VEERBASAVARADHYA Vs. DEVOTEES OF LINGADAGUDI MUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeals arise out of the decree passed in Original Suit No. 463 of 1964 on the file of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City. It was instituted originally on 12-4-1962 in Original Suit No. 22 of 1962 on the file of the District Judge, Bangalore, by ten plaintiffs in a representative capacity with the leave of the court under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the reorganisation of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in 1964, it was transferred to the file of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City.

(2.) The suit relates to a property bearing municipal Nos. 9, 9/A and 10 situated in Jumma Musjid Road, Bangalore City. The suit was instituted for a declaration that the suit property belongs to a public trust called "Lingadagudi Mutt" and that the defendants have no manner of rights or interest in it; that the alienations effected by defendant-1 in favour of the other defendants were null and void; for possession of the same after removing all or any of the structures put up thereon by any of the defendants, and for other consequential reliefs. The plaintiffs belong to the community of Lingayats. Their case as disclosed in the plaint was that the suit property which was situated in Ramannapete, Jumma Musjid Road (also known as Rama Shettypete) had been dedicated and endowed for the purpose of carrying on the worship of the deity Sri Veerabadraswamy installed in one portion of the suit property; that in the said building idols of Iswara and Basava had also been installed; for over 70 years the devotees of the mutt more particularly the residents of the locality had been treating the suit property as a holy temple and were offering prayer and worship; that one Nanjappa Sastry the father of defendant-1 had been appointed and engaged to look after the deities installed in the suit property, to offer worship and prayer and to attend to the devotees who came to worship the deities; that in order to enable the said Nanjappa Sastry to do the said work satisfactorily, he was permitted to reside in a portion of the suit property; from out of the offerings received, the said Nanjappa Sastry was required to pay the assessment and other taxes payable to the municipality on the said building and the balance was allowed to be utilised by him for his maintenance; that Nanjappa Sastry died in 1924 leaving behind him his son B. N. Rudraradhya, defendant-1, who continued to perform the duties of a poojary under the same terms and conditions; that neither Nanjappa Sastry nor defendant-1 had any right or title to the suit property, but still sometime prior to the date of the suit two portions of the suit property had been alienated by defendant-1 and that defendants 2 and 4 were in possession of the said two portions. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the said alienations were not binding on the trust and the defendants who were in unauthorised possession of the said portions, were liable to surrender possession of the same in favour of the trust. Defendant-5 is the son of defendant-1. He was impleaded on 10-9-1964 since he appears to have asserted hostile title to the suit property. Defendant-1 in his written statement denied that the suit property belonged to a public trust as claimed by the plaintiffs. He claimed that he and his ancestors, namely, his father Nanjappa Sastry and before him his grand-father Basappa Devaru, were is possession of the suit property in their own right and that the temple situated in the suit property was his joint family property. He claimed absolute right over the suit property and urged that he had right to alienate the Same. Defendant-2 is one Y.H. Venkataramanappa. He contended in his written statement that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiffs had not obtained the consent of the Advocate General to file the suit, so required by Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that defendant-1 was the absolute owner of the same. In so far an one portion of the suit property which was in his possession as one of the trustees of a trust known as "Yajman Hanumanthappa Venkatalakshamma Trust" constituted under a deed of trust dated 24-9-1954, he pleaded as follows:-

(3.) The claim of defendants 3 and 4 relates to the suit property which has been assigned municipal No. 9. While reiterating the pleas raised by defendant-2, defendants 3 and 4 stated that by a deed of sale dated 4-11-1948 defendant-1 sold the said portion of the suit property with the concurrence of his son Veerabasavaradhya to G.V. Ramachar defendant-3, and that defendant-3 in his turn sold the same to one C. Yellappa Shetty under a sale deed dated 6-11-1946. After the death of the said Yellappa Shetty, his sons and legal heirs sold the said portion of the suit property to defendant-4 under a sale deed dated 19-11-1960. Defendant-4 further staled that after the sale in favour of defendant-3, a notice dated 12-2-1944 was issued to defendant-3 through an advocate by one Yejman G. Gurubasappa acting as the Yajman of the community questioning the validity of the alienation in favour of defendant-3 and that notice was replied by defendant-3 on 29-3-1944 denying the claim put forward on behalf of the community. He, therefore, claimed that whatever right, title and interest the community had in the suit property was extinguished by virtue of Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908.