RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT Vs. UTTARADI MUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 5/8/2006 passed in Regular Appeal No.11 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hospet (for short, herein referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 16/1/2003 passed in Original Suit No.15 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Hospet (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be decreed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms their ranking before the Trial Court. FACTS OF THE CASE

(3.) The facts of the case in nutshell as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff-Sri. Uttaradi Mutt (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Plaintiff-Mutt') had filed Original Suit No.15 of 1998 before the Trial Court against the defendant-Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'defendant-Mutt'), seeking relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant-Mutt from disturbing the performance of 'Aradhana' of Sri. Narahariteertha Swamy Brindavana by the plaintiff-Mutt which is situate in the suit schedule property. It is averred in the plaint that, on the demise of the Peetadipathi of the plaintiff-Mutt body of the pontiff would be buried and thereafter structure be constructed therein and same would be called as 'Brindavana'. It is further stated in the plaint that, one of the Peetadipathis of plaintiff-Mutt Sri. Narahariteertha Swamy, whose Brindavana was built at Hampi on the riverbed of Tungabadra about 600 years ago in the suit schedule land. It is also stated that, 'Aradhana' would be celebrated for three days in a year and devotees would attend the 'Aradhana' at Brindavana. It is further stated that, earlier Peetadipathi of the plaintiff-Mutt has made an application, seeking grant of the schedule land and after enquiry, the Tahsildar, Hospet had granted the schedule land to the plaintiff-Mutt on 11/4/1971. The said grant of land was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner, Hospet and the appeal was pending before the said authority at time of institution of suit. It is the case of the plaintiff-Mutt that the plaintiff-Mutt is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land and performing pooja of said Brindavana for more than 600 years, however, the defendant-Mutt, without any right or interest in respect of the schedule land, interfered with the Pooja activities of the Brindavan and as such, the plaintiff-Mutt had filed Writ Petition No.7415 of 1991, challenging the interference of the Police Authorities as well as the defendant-Mutt. It is also stated that, on the earlier occasion, the plaintiff-Mutt had filed Writ Petition No.16975 of 1987 before this Court in respect of another Brindavana and this Court, directed the StateAuthorities, not to interfere with the religious functions of the plaintiff-Mutt. It is further stated that, 'Aradhana' for the year1988 is scheduled on 19th to 21st of January, 1988 and as the plaintiff-Mutt is preparing for 'Aradhana', the defendant-Mutt through its employees obstructed the sacred activities of the plaintiff-Mutt and as such, the plaintiff-Mutt had filed Original Suit No.15 of 1998 before the Trial Court, seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendant-Mutt.