1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

WRIT PETITION NO.11330 OF 2020(GM-R/C)

BETWEEN:

SANATH KUMAR SHETTY,

S/O LATE NARAYANA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
HEREDITARY TRUSTEE OF SREE
DURGAPARAMESHWARI TEMPLE,
KODETHUR GUTHU FAMILY,
KATEEL-574 148, MANGALORE TALUK.
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
PETITIONER DOES NOT CLAIM
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI.JAYANTH DEV KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. KARNATAKA RAJYA DHARMIKA

PARISHAT (A BODY CONSTITUTED
UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE
KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIONS
INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1997)
REPRESENTED BY ITS EX OFFICIO
SECRETARY, THE COMMISSIONER,
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
4TH FLOOR, SRI MINTO ANJANEYA VARTHA BHAVANA
ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018.
 2

2. COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
4TH FLOOR, SRI MINTO ANJANEYA VARTHA BHAVANA
ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018.

3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOT.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (MUZRAI),
VIKAS SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.

4. K ANANTHA RAJA RAO,

PRIYADARSHI, KATEEL-574 148.
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

5. AJARU NAGARAJA RAYA,

AJARU HOUSE, KATEEL-574 148.
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

6. JAYARAM ALVA,
AGED MAJOR,
MANNABETTUR GRAMA,
MANGALORE TALUK-574 150.
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
DELETED V.C.O DATED 24.11.2021

7. NYAYADHIKARANA,
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER,
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
4TH FLOOR, SRI MINTO ANJANEYA VARTHA BHAVANA,
ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018.

8. SMT ROHINI SINDHURI. IAS COMMISSISONER

HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
4TH FLOOR, SRI MINTO ANJANEYA VARTHA BHAVANA
ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018.
 3

9. SREE DURGAPARAMESHWARI TEMPLE

KATEEL-574 148, MANGALORE TALUK.
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
HEREDITARY TRUSTEES.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SADANA DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R7;
SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. G PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5;
R6 DELETED V.C.O DATED24.11.2021;
V.C.O DATED 14/10/2020 NOTICE TO R8 IS D/W)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
RESOLUTION OF THE R-1 KARNATAKA RAJYA DHARMIKA
PARISHAT PASSED IN ITS 6TH MEETING HELD ON
21.01.2020 IN AGENDA ITEM NO.17 (UNDER ANNEXURE-AA
TOT HE W.P.) BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS AND
ETC.,

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioner claiming to be a hereditary trustee by

succession to the temple in question, is complaining in

writ jurisdiction against the Resolution dated 21.01.2020

vide Agenda No.17 passed by the 1st respondent-Rajya

Dharmika Parishat at Annexure-AA, whereby the said

issue has been referred for statutory adjudication. The

impugned part of the resolution reads as under:

 4

“Dzs
DzsÀåPÀëgÀ C¥ÀàuÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ EvÀgÉ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ:

«µÀAiÀĸÀÆa ¸ÀASÉå:17

zÀQët PÀ£ÀßqÀ f¯Éè, ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÀnÃ®Ä ²æà zÀÄUÁð¥ÀgÀªÉÄñÀéj

zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ C£ÀĪÀA²PÀ ªÉÆPÉÛøÀjPÉAiÀÄ GvÀÛgÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ §UÉÎ.

¤tðAiÀÄ:-:- ¸ÀzÀj zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ C£ÀĪÀA²PÀ ªÉÆPÉÛøÀjPÉAiÀÄ

GvÀÛgÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß WÉÆö¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqɸÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
CªÀ±ÀåPÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÁV gÁdå zsÁ«ÄðPÀ
¥ÀjµÀwÛ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üÃPÀgÀtPÉÌ ªÀ»¸À®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁåAiÀÄ¢üÃPÀgÀtzÀ ªÀgÀ¢ §AzÀ
£ÀAvÀgÀ gÁdå zsÁ«ÄðPÀ
Á«ÄðPÀ ¥ÀjµÀvï£À ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄAr¸À®Ä ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è
¸ÀªÁð£ÀĪÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ wêÀiÁ¤¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ(PÀæªÀÄ JrJA-
JrJA-7 ±ÁSÉ)

DzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ
gÁdå zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ¥ÀjµÀvÀÄÛ
ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄdgÁ¬Ä ¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ.”

