri Laxmi Devasthan and making entries under Inq.No.297/1952, dated 04-09-1952 is illegal, null and void and non-est and not binding on the plaintiffs. Consequently, entries under Inq.No.680/1997, dated 15-10-1997 and Inq.No.25/1998, dated 03.07.2001 are illegal and null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

(C) Declaring that the legal heirs of Sri Laxman Sutar, original propositus and wahiwatdar Pancha of the plaintiff No.1, are the only entitled successors to the Administration and Management of the affairs of plaintiff No.1-Shri Laxmi Devasthan by hereditary succession.

(D) The defendant No.3 and 9 and others be directed to give true and correct account of the funds collected in the name of Jeernoddhara of the plaintiff No.1-Diety, the amount collected from the Hundi of the plaintiff No.1 and also to account for the valuable golden, silver and other articles received since 1996 and assessed to be above the value of Rs.51,000/-. Consequently, the fund so accounted be held to be the property of the plaintiff No.1-Diety.

(E) Consequently, the defendants be directed to entrust the custody of all the moveable properties of the plaintiff No.1 as shown in the Schedule ‘B’ Property and Schedule ‘C’ Property, in favour of the branch of the plaintiffs Nos.2 or 3, whenever their turn of worship and service of the plaintiff No.1 arises by rotation.

(F) Consequently, the defendants, their agents, servants or any body on their behalf be restrained by issue of perpetual injunction from interfering with the hereditary rights of Pooja, Archana and wahiwat during the term of service and worship of the plaintiff No.1 by the branches of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 respectively.

(G) Awarding the costs of this suit to the plaintiffs from the defendants.

(H) Awarding any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances narrated in this suit.

(I) Permission may please be granted to the plaintiffs to amend the pleadings of the plaint as and when and if, found necessary.”

5. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.3 and 9 in the suit filed two applications, one, under Section 92 of the Cod