- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 06 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR WRIT PETITION No. 107525/2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN 1. MURALIDHARACHAR S/O. RAMACHAR POOJAR AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST OF SRI KALIKADEVI TEMPLE, SIRSANGI, TQ: SAUNDATTI DIST: BELGAUM. 2. PRAKASHACHAR S/O. RAMACHAR POOJAR AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST OF SRI KALIKADEVI TEMPLE, SIRSANGI, TQ: SAUNDATTI DIST: BELGAUM. 3. SRIKANTACHAR S/O. KALACHAR POOJAR AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST OF SRI KALIKADEVI TEMPLE, SIRSANGI, TQ: SAUNDATTI DIST: BELGAUM. 4. DAYANANDACHAR S/O. PURVACHAR POOJAR AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST OF SRI KALIKADEVI TEMPLE, SIRSANGI, TQ: SAUNDATTI DIST: BELGAUM. - 2 - 5. KALACHAR S/O. PURVACHAR POOJAR AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST OF SRI KALIKADEVI TEMPLE, SIRSANGI, TQ: SAUNDATTI DIST: BELGAUM. 6. MOUNESHACHAR S/O. BALACHAR POOJAR AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST OF SRI KALIKADEVI TEMPLE, SIRSANGI, TQ: SAUNDATTI DIST: BELGAUM. 7. NEERANJANACHAR S/O. SUBBACHAR PUJAR AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST OF SRI KALIKADEVI TEMPLE, SIRSANGI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM 8. SANTOSHACHAR S/O. SUBBACHAR POOJAR AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST OF SRI KALIKADEVI TEMPLE, SIRSANGI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM 9. INDRACHAR S/O. KRISHNACHAR GANGANAINAVAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST OF SRI KALIKADEVI TEMPLE, SIRSANGI, TQ: SAUNDATTI DIST: BELGAUM, R/O. NOW R/AT: ISHWARI NAGAR SHIVASOMESHWAR/NEKAR NAGAR OLD HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD 10. PRABHAKARACHAR S/O. KALACHAR SHAHAPURKAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST OF SRI KALIKADEVI TEMPLE, - 3 - SIRSANGI, TQ: SAUNDATTI DIST: BELGAUM. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANAND.R.KOLLI, ADV.) AND 1. SHIRASAPPACHARYA KALACHARYA KEMPAYYANAVAR AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: POOJARI AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRASANGI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM 2. MONAPPACHARYA KALACHARYA KEMPAYYANAVAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. SHIRASANGI, TQ: SAUNDATTI DIST: BELGAUM. 3. BHIMACHARYA KALACHARYA KEMPAYYANAVAR AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: POOJARI & AGRICULTURE R/O. SHIRASANGI, TQ: SAUNDATTI DIST: BELGAUM. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIKANT T PATIL, ADV. FOR R1-3.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15/09/2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM IN MISCELLANEOUS PETITION 161/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ETC. - 4 - THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R The order dated 15.9.2012 passed by the Prl. District Judge, Belgaum in Misc. Petition No.161/2012 is called in question in this writ petition. 2. The records reveal that the petition came to be filed by the respondents herein under Sections 3 and 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 for declaration that they are the hereditary Archaks of Shri Kalika Devi temple of Shirasangi taluk, Saundatti taluk, Belgaum district, which is a registered trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act. No one was made as respondent in the Misc. Petition. However it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned advocate for the respondents that the Court below directed to publish in the daily newspaper about the filing of the Misc. Petition No.161/2012 under - 5 - Sections 3 and 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 and accordingly, notices were published. Despite the same, nobody opposed the petition. Be that as it may, the fact remains that nobody was impleaded and nobody also came forward to oppose the petition after the paper publication. The District Court allowed the Misc. Petition No.161/2012 by the impugned order and consequently declared that the respondents herein are the hereditary trustees/ pujaris of Shri Kalika Devi temple of Shirasangi, Saundatti taluk, Belgaum district by virtue of mode of succession as mentioned in the PTR maintained under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act. 3. It is relevant to note that at an earlier instance, the father of the respondents herein viz., Kalacharya s/o Shirasappacharya Kempayyanavar claiming to be the sole hereditary trustee had filed O.S. No.23/1967 before the Munsiff Court, Saundatti - 6 - seeking declaration that he is the hereditary trustee. The said suit came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 24.3.1969. The father of the respondents herein viz., Kalacharya filed R.A. No.184/1969 questioning the Judgment and Order of the trial Court. The said appeal was allowed on 28.2.1975 by the I Addl. Civil Court, Belgaum. As against the Judgment and Order of the first appellate Court, the defendants filed R.S.A. No.415/1975 before this Court. The said appeal was allowed and the order of the first appellate Court was set aside and the matter was remitted to the I Addl. Civil Court, Belgaum to re-hear R.A. No.184/1969. Thereafter the said appeal was not pursued by the father of the respondents viz., Kalacharya and consequently the appeal came to be dismissed. Thus in effect, the decree of dismissal passed in O.S. No.23/1967 against the father of the respondents viz., Kalacharya remains and the same is staring at him. - 7 - 4. It is also relevant to note that in O.S. No.23/1967 and other subsequent proceedings, Ramappa Virupakshappa Pujar, Krishtacharya Kalacharya Ganganainavar, Kalachrya Ramacharya Shahapur and Ishwarappa Tejappa Muki were the defendants. The petitioners are stated to be legal representatives of four defendants who have opposed the suit filed by father of the respondents viz., Kalacharya. Be that as it may, none of the legal representatives of four defendants, who had opposed the earlier suit O.S. No.23/1967 filed by father of the respondents viz., Kalacharya are made parties to the present Misc. Petition No.161/2012. The rules of fairness require that the petitioners should have been heard in the matter before passing the order. It seems the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. - 8 - No.23/1967 is suppressed before the District Court in Misc. Petition No.161/2012. In view of the above, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same stands quashed. It is open for the respondents to file one more Misc. Petition if they so choose impleading the petitioners herein or the legal representatives of four defendants, who had opposed O.S. No.23/1967 filed by father of the respondents viz., Kalacharya. Writ Petition is allowed with the above observations. SD/- JUDGE Gss/-.