When a Rajya Dharmika Parishat Declares a Hereditary Trustee — Who Else Can Challenge It and Where?

Imagine this situation: the Rajya Dharmika Parishat or the Commissioner has passed an order declaring a particular party as the hereditary trustee of a temple, but a rival claimant — a third party who also asserts a right to the office — is left aggrieved. The question that commonly arises is: The Rajya Dharmika Parishat has declared our party (or a rival party) as hereditary trustee. Can a third party challenge the order of the Commissioner?

The short answer is generally yes — but the forum matters enormously. Depending on the nature of the challenge, the remedy may lie in a statutory appeal before the High Court or in a civil suit before the competent civil court. Understanding this distinction is critical, because choosing the wrong forum can result in dismissal without the dispute being decided on merits.

Two Different Kinds of Challenges, Two Different Forums

Karnataka's endowments framework — the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 — creates overlapping but distinct routes of challenge, and recent High Court decisions have clarified how they operate.

1. Statutory Appeal Under Section 63A(1) Against the Parishat's Original Order

Where the Rajya Dharmika Parishat passes an order under Section 20(A)(1)(d) of the 1997 Act appointing a party as hereditary trustee (and even archaka) following a dispute between multiple applicants, the Karnataka High Court has held that a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 is not maintainable so long as a specific statutory remedy exists. Since the Parishat acts in its original jurisdiction, the aggrieved person must prefer an appeal to the High Court on a substantial question of law under Section 63A(1) of the Act 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 29691 and 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 29623.

In such cases, courts have dismissed writ petitions with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy. So if the challenge is essentially to the Parishat's own appointment order, the first port of call is typically the Section 63A appeal — not a writ petition.

2. Civil Suit for Disputed Succession to the Hereditary Office

A different situation arises where the real dispute is about who is entitled to succeed to the office of hereditary trustee among rival claimants. Here the law is firmly settled in favour of the civil court:

• The Commissioner's powers relate to general superintendence and control of institutions and do not extend to adjudicating contested claims of succession to hereditary trusteeship 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 152.
• The jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to decide questions relating to the right to the office of hereditary trustee of a family temple is not absolutely excluded under the Act 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 152.
• The Supreme Court in V.S. Thiagaraja Mudaliar vs. Bava C. Chokkappa Mudaliar drew a clear line: a trustee claiming hereditary status may approach the Board, but a dispute as to succession among competing claimants cannot be entertained by the Board 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 1316.
• The Madras High Court in A. Krishnaswami Raju v. Krishna Raja held that the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction is confined to deciding whether a trustee holds or held office as hereditary trustee — not which of the competing claimants is entitled. That further question must be decided only by a separate suit 2026 0 Supreme(Mad) 1639.
• In AL. AR. K. VR. Chinnaveerappan vs. AL. AR. V. Kaalairaja Chettiar, the court confirmed that where rival claims to hereditary trusteeship are between private parties, the civil court has jurisdiction, and the statutory bar does not apply because the dispute concerns the right of succession to the hereditary office itself, not the administration or management of the institution 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1235.

Karnataka courts have applied the same principle: the question of who should succeed to the office of hereditary trustee could only be decided by a civil court, not by the Commissioner 2010 0 Supreme(Kar) 1047.

The In Praesenti Distinction Explained

The practical dividing line is often described as follows:

• In praesenti disputes: The Parishat can resolve a dispute as to who holds or held the office of hereditary trustee — that is, whether the person claiming the office actually occupies it 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 152.
• Succession disputes: The larger question of who is entitled to succeed to the office among rival family members or claimants lies outside the Parishat's jurisdiction and must be decided by a civil court2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 152 and 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 1316.
• The Parishat can record the name of a family member entitled to succeed only when there is no dispute regarding succession; once a dispute exists, it loses jurisdiction to adjudicate 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 152.

Supporting Principles from Related Karnataka Rulings

Several ancillary principles reinforce the third party's position:

• Where the issue of hereditary right is disputed, authorities have themselves directed parties to approach the appropriate forum, and appointments made contrary to the statutory scheme (for instance, without the approval required under Section 29 of the Act) can be stayed

  SRI M GOVERDHAN DAS HEGDE vs DR M SUNIL HEGDE

  .
• Jurisdiction under the 1997 Act must be exercised by the authority in whom the statute vests it — an administrator appointment made by an authority other than the Rajya Dharmika Parishad was quashed for want of jurisdiction 2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38256.
• Revenue authorities and statutory bodies cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title and right, title and interest in immovable property; such questions belong to the civil court 2026 0 Supreme(Kar) 387 — a principle that dovetails with the succession-dispute rule.
• Before appointing an administrator, the statutory preconditions (such as findings of mismanagement or misappropriation) must be fulfilled; otherwise the order cannot stand 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 1408.

Practical Steps for an Aggrieved Third Party

1. Identify the nature of your grievance. Are you challenging the Parishat's appointment order itself, or asserting your own rival claim of succession?
2. If challenging the Parishat's original order, prefer an appeal under Section 63A(1) to the High Court on a substantial question of law rather than filing a writ petition 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 29623.
3. If asserting a rival succession claim, file a civil suit before the competent civil court seeking a declaration that the declared trustee is not entitled to the hereditary office, framing the dispute properly as one of rival claims 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 152 and 2026 0 Supreme(Mad) 1639.
4. Gather genealogy and succession evidence — records showing the family line of trusteeship carry decisive weight in succession suits.
5. Watch for pending proceedings — an existing application under Section 20A(2)(vii) to record a name as hereditary trustee, or a pending civil suit, may shape the strategy and timing of the challenge 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 1408.

Key Takeaways

• A third party can challenge a Commissioner's or Rajya Dharmika Parishat's order declaring a hereditary trustee, but the correct forum depends on the nature of the dispute.
• Direct challenges to the Parishat's original appointment order generally require a Section 63A(1) appeal to the High Court, not a writ petition.
• Disputed questions of succession to the hereditary office fall squarely within the civil court's jurisdiction, which is not ousted by the Act.
• The Parishat's role is limited to resolving in praesenti disputes and recording successors only where succession is undisputed.
• Frame pleadings carefully: a suit alleging rival succession claims is far more likely to be entertained than one dressed up as an administrative complaint.

Because forum selection can determine the fate of the entire dispute, anyone facing this situation would generally benefit from having the pleadings and limitation positions reviewed by a qualified advocate before proceeding.