CHANDRA PRABHA Vs. VIJAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioners have challenged the legality and correctness of the orders passed by respondent nos. 13 to 16. They are the assistant commissioner, revenue sub-division, chikmagalur, the special deputy commissioner, hassan, the commissioner for religious and charitable endowments in karnataka, Bangalore and Karnataka appellate tribunal, Bangalore, respectively.

(2.) by order dated 4th october, 1989, the Karnataka appellate tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') dismissed the revision petition No. 127 of 1986 as well as 61 of 1986, thereby affirming the orders passed by the assistant commissioner, revenue sub-division, chikmagalur, the special deputy commissioner, hassan and the commissioner for religious and charitable endowments in karnataka, Bangalore.

(3.) the brief facts which lead to the litigation may be stated and they are asfollows: petitioners are the sons of one Sri G.S. Nemichandraiah. One Sri Vijaya, filed a suit in o.s. No. 1102/54 claiming to be the owner of the temple and seeking permanent injunction against one sukandramma, secretary of jain community and swamiji of shravanabelagola. The temple in question was none other than sahasra koota jainalaya situated at arasikere town and said to have been built as far back as in the year 1220 a.d. the said suit came to be dismissed. The appeal was filed before the civil judge, hassan. The learned civil judge dismissed the appeal confirming the finding of the munsiff, hassan. The regular second appeal filed in the High Court of karnataka, Bangalore, also came to be dismissed. The high court while disposing of the regular second appeal had come to the conclusion that it was not the private properly of the plaintiff but a religious public institution. The judgment of this court was not challenged by any further appeal by vijaya or persons claiming under him who arc none other than the present petitioners in this writ petition. It appears that the said temple was in the management of a committee as noticed by the assistant commissioner, revenue sub-division, chikmagalur, in his order dated 12th may, 1975. That committee consisted of the residents belonging to the jain community at arasikere. One bharamanna was performing the pooja and after his death, pooja was being done by several others in accordance with the arrangement made by the temple committee. One puttaiah, who was the sanitary inspector and the tahsildar jinadatharaya look the initiative for improvement of the temple and raised funds for construction of a compound or wall around the temple and also constructed some shops on the temple land to earn income for the temple. The said bharamanna was performing pooja in the temple and after his death many others were entrusted by the committee to perform pooja. In the meanwhile one sukandaramma, daughter-in-law of bharamanna was appointed as a care-taker of the temple by the managing committee of the temple and was allowed to reside in a shed by the side of the temple. In the records, it is revealed that she herself acquired the right of performance of pooja, management of the temple, structures and lands belonging to the temple. During may, 1950 sukandaramma executed a registered settlement deed in favour of Sri Vijaya, the brother of the petitioners; by that she conveyed the right of management of temple and all the properties belonging to the temple. Apparently that was the source of title, on the basis of which the original suit came to be filed by the brother vijaya, since deceased.