HARSHAVARDHAN HEGDE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are aggrieved by an order dtd. 28/3/2023 passed by respondent No.2, by which he appointed Dr.Sunil Hegde as a fit person under Sec. 25-A (3) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 to administer the respondent No.4-temple.

(2.) The appellants contend that the respondent No.4 is an ancient temple and is declared as an excepted temple under the provisions of Sec. 9(5) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927. This temple was managed by the hereditary trustees of two families namely the Alva Hegde and Kurla Hegde families. The appellants contend that both the families had contributed large extent of land for the benefit of the respondent No.4- temple and that the said fact was recorded in the Tasdik Register issued by the Revenue Department dtd. 22/11/1875 and also in the Title Deed issued by the Government of Madras dtd. 6/3/1930. They contended that Alva Hegde had four sub-branches namely 1)Paddambeedu Padupalu, 2)Paddambeedu Moodupalu, 3)Paddambeedu Kallubettu, 4)Paddambeedu Kapiyadi. Likewise, the Kurla Hegde family had three branches known as 1)Vonthibettu, 2)Anjarubeedu and 3)Mumbettu. Amongst the Alva Hegde family, they had evolved a custom whereby the eldest male member would be unanimously selected by all the members of the four branches as the hereditary trustee of the respondent No.4. Likewise, the members of the Kurla Hegde family would unanimously select a member of their family as a hereditary trustee of the respondent No.4. The appellants claim that for more than three generations, this custom was followed consistently.

(3.) The appellant in MFA No.2685/2023 claimed that he was discharging the duties of a hereditary trustee of the respondent No.4. The appellant contends that in the year 1970-71, a dispute arose between the Kurla Hegde family and the Alva Hegde family regarding the management of respondent No.4-temple. Accordingly, Mr. T.Vittal Hegde from the Alva Hedge family and Mr. A.Devadas Alva and Mr. M. Balakrishna Hegde from Kurla Hegde family had applied for the hereditary trusteeship before the Deputy Commissioner, Mangaluru. The Deputy Commissioner in terms of the order dtd. 16/2/1971, appointed Mr.Balakrishna Hegde as a fit person to discharge the functions as a trustee of the respondent No.4, until the issue regarding hereditary trusteeship was resolved. In the meanwhile, Mr. T.Vittal Hegde from the Alva Hegde family filed an application under Sec. 57(b) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, requesting the Deputy Commissioner HR&CE, D.K. Mangalore to declare him as a hereditary trustee and the managing trustee of the respondent No.4. This application was allowed and Mr. T.Vittal Hegde was declared as a hereditary trustee in terms of the order dtd. 2/7/1990. This was challenged by Mr.Balakrishna Hedge of the Kurla Hegde family in an appeal before respondent No.3, who dismissed it in terms of an order dtd. 14/2/1991. Dissatisfied with that order, Mr.Balakrishna Hegde filed a Revision Petition No.33/1991 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal in terms of the order dtd. 2/8/1995. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, Mr. T.Vittal Hegde from the Alva Hegde family filed W.P.No.41041/1995 and this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and restored the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner HR&CE dtd. 14/2/1991.