High Court Karnataka High Court

Dakshin Bharat Jain Sabhe vs Shri Brahmdev on 7 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Dakshin Bharat Jain Sabhe vs Shri Brahmdev on 7 July, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
'7

av THE HIGH com? or mmaraggf   

cmcurr BENCH AT nuaawmi ' '  3

nxmn mm THE 713 ms? at-*    V

321'-'oR"1"s:,   ' '

THE HOWBLE MR.JUsTI¢E::A%re:9HAr€  V T'

_W_,__P.No.6'2-463 n§*V'f2ao9...LtGr§i4cg__Q1f
c:/w §fI;3.A 2m_.3::rg_ 93.2003

IN war. No.62463 oF?O0 9    

BETWEEN:   f.'--

DAKSHIN BH.-SEAT;¥AI'T{SA'BHE  
SE~iREE__KS'Ei.ETf-EA C'C1MMIT"i'E_E '
ATIKSHMA, ,KSHET'RA'~.¢V"' M "   '
STAVANDI, ';*'c;*;;: 'a_H1;;GDi,~----I>Is'r: BELGAUM
REPRE-'».SE.NTE--{) BY. 1'f"S_€EHA~£RMAN

SR1 RAMGONDA RAfE"AG{)UDA PATEL

S/Q RAYAGOUDA Pfi._'§'IL"

Aczggg' 4.5 YEARS '

ojcc: ;AGRICUL1'U§%E'

 «R/G. P.Kf)i'.;_TQ: CHIKQDI
..a":5'r:v..gE;;@5i.--r_M  PETITIQNER

" . '  ( B*{"Vi\jr;;; SV.V GQULAY ASSQCIATES, A{)'VS.,}

m.:~% 

" V.  11- si}1R1 BRAHMDEV

 SHRI AD.{NATHDEV

Sf'-IR'! PARSHWANATHDEV

SI-*IR¥ SHANTENATHDEV

SITUATED AT S'§'AVAN§DH§ &: GAVAN VILLAGE
TAL: CHIKQDE, DIST: BELGAUM

BY YFS TRUSTEES



IA

18

1C

19

1E

SHRiKAN'i' UPADHYE
S/O DHARANAPPA UPADHYE»~»V 
AGE: '72 YEARS I '

000: PRIEST AND TRUSTEE7.'  «

VARDHAMAN PARIS U':=?§'9..,HY1é  V'

S] C) PARIS UPADHYE
AGE: 78 YEARS

00$: PRIEST AN"::..frRL:~s*rEi:' 1' 

SHRIDHAR UPADQVE   
S/O PARK?-.= UPAI:i)§ki'.'E:=
AGE: 7:2, VEARS  1

0cQ:4..1=%1§IE;3*rV_A.N'D  ' " 

RAJEN i'.§!'~'1*$'%k.A1V'§:Ei€l:'\~x?'I.:?9_'fla §1}PA1:>*_;Hi?E

;s;'o'A.z.u%ENA¥*;?A U95-DHYE~~-- 
IAc3_ps.=: 43fYlE;ARS*._  ~

"mac; ;>:21r;s;*;%,AN:)--.i;fR1:s*rE:%:

BAHsj BALi AN')iAP.f'A UPADHYE

' "  O ANNAPPA UPADHYE
AGE: 43 YEARS

' "<§ct(:;pR1E<5r AND TRUSTEE

...iz;§sé;1szf;f'.1UPADHYE

s'1f{::--% Exams UPADHYE
AG_E"}.: 65 YEARS

a 'gas; PRIEST ANI) TRUSTEE
VP;/0: PATFANKUDI, TQ: cmxcm

DIST: BELGAUM

SURESH UPADHYE

S] O SI-IRIKANT UPADHYE
AGE; 43 YEARS

OCC: PRIEST AND TRUSTEE



RESPONDENT NO--1A TO 1G ARE

R/O STAVANIDHI AND GAVAN VILLAGE

TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUIVI  » _   V " 3
BELGAUM  RES?O?§.DEN'?:_~3..A  '

{BY SR1 B s KAMTE, A[)V., FOR cgzm A »c:.*&.' SQ-j'I.«::1:"ARI'I--QLE;:'s._:225"';sa I

227 012' CONSTITUTIGN OF INDIA=.PR;}§YIING'?0 .QIIAsI:.'1*}IE

ORDER DATED 13.3.2009 PZ%SSED'}3Y=THE 1LEx',~.RVN.ED:';CI'JILx.

JUDGE (JR.§N) NIP'ANNI (}I<s--'.,__fL'A_. NOV;3__ATvVN'£P}§N'N'I"LIN O.S;'
N015/2007' AS PER ANNEXURE :3' AND ;::<)Ns::«;QUENTLY
TO DIRECI' THE LEAI?1.~IED'.I::m:;«Js;I1;)GII; "£"(}~AvCCEPI' THE
WRITTEN sTATEMEN'm%:)_ ESE I§"ILE:1I}».B'YITI~:E PETITIONER.

