B. KEERTHIVARMA SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is seeking review of the order dated 04.02.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.No.26788/2005 and declare that the said order does not bind the petitioner. The petitioner is also seeking that the order dated 08.10.2010 passed in Misc. Case Nos.37, 54, 70/2008, 08/2009 and 02/2010 on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Da.Ka., Mangalore and the Mokthesari Sannad dated 24.01.2012 issued by the eighth respondent be quashed.

(2.) The concise facts leading to the present situation is that the Jain Basadis situate in Dakshina Kannada District is administered by a Committee of Management, known as the Jaina Mathasthapana Committee ( Committee for short) which is headed by the Mokthesar . The relevant Act that is applicable and the procedure to be followed for appointment of members to the Committee is the contentious issue. This Court had the occasion to examine this aspect in W.P.No.26788/2005 when the second respondent herein having impleaded himself as the petitioner after the death of the original petitioner was before this Court. The petitioner herein was the first respondent to that petition, but he did not choose to appear. This Court on examining the relevant provision has held that the repeal as made by The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 ( Act No. II of 1927 for short) will apply only in so far as Hindu Religious Endowments. Hence it was held that Religious Endowments Act, 1863 ( Act, 1863 for short) is applicable to Jains of Dakshina Kannada. Under Sec. 10 of Act, 1863, if the vacancy occurring in the Committee is not filled by election, the Civil Court is vested with the power to fill up the vacancy from among the persons making the application.

(3.) The said W.P.No.26788/2005 had arisen before this Court in the circumstance that learned District Judge while considering Misc. Case No.88/2000 filed by the petitioner herein and two other applicants who had filed the applications under Sec.10 of Act, 1863 had held the same to be not maintainable. Though the applicants therein had not assailed, the respondent in that proceedings had assailed the order. As noticed, this Court had declared the legal position holding such applications to be maintainable under Sec.10 of Act, 1863. However, since the applicants before the Court below had not assailed the order, no further direction was necessary nor was it made.