Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
E.S. Indiresh, J.
Shree Samsthana Mahabaleshwara Deva Gokarna - Appellant
Versus
U.F.M. Ananthraj - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 100918 of 2020, 101088 of 2020
Decided On : 24-08-2020
The court set aside the order of the trial court granting a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' performance of pooja and upadhi rites in a temple. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience did not lie in their favor, and they would not suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. The court also found that the trial court failed to consider relevant material and applied wrong principles in granting the injunction.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, who are hereditary archakas (priests) of a temple, filed a suit against the defendants, who are the temple's management committee, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their performance of pooja and upadhi rites in the temple. The plaintiffs also filed an application for a temporary injunction, which was granted by the trial court. The defendants appealed the trial court's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience did not lie in their favor, and they would not suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. The court also found that the trial court failed to consider relevant material and applied wrong principles in granting the injunction.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. 2. Whether the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiffs. 3. Whether the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. 4. Whether the trial court erred in granting the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case because they did not provide any evidence that they were performing pooja and upadhi rites in the temple as of the date of filing the suit. The court also found that the balance of convenience did not lie in favor of the plaintiffs because the injunction would have prevented the defendants from managing the temple and would have caused inconvenience to the devotees. Finally, the court found that the plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted because they could still file a suit for damages.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the trial court granting a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' performance of pooja and upadhi rites in a temple.
JUDGMENT
E.S. Indiresh, J. - It is said:
"If a man seeks unity in deity, then he must necessarily learn to seek unity with the interests of the world also and has to work with it and should learn to live in peace & harmony."
These matters were taken up for final hearing by the consent of learned senior counsel on both sides on 09th March 2020. The matter was heard in part and again it was called on 11th March, 2020. On that date, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that, he has some more submissions to make. He was accordingly permitted to do so, as there was no objection from the other side. Again, the matter was listed on 06th August, 2020 and the learned Senior Counsel for both sides submitted that, date may be fixed in the matter and thereby, case was finally heard on 10th August, 2020.
2. These appeals are directed against order dated 19.02.2020 passed on IA.I in O.S.No.2/2016 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar. Appellants in these appeals are the defendants before the trial Court. Since these two appeals are filed assailing the common judgment dated 19.02.2020 passed in O.S.No.2/2016 and as identical issues are involved in both appeals, they are connected, heard together and disposed of by this Judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, rank of the parties in these appeals, are referred to with their status before the trial Court.
FACTS:
4. The relevant facts, for the purpose of adjudication of these appeals, are as under:
Plaintiffs herein and another set of plaintiffs who were similarly placed, have filed suits in Original Suits No.20/2014 and 22/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kumta, against the defendants therein seeking reliefs of damages and permanent injunction. Since the learned Presiding Officer has expressed his opinion of displeasure in hearing the matter, petition was moved before the District Court, Karwar for transferring the suits, however, the said request for transfer was rejected by the District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 has filed WP No.59527 of 2015 and connected matters before this Court and this Court, by its order dated 28th March, 2016 allowed the Writ Petition and order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karwar was set aside and the Original Suits No.20 of 2014 and 22 of 2014 pending consideration on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kumta were withdrawn and transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karwar for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Plaintiffs have sought for following reliefs in the suit:
5. Plaintiffs have sought for compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- with interest at 12% per annum, inter alia sought for relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful performance of pooja, tantrikatana and upadhi rites in the temple in question, and such other reliefs. Plaintiffs have filed IA.I before the Court below under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and sought for temporary injunction restraining defendants from interfering with pooja rights of plaintiffs. The contention of plaintiffs before the Court below are that they are the hereditary archakas of defendant No.1-temple and having hereditary pooja rights and they are called "Upadhivantas". The claims of plaintiffs are that they are performing pooja in defendant No.1-temple and also other connected temples and they are having hereditary rights to collect dakshinas from devotees. Plaintiffs further state that defendant No.1-temple was being maintained by Moktesar Mandali, and after 1950, as per the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, defendant No.1-temple was registered as per the aforesaid Act and it was managed by Moktesar Mandali. In the past, there were disputes with regard to upadhi rights among Upadhivantas of defendant No.1-temple and Moktesar Mandali of defendant No.1, suits were filed before the Civil Court
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
