IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5048 OF 2008 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SHREE BHOOTHABHUJANGA MUT REPTD. BY ITS RENUKA BHOOTHA BHUJANGA SHIVACHARYA SWAMYAYGALU, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. MAHASWAMIGALU, R/O. KOTTUR VILLAGE, TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. BELLARY.

…APPELLANT (BY SMT. PALLAVI PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

B.M. VAMADEVAIAH S/O. B.M. ESHWARAYYA, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. SECRETARY CO-OP. SOCIETY, M.B. AYYANAHALLI, R/O. RAMPUR VILLAGE, TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by YASHAVANT (BY SRI. J.K. GURUBASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.10.28 SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

11:25:47 +0530 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN RA.NO.38/2007 DATED 07-07-2008 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AT KUDLIGI AND CONFIRM JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.30/2000 DATED 28.08.2007 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) KUDLIGI AND FURTHER PRAYS TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS RSA APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated

07.07.2008 in R.A.No.38/2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Kudligi, the plaintiff in O.S.No.30/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Kudligi, is before this Court impugning the said judgment by which the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. At the time of admitting the appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether a married Mahanta can manage the Mutt or Mutt properties claiming to be so doing on the basis of a custom followed in the family, whereas no such custom was ever proved and therefore whether the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which is a suit for declaration to declare that Ex.P1-Will, is null and void and that the defendant cannot claim any right, title and interest under this Will to act either as Mahanta or as Manager of the Mutt?

(2) Whether the lower judge of the Appellate Court has understood the scope of law of Custom and whether the appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree based on the version of the defendant when nothing is proved by the defendant about the defence taken to the suit, etc., And also the following questions raised in the memorandum of appeal.

(3) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed contrary to evidence adduced by parties are sustainable in law?

(4) Whether first appellate Court is right in misconstruing the Ex.P1 and holding that Will dated 01.04.1963 is acted upon by the respondent?

(5) Whether first appellate Court is justified in overlooking the documentary evidence, i.e., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7?

(6) Whether the first appellate Court is justified in considering the documentary and oral evidence?

4. The learned counsel Smt. Pallavi Pachchapure for learned counsel Sri.Srinanda Pachchapure appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel Sri.J.K.Gurubasavaraj for learned counsel Sri.Mallikarjunaswami B Hiremath, appearing for the respondent were heard.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the plaintiff Bhuta Bhujanga Mutt, Kottur is represented by Sri.Mahanta Renuka Bhuta Bhujanga Shivacharya Swamigalu. It is the case of the plaintiff that a suit was filed for declaration that the Will executed by deceased-Swamiji of Bhuta Bhujanga Mutt dated 01.04.1963 is null and void and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant or any other person claiming under him from interfering with the management