Chandramouli Odeyar & Others vs G. Nagaiah & Others

H.P. Sandesh. J

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.09.2021, passed in M.A.No.2/2020, on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Hiriyur, Chitradurga, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 11.02.2019, passed in O.S.No.68/2015, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur, ordering return of the plaint of the plaintiffs to present the same before the competent Court of law.

The factual matrix of the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration in the plaint is that plaintiff No.2 is the Mahantha and administrative of schedule of Revanasiddeshwara Matha. The defendant Nos.1 to 8 are only having right of worship over the schedule property in the absence of the plaintiffs and these defendants are not having any type of right and administrative power over the Revanasiddeshwara Matha. The plaintiffs claim a relief of declaration that Trust formed on 20.07.2012 under the name and style of Srimad Jagadguru Revanasiddeshwara Seva Trust, Harthikote by defendant Nos.10 to 25 in respect of Revanasiddeshwara Matha is illegal. The plaintiffs further prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants not to interfere with administrative work and worship of god, religious functions of the Revanasiddeshwara Matha.

It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the religious head of Kuruba caste is called as Wodeyar. The plaintiffs and their ancestors are religious head of the Kuruba caste. The Dodderi Gutu Matha situated at Challekere Taluk was having Sub-mathas at Harthikote, Bilichodu, Rangavvanahalli and Sollapur. The ancestors of the plaintiffs are brought by previous Wodeyar of Revanasiddeshwara Matha, Dodderi Village, Challekere Taluk to Harthikote Village to perform all the religious functions and auspicious, propitious functions of Kuruba caste. The plaintiffs and their ancestors came to the Harthikote village about 5-6 heads before. Thereafter, the ancestors of the plaintiffs with the help of Dodderi Matha formed Revanasiddeshwara Matha at Harthikore Village. Accordingly, the ancestors of the plaintiffs are declared as Mahanth and administrative of the said Matha and installed idol of Revanasiddeshwara Swami to the said Matha. The ancestors of the plaintiffs brought the ancestors of defendant Nos.1 to 9 i.e., by name Siddalingaiah from Chikkanayakanahalli Village, Tumakuru District to Revanasiddeshwara Matha, Harthikote Village, Hiriyur Taluk and appointed him as a priest to the Revanasiddeshwara Matha to perform worship of Revanasiddeshwara Swami and to perform all the religious functions, worship of god and auspicious, propitious functions of Kuruba caste people on behalf of ancestors of the plaintiffs, in the absence of the ancestors of the plaintiffs, when they are out of station or Matha in pursuance of to attend all the religious functions, worship of god and auspicious, propitious functions of Kuruba caste people. The defendant Nos.1 to 9 belong to Wodeyar dynasty and therefore defendant Nos.1 to 9 are not having any type of right to claim as Mahantha to Kuruba caste people as per religious right or any other way. The defendant Nos.10 to 25 are not having any type of religious, moral, rights, possession and interest to form any Trust in concern to Revanasiddeshwara Matha. The said Trust is registered behind the back of the plaintiffs on 20.07.2012. Hence, sought for the relief of declaration to declare that the said Trust is illegal.

The defendants appeared and filed their written statement contending that originally defendant Nos.1 to 9 and 16 are Mahantha and administrative of the Harthi Matha. The defendants admit that the religious head or Mahantha of Kuruba caste people is called as Wodeyar. These defendants denied that the ancestors of the plaintiffs belong to Wodeyar family. The plaintiffs are no way concerned to the Revanashiddeshwara Matha of Harthikote. The defendants contend that the Trust is formed on 20.07.2012 by defendant Nos.10 to 25 as per the wish and in the presence of Mahantha of Harthimath. The allegation that defendant Nos.10 to 25 are not related to the Harthikote Revanasiddeshwara Matha is denied. It is contended that the ancestors of the defendants constructed a Beeradevara Temple and their Kuladevala Temple in the said area and the same was constructed before the Mahantha of Revanasiddeshwara Matha, Horatti, Gadag, District. Therefore, for the remembrance of said Mahantha, the said Temple is named as Harti Matha. It is contended by the defendants that the ancestors of father of plaintiff, V. Rudramuni Wodeyar are comedy actors and they used to perform in school and colleges of Chitradurga, Tumakuru and Davanagere. The ancestors of the plaintiff married the daughter of Harthikote and started to reside in the said village. The ancestors of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs never performed any worship of Revanasiddeshwara Swami and religious functions of Harthi Matha. Therefore, the devotees falling under the jurisdiction of Harthi Matha never treated the plaintiffs as a guru or Mahantha of Kuruba community.