2. After service of notice, the 1st respondent-

Parishat & the 7th respondent-Nyayadhikarana have

entered appearance through their Panel Counsel; the 2nd

respondent-Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions

and the 3rd respondent-State are represented by the

learned AGA; respondent Nos.4 & 5 are ably represented

by their private advocate; notice to 8th respondent who

happened to be the incumbent of the office of the 2nd

respondent-Commissioner, was dispensed with vide order

dated 14.10.2020. The contesting parties i.e., the

respondent Nos.4 & 5 have filed their Statement of

 5

Objections on 21.01.2022. The petition is resisted with

submissions made in support of the impugned order and

the reasons on which it has been constructed.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this

Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the

following reasons:

(a) The net effect of the impugned order is to put

the issue of claim of the petitioner to hereditary

trusteeship of the temple in question for consideration at

the hands of 7th respondent-Nyayadhikarana which is the

judicial organ of the 1st respondent-Rajya Dharmika

Parishat at the instance of the contesting respondents

herein who are only the devotees and not the rival

claimants qua the petitioner. Therefore, they had no

locus standi to seek such a reference contending that

administration of the temple in question was in a bad

shape and there was misappropriation of funds of the

temple. The claim for better administration of the temple

 6

is one thing and the claim for the hereditary trusteeship

of the temple is another. This difference which the law

recognizes having been casually ignored by the 1st

respondent-Rajya Dharmika Parishat, there is an error

apparent on the face of record, warranting invalidation of

the impugned order. The vehement contention of learned

counsel appearing for the contesting parties i.e.,

respondent Nos.4 & 5 that his clients being devotees of

the temple have a vested interest in having due

adjudication of the claim for hereditary trusteeship of the

petitioner at the hands of the Nyayadhikarana in terms of

the impugned resolution of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat,

is bit difficult to countenance. A devotee may arguably

have a vested interest in the performance of rituals as

per the Aagamas applicable to the temples in question.

However, this court is not sure whether they can have

the locus or locum in disputes of the kind.

(b) There is yet another aspect to the so called

dispute in question. The respondent-Commissioner in

 7

W.P.No.18035/2011 which is already mentioned above,

had filed the Statement of Objections wherein it was

specifically stated at para 9 as under:

“The contention of the petitioner that the

dispute of succession to hereditary trusteeship
is ot maintainable before the authorities and
the same has to be agitated before the civil
court etc., as the petitioner is not a member
of Kodetthurugutthu family, he has no locus-
standi to file objection for the succession by
the members of Kodetthurugutthe family.
Hence, the 1st respondent has rightly passed
order for succession of the 2nd respondent as
hereditary trustee of the temple as the
petitioner does not belong to
Kodetthurugutthu family.”

The above stand of the Commissioner come to the aid of

petitioner herein in the light of the observations of the

learned Single Judge in the order dated 3.5.2016 supra,

whereby the said Writ Petition was dismissed, upholding

the said contention.

(c) There is force in the contention of learned Sr.

Advocate appearing for the petitioner that in the text &

context of section 20A(1)(d) read with its sub-section

(2)(iv)(vii) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and

 8

Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, the question as to

whether the petitioner is a hereditary trustee of the

temple or not, could not have been referred to the 7th

respondent-Nyayadhikarana, when the same issue is

being debated between the parties in a civil suit in

O.S.No.65/2020 pending on the file of a civil court in

Mangalore. Such a contention is supported by a decision

of a Coordinate Bench of this court in

M.F.A.No.7470/2018 (GM-RES) between M.Sunil Hegde

vs. State and Others, disposed off on 22.2.2019. The

learned Coordinate Judge having scanned various

provisions of 1997 Act has observed at para 14 as under:

“…this court is of the considered opinion that

the jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 9
of the Code of Civil Procedure to decide
questions relating to the rights to the office of
Hereditary Trustee of a Family Temple is not
absolutely excluded under section 63 of the
Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions And
Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 even after…
Amendment Act 2011, and the Dharmika
Parishat would only resolve a dispute, which is
in the nature of an in praesenti dispute as to
who holds or held the office of the hereditary
trustee as against the larger question as to
who could succeed to the office of the
Hereditary Trustee in terms of the applicable
 9

personal law. This larger question will have to

be essentially decided by a civil court… ”

(d) The petitioner is also justified in contending

that merely because someone not connected with the

office of the hereditary trust is raising a hue & cry as to a

particular person assuming such an office, the same does

not partake the character of a dispute meriting

adjudication at the hands of the Nyayadhikarana of Rajya

Dharmika Parishat. A Coordinate Bench of this court in an

earlier round of litigation i.e., W.P.No.18835/2011

between 6th respondent-Jayaram Alva (now deleted

because of death) & one Dr.K.Ravindranath Poojna under

whom the petitioner is claiming lineage by virtue of Aliya

Santana customary law, disposed off on 6.5.2016, had

observed as under:

“It cannot be that each time a hereditary

trustee, demits office or dies while in office,
the next senior most member, who may
indisputably be the next legal heir to the
trusteeship should be driven to a civil court,
merely because a stranger or even a relative,
though not claiming under the last trustee,
asserts his claim to hereditary trusteeship…the
only remedy of the petitioner is to firstly
establish that he belongs to Kodethur Gothu
 10

family and that the hereditary trusteeship has

been illegally usurped by the second
respondent and his ancestors over the
previous century and beyond…”

(e) It is true that in the connected

W.P.No.50027/2019, the order appointing the

Administrator to the temple in question was put in

challenge and the same has been disposed off keeping

the said appointment in abeyance subject to result of this

Writ Petition, although the said disposal was done on

20.9.2022 with consensus of the parties, subject to

outcome of this Writ Petition. The proceedings that led to

order of appointment of Administrator prima facie

establish interference of the State Govt. although at the

invitation of one of the members of the Rajya Dharmika

Parishat with concurrence of a judicial member, more

particularly in the light of the then election process to the

State Legislature. In fact, another Coordinate Bench of

this Court in W.P.No.12959/2017 C/w

W.P.No.17921/2018 between the petitioner herein and

 11

inter alia one of the contesting respondents, decided on

11.02.2019 specifically observed at para 10 as under:

“If Section 29 of the Act as well as the

complaint made by the 4th respondent is read,
it is evident that the respondent No.4 has
nowhere stated that the affairs of the temple
are being mismanaged or its money has been
misappropriated. In the resultant, it is evident
that the condition precedent for appointment
of an administrator has not been fulfilled. The
impugned, therefore, cannot be sustained in
the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed and
set aside.”

That being the position, the appointment of the

Administrator could not have been ordered at all. This

aspect has some relevance in the sense that even the

said order was structured in an inarticulate premise that

the issue now referred for adjudication was to be decided

at the hands of the Nyayadhikarana, when law does not

permit it for the reason already discussed above.

(f) Lastly, law identifies a certain difference

between hereditary trustees in a temple and ordinary

trustees. The Apex Court in V.S.Thiagaraja Mudaliar vs.

Bava C Chokkappa Mudaliar, (1974) 2 SCC 58, had an

 12

occasion to consider this aspect of the matter in the light

of the provisions of Madras Hindu Religious Endowments

Act, 1926 which have some pari materia elements with

the corresponding provisions of 1997 Act; the Board

constituted under the said Act can be likened to the

Rajya Dharmika Parishat or its Nyayadhikarana,

constituted under the 1997 Act. What is observed also

comes to the aid of petitioner herein who has staked his

claim for hereditary trusteeship of the family temple in

question. The same reads as under:

“These two definitions were advisedly

introduced in the Act, because the Act wanted
to make a clear distinction between a
hereditary trustee and a non-hereditary
trustee so far as the Hindu Religious
endowments were concerned. Non-hereditary
trustees were subject to greater control by the
Board under the Act, whereas the hereditary
trustees enjoyed larger privileges and the
control over them was also much less. It was,
therefore, expected that when the Act came
into force a trustee was likely to claim that he
was a hereditary trustee and if such a dispute
was raised that dispute was to be exclusively
decided by the Board. In other words, if a
trustee, as defined in the Act, wanted to claim
that he is a hereditary trustee also as defined
in the Act, it was necessary for him to
approach the Board for a decision of the
 13

question and obtain a declaration that the

office be held was not just of an ordinary
trustee but a hereditary trustee. Such a
dispute can never arise when it is conceded on
all hands that the office is of a hereditary
trustee. In the present case the whole
question was as to who, out of a number of
members of the Bava family, was entitled to
succeed to the office of the hereditary trustee.
Gopalaswami was not claiming a higher status
than what he was holding. Either he was a
hereditary trustee or nothing. In our opinion,
the dispute raised by Gopalaswami before the
Board was one which did not fall under Sub-
clause (b) of Section 84(1) and, therefore, it
was not a dispute which could be entertained
by the Board.”

These observations lend credence to the contention of

the petitioner side that the first respondent-Rajya

Dharmika Parishat would not have passed the impugned

resolution referring the issue to its Nyayadhikarana for

adjudication at the instance of private respondents

herein, who were only the devotees and who had not

staked any counter claim for hereditary trusteeship.

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition

succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the

impugned part of the resolution i.e., Agenda No.17; a

 14

Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to

treat the petitioner herein as a hereditary trustee of the

temple in question subject to outcome of the pending suit

in O.S.No.65/2020 wherein, it is open to the respondent

Nos.4 & 5 to seek impleadment as parties or as

interveners. All contentions in that regard are kept open.

Learned Trial Judge is requested to try & dispose off

the subject suit within an outer limit of Seven months.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Snb/cbc