STATE OF MYSORE Vs. CHARODI ABHYUDAYA SANGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Regular First Appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Mangalore, South Kanara, in OS.No.29/66, by the original defendants 1 and 2, the State of Mysore and the Area Committee, respectively. Respondent No.1 brought the suit for a declaration that Shree Hosa Somanatha Temple situate in RS.No.446 and TS.192/1-2 of Attavar village, Mangalore City, is a religious denominational temple belonging exclusively to Charodi Community of Mangalore taluka and that all the rights of administration and its affairs belong to this denomination represented by the plaintiff and that defendants 1 and 2 have no manner of right to appoint trustees and enforce the provisions of Ss.31, 39, 41, 42, 44 and 76(5) of the Madras Act No.19 of 1951 and for possession of 'A' schedule properties from the defendants. The suit was brought invoking the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC . on behalf of the members of the charcdi community. The plaintiff's case is that 'Shree Hosa Somanatha' temple in Attavar village, Mangalore City, is a temple belonging exclusively to the charodi community of Mangalore Taluka, The plaintiff's case is that as this temple belongs to a religious denomination, viz., charodi community, and the defendants 1 and 2. the State of Mysore and the Area Committee constituted under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, have no right to enforce the provisions of Ss.31, 39, 41, 42, 44 and 76(5) of the said Act. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.3. who is also a member of the charodi community, is in possession of the suit schedule properties. It is averred that defendant No.3 has mis-managed the affairs of the temple. Defendant No.3 did not file any written statement resisting the suit. Defendants 1 and 2, however, filed a written statement contesting the suit. The principal contention of defendants 1 and 2 is that temple is not a denominational temple belonging exclusively to the members of the charodi community, but that it belongs to the members of the Hindu community at large. They, therefore, contended that they are entitled to enforce the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, and in particular, the provisions of Ss.31. 39, 41, 42, 44 and 76(5) of the said Act.

(2.) The learned Civil Judge after considering the evidence on record made a decree in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. He held that the temple in question is a denominational temple of the charodi community.

(3.) It is the decree passed bv the learned Civil Judge that is challenged by defendants 1 and 2 in this regular first appeal under S.96 CPC.