The Court having examined the material on record comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff in his pleadings never reveals that how he has become the Peethadhipathi or Mahantha or administrative to the said Math. Under such circumstances, the suit of the plaintiffs falls under Section 92 of the CPC. The defendants also contended the same in their written statement and claim that they are Peethadhipathi (Guru) or Mahantha or administrative to the said Math. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that there is a Trust and the same is formed by defendant Nos.10 to 25 in respect of the said Math. In view of the said pleadings, the said Math is a public property and public Trust. Hence, the suit is hit by Section 92 of CPC. Both the counsel admitted that there is a registered Trust in the said suit schedule Matha. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings and relief sought, comes to the conclusion that the Court is not having jurisdiction to decide the Trust matter as per Section 92 of CPC and the same has to be instituted before the Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Hence, ordered to return the plaint of the plaintiffs to present the same before the competent Court of law.

The same is challenged before the Appellate Court by filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(A) read with Section 104 of CPC. It is the contention of the plaintiffs before the First Appellate Court that they are the ancestors of the Math and they are performing the religious functions. The defendant Nos.1 to 9 are also performing religious functions at Harthi Math. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs are not the heads of Peetadhyaksha of any of the Revanasiddeshwara Math situated at Karnataka. From the pleadings, it appears that the suit schedule Math is being run from the income derived by religious functions held at the Math and from the functions conducted by the Math. It means that the Math is not a private institution or it does not belong to any of the family. It is established for Kuruba community people to perform religious functions. In such circumstances, the suit has to be tried and entertained by the Principal Civil Court i.e., the Hon’ble District Court. Hence, the Court comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit and rightly returned the plaint to present the same before the appropriate forum and hence the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court is that the very order passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is erroneous in invoking Section 92 of CPC and further failed to exercise the discretion on fair and reasonable principles. It is contended that it is the duty of the Court to see that there is a prima facie case either of breach of trust or of necessity of obtaining direction from Court on basis of allegation of suit. If allegation of breach of trust is not substantiated and very foundation of suit is based on private rights, leave ought not to be granted under Section 92 of CPC. Both the Courts failed to consider the same and when the parties are agitating with regard to their private rights, the same cannot be decided in a proceedings under Section 92 of CPC. The plaintiffs have sought for declaratory relief that the Trust deed dated 20.07.2012, under the name and style of Srimad Jagadguru Revanasiddeshwara Seva Trust, Harthikote, by defendant Nos.10 to 25, in respect of Revanasiddeshwara Mutt is null and void. The plaintiffs are seeking relief that plaintiff No.2 is Mahantha and defendant Nos.1 to 9 are only having right to worship over the schedule property in the absence of the plaintiffs and these defendants are not having any type of right and administrative power over Revanasiddeshwar Math. When such being the case, the question of invoking Section 92 of CPC does not arise.

The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SWAMI PARAMATMANAND SARASWATI AND ANOTHER V. RAMJI TRIPATHI AND ANOTHER reported in (1974) 2 SCC 695, when it is held that the suit for vindication of private right under Section 92 of CPC is not maintainable. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.5, 8 and 9 of the judgment wherein also discussed with regard to Section 92 of CPC. In paragraph No.10 it is held that a suit under Section 92 is a suit of a special nature which presupposes the existence of a public Trust of a religious or charitable character. Such a suit can proceed only on the allegation that there was a breach of such trust or that the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of the trust and the plaintiff must pray for one or more of the reliefs that are mentioned in the section. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that in the suit which the plaintiffs have filed, the relief sought not attracts Section 92 of CPC.

The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.11 of the judgment, wherein an observation is made that where two or more persons interested in a Trust bring a suit purporting to be under Section 92, the question whether the suit is to vindicate the personal or individual right of a third person or to assert the right of the public must be decided after taking into account the dominant purpose of the suit in the light of the allegations in the plaint. Hence, the learned counsel would contend that the said judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand.

