The petitioners, plaintiffs in O.S.No.36/2023 on the

file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi are before this

Court, aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.08.2023 in

M.A.No.13/2023 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil

Judge and ACJM, Udupi allowing the appeal and setting

aside the order appointing Receiver under Order XL Rule

1 of CPC on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.36/2023.

2.

Heard learned counsel Sri.Pavan Chandra

Shetty for petitioners and learned counsel Sri.Ajith

5

Anand Shetty for Caveators/respondents. Perused the

writ petition papers.

3.

Though the petition is at the stage of

preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel

for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final

disposal.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the petitioners filed representative suit in

O.S.No.36/2023 with a prayer for judgment and decree

to declare that defendant Nos.1 to 3 or any of their

associated have no authority and right to take over the

management

of

the

Shree

Maisandaya,

Shree

JarandayaBunta, Shree Dumavathi and ParivaraDaivas,

Paduhithlu, Padubidri either in the name of non-existing

Sri.Jarandaya Seva Samithi or otherwise and for

permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants

No.1 to 3 and also for declaration that an extent of 25

6

cents of land in Sy.No.148/2A of Nadsalu village

Padubidri has been dedicated to Shree Maisandaya,

Shree

JarandayaBunta,

Shree

Dumavathi

and

ParivaraDaivas,

Paduhithlu,

Padubidri

and

for

consequential reliefs.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that in the suit, I.A.No.8/2023 was filed under

Order XL Rule 1 of CPC praying to appoint any Senior

Advocate of Udupi Bar as a Receiver for managing the

affairs of Shree Maisandaya, Shree JarandayaBunta,

Shree

Dumavathi

and

ParivaraDaivas,

Paduhithlu,

Padubidri,

Kaup

Taluk,

Udupi

District,

pending

determination of the suit. Learned counsel for the

petitioners

would

submit

that

the

defendants/respondents

herein

who

claim

to

be

members of Committee namely Shree JarandayaBunta

Seva Samithi have no competence to deal with the

management

or

any

monetary

issues

of

the

7

Daivasthana. Further, he submits that respondents/

defendants

have

no

competence

to

conduct

Nemothsava. It is submitted that ornaments of Daivas

are still in the possession of defendants No.1 and 2 and

they are holding the same and blackmailing the plaintiffs

and public at large. The defendants are also preventing

the plaintiffs and other devotees from participating in

the religious ceremonies of the Daivas and even entering

Daivasthana. To protect the rights of the plaintiffs and

also devotees and also assets of Daivasthana, the

appointment of Receiver would be necessary, till the

questions involved in the suit are determined. The

defendants with an intention to misappropriate the

ornaments worth Crores of rupees, illegally broke open

the lock and

the defendants have misused

the

ornaments. It is also alleged that the defendants have

collected lakhs of rupees from devotees. Learned

counsel referring to Order XL Rule 1 of CPC would

8

submit that where it appears to the Court to be just and

convenient, the Court could order appointment of

Receiver and confer upon the Receiver all such powers

as to bringing and defending suits and for realization,

management, protection, preservation and improvement

of the property, collection of rents and profits thereon,

etc. Learned counsel would submit that to prevent the

damage and loss to the Daivasthana, the petitioners/

plaintiffs sought for appointment of Receiver which was

rightly appreciated by the trial Court and allowed

I.A.No.8 appointing Receiver. Learned counsel would

submit that if the Receiver is not appointed, devotees

will be put to great injury and so also the plaintiffs.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the Appellate Court without properly

appreciating

the

circumstances

under

which,

the

appointment of Receiver is sought, set aside the order of

the trial Court appointing R