Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 179
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT – Appellant
Versus
SRI. UTTARADI MUTT – Respondent
RSA 100446/2015
A permanent injunction cannot be granted without establishing exclusive rights over the property and rituals, particularly when both parties have claims to perform religious rites.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Suit for permanent injunction - Appeal against First Appellate Court’s decree allowing the plaintiff's appeal and setting aside trial court judgment - The trial court dismissed the suit based on lack of exclusive possession and right to perform rituals, while the appellate court erroneously allowed the suit - The Supreme Court remitted the matter for additional evidence, leading to findings that the plaintiff-Mutt did not prove exclusive rights over the property and rituals. (Paras 15-29)
(B) Jurisdiction of Courts - The trial court correctly held that the right of worship does not equate to ownership of property, and the appellate court erred in granting injunction without addressing the existing rights of the defendant-Mutt. (Paras 27.1-27.2)
(C) Res Judicata - The previous judgments did not confer exclusive rights to the plaintiff-Mutt, and the defendant-Mutt's claims to perform rituals were upheld, thus the injunction was impermissible. (Paras 27.6-27.9)
(D) Result - Appeal allowed, trial court judgment restored, and plaintiff's suit dismissed.
The regular second appeal by the defendant in O.S.74/2010 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.04.2016 passed in R.A.123/2014 by the First Appellate Court, whereby the said appeal filed by the respondent – plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2011 passed in O.S.No.74/2010 by the Trial Court dismissing the suit was allowed by the first appellate court, which set aside the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
2. The said suit in O.S.No.74/2010 was filed by the respondent – plaintiff against the appellant – defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the appellant – defendant was dismissed by the trial court and NC: 2024:KHC:25169 RSA No. 100446 of 2015 challenged by the respondent – plaintiff in the aforesaid R.A.No.123/2014 before the first appellate court which allowed the appeal filed by the respondent – plaintiff and decreed the suit in its favour against the appellant – defendant. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, the appellant – defendant is before this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal.
3. In the first instance, the present appeal was allowed by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2017, whereby this Court set aside the judgment and decree of both the first appellate court as well as the trial court and remitted the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by allowing the applications filed by the appellant – defendant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for permission to adduce additional evidence before the first appellate court.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by this Court in the present appeal, the respondent – plaintiff approached the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9333/2018. By judgment dated 26.09.2018, the Apex Court set aside the aforesaid judgment of this Court and restored the present appeal to the file of NC: 2024:KHC:25169 RSA No. 100446 of 2015 this Court. The Apex Court directed this Court to frame points on which additional evidence is to be taken and directed the first appellate court to take the additional evidence on record and then return the same to this Court together with findings and reasons by submitting a report to this Court, after which this Court would consider the present appeal in accordance with law.
5. In pursuance of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, this Court passed an order dated 23.01.2019 framing four points for consideration by the first appellate court and directed it to record evidence and submit findings to this Court.
6. The said order dated 23.01.2019 passed by this Court was challenged before the Apex Court by the appellant herein in Civil Appeal No.2027/2019. By order dated 25.02.2019, the Apex Court disposed of the said appeal by striking out point Nos. (ii) and (iii) framed by this Court in its aforesaid order dated 23.01.2019 and confined / restricted only point Nos.(i) and (iv) to be referred to the first appellate court for recording evidence and submitting its findings.
7. In pursuance of the said order of the Apex Court, the first appellate court recorded the evidence of both the appellant – NC: 2024:KHC:25169 RSA No. 100446 of 2015 defendant and respondent – plaintiff and after hearing the parties, recorded its findings on the points formulated by the Apex Court and this Court and returned the entire records to this Court.
8. Upon receipt of the said records, the present appeal was taken up for disposal by this Court, during the course of which, interim orders dated 15.11.2022 and 21.03.2023 recording the terms of compromise / settlement between the parties were passed by this Court which were once again challenged by the respondent – plaintiff in SLP(Civil) Nos.11546-547/2023. By order dated 22.01.2024, the Apex Court set aside the aforesaid interim orders passed by this Co