The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of this Court passed in C.R.P.No.100042/2014 decided on 26.02.2018 and contend that in paragraph No.10 an observation is made that here is a case relating to a public trust and in which the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs’ side are contemplated by the provisions of clauses (a) to (h) of sub-Section (1) of Section 92 of CPC as interpreted by the Apex Court and this Court too. The suit of the nature now brought about by the plaintiffs falls within the four corners of sub-section (1) of Section 92 of CPC and set aside the order and dismissed the suit as being not maintainable, however, liberty was given. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that this Court in the order also discussed with regard to invoking of Section 92 of CPC and hence it requires interference.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that both the Courts have analyzed the material on record and also taken note of the facts and also taken note of the relief sought in the suit. Admittedly, the Math is established for the welfare of Kuruba community and public interest is involved. The learned counsel would contend that the relief is sought to declare the trust deed as null and void and hence it is clear that there is a dispute with regard to the Trust also and admittedly the Trust is also a registered document and the same is placed before the Court and there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Trust was registered on 27.07.2012 and the defendants claim right in terms of the trust deed also. There is a dispute with regard to the Trust which has been formed and sought for the relief to declare the same as null and void. Both the Courts have applied their mind and ordered to return the plaint to place the same before the competent Court of law and hence the order does not require any interference of this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and also considering the pleadings available on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court committed an error in ordering for return of the plaint to present the same before the competent Court?

(ii) What order?

POINT NO.(I):

Having perused the pleadings of the plaintiffs in the suit, the relief sought in the plaint is to declare that plaintiff No.2 is the Mathadhipathi. It is their contention that they are the ancestors of the plaintiffs and they have established the same. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that in the absence of the plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1 to 9 are permitted to perform pooja and they are not having any other right. On the other hand, the defendants claim that they are the original ancestors of the Math and they belong to Wodeyar family and they only constructed the Matha. The defendants contend that defendant Nos.10 to 25 have registered the Trust in the year 2012 and dispute is with regard to the Trust and relief is also sought for declaring the Trust as null and void.

Having perused the pleadings, it is clear that the very Math is established for the welfare of Kuruba community. The plaintiff No.2 claims that he is the Mathadhipathi. No doubt, having considered the pleadings, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Swami Paramatmanand Saraswati (supra), provide individual rights if it is indicative of private right, suit is not maintainable under Section 92 of CPC. The Court has to take note of the nature of dispute between the parties and I have already pointed out that in the plaint, the pleadings is with regard to the Math is established for Kuruba community. It is contended that the same belongs to a particular family and the same is also taken note of by the Trial Court having perused the plaint and the written statement. In paragraph No.12 of the judgment, the Trial Court discussed the same and comes to the conclusion that the relief sought by the plaintiffs is not only claiming archak right or worship right over the schedule Matha, but also right of Peethadhipathi and administrative rights, ownership right over the schedule Matha. There is already a Trust in respect of the said Math and hence comes to the conclusion that the Court is not having jurisdiction and the same cannot be decided with regard to the trust matter as per Section 92 of CPC. The plaintiffs are not disputing the existence of Trust, which was registered in 2012 and the relief is sought to declare the Trust as null and void.

The Appellate Court while concurring with the order of the Trial Court, in paragraph No.26 taken note of the fact that Matha is established for Kuruba community people to perform religious functions and in such circumstances, the suit has to be tried and entertained by the Principal Civil Judge i.e., District Court and hence comes to the conclusion that the Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. In view of the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra i.e., in respect of vindicative of the private rights and under such circumstances, Section 92 of CPC cannot be invoked. In the case on hand, the pleadings is very clear that both the plaintiffs’ fraction and the defendants’ fraction are claiming right to perform pooja of the Matha. The plaintiffs also admit that defendant Nos.1 to 9 also perform pooja in the absence of the plaintiffs and issue is also with regard to conducting of the religious functions at Harthimath and public involvement is also there i.e., particularly the entire Kuruba community involves in performing religious functions and when the Trust is registered and averments are clear that the same is a public trust and the same is for the welfare of particular community at large, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in passing the order that the suit is not maintainable and have to invoke Section 92 of CPC. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to reverse the finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Both the Courts have applied their mind and considered the pleadings on record and also the issue involved between the parties and dispute is with regard to the registered Trust and relief sought is also to declare the said Trust as null and void. Hence, I answer point No.(i) in the negative.

POINT NO.(II):

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.