III MBA mxago or geeg j; 'V

{)AKSI~IlN BEIAR-XI" JAIN'--- SABHE

SHREE §{SHETRA--_ COMEJIITTEE ATIKSHAYA KSHETRA
mavamnl, 'I'Q:_ <::I~m<s:)m

I)fIs+r.; BEIIGAUM'  -------- M =

'V " «I2EI='R}3SI3:r~I1igD BY ITS CHAIRMAN

 ' .-SR3 _§A RAYAGOUDA PATEL
 . $10 RA"'{A(2~CiiI'DA PATEL
'AGE; 46"E'E_?A'RS, occ: AGRICULTURE

Rm A,KoL;'TQ: CHIKODI
DIST; BELGAUM  APPELLANT

"  i(f£3"'I'._S§I N.D.GUNDE FOR GOULAY ASSOCIATES, ADVSII)

IND

 1. Sim! BRAHMSEV

SHRZ ADINATHDEEV
SHRE PAFESHWANATHDEV



1A

1B

1C

13:)

SHRI SHANTINATHDEV

SITUATEB AT SI'AVANI9H§ 3:. GAVAN VILLACEE:
TAL: C}~£fK(}i)¥, DIST: BELGAUM  4' .  ' T.  ~

BY ITS TRUSTEES

SHRIKANT UPADHYE 
S/O DHARANAPPA {IPAEDHYE

AGE: 72 YEARS   A 
ace: PRIEST AND TRUSFEE  

VARDHAMAN PARIS UPADHYE
S[0 PARIS UPADHYE ' '

AGE: :23 YEARS  V. --.  
occ; PRIEST AN:)"*;*Ru's*r;€.E"   

SHRIDHAR UPAB;1yJEV_VV  '
3/0 i9'ARIS'1.IPA[;T!}-IYE'~¢: " _ V_ 
AGE:      'V  

;:;>"c"':::'A  mu} fnzu

f?g%L§1"iNDRQ§';AB§}\i23§PA:";JPADHYE
s/<2: ANNAPPAUPAQHYE
AGE:"43"YEA_RS-. " ~'

 ' DQC: PRIEST AND TRUSTEE

. ri&;i$I~§iJa3AL1 A§3§§APPA UPABHYE

"   ANEEAPPA UPADHYE

T'  43- YEARS

. "  O{3C--?fPfE'IEST ADN TRU$'I'fiE

m

.VA.Séj~xT UPADHYE

Sgi) paws UPADHYE
AGE: 55 YEARS

 om: PRIEST AND TRUSTEE

If}

R/O PA'§"¥'ANKUD¥, TQ: CHIKODI
DIST: BELGAUM

SURESH UPADHYE
S] C} SHRIKANT UPADHYE
AGE: 43 YEARS



QCC: PRIEST AND TRUSTEE

mé: RESPONDENT N{).1A GO 1G ARE 
R/0 STAVANIDHI AND GAVAN VILLAGE 
TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM 

2. SHRIACHARYA DESHBHUSHAN"J§'DYAP§i'I:§H_   
STAVANIDHE     .  

3. THE STATE 01:' KARNA1'A§<A  '

(Rasponmm NOS. 2 AND :3. A.R E DELEYED' Vujgb,
coum ORDER 131*. 25.3.2099} .  %   
V ,  5 " -«._v_;,,"i*?E)SPON§ENTS

{BY SR1 B.s.KAMA3*E,'VA_1j'.I,, .1ifb:=f%x C;.§é1}x5.-_:--G)

:sz1_sA"v.1S---I4?§_;£,E:: _'{;!_I (;")' 43_ :R¥J_%:.,E 1(u) OF CFC AGAINST
THE :JU{§GMfi?:_NT";-flux}'£;E<:Ie§:1=:'"1)ATE9; 4/9/08 PASSED IN
RA 216./07'0N'}%H-E'P1LE_<:3--§ CWIL JUDGE (SRDN) CHIKODI,
ALLOWING THE'A§5PEA;_;"FILED AGAINST THE ORDER AND
DEGREE DA5¥'Eif}.:4f4'i.2i.?(}7 IN OS.15]20€}7 on THE FiLE
GB', (1.1%, J'UI){.%E7(JR-.[)N) NIPANI.

 3-.'I'»HESE=  PE'I'¥'I'ION ANfi MISCELLANEOUS

 » j3.¥~:,c<),N'£)--..egPPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS mxs DAY,
A "1jH;::-- <:'3::.»,1_3:2v'1§. M3313 ma FOLLOWENG;

ORDER

VVMSA 3243/08 is fileti by me defendant Fig.1 in 0.3.

‘ “‘V. i\i’-::;:1:’3/2907 chafienging the ordttr emf mmand pafiseé by the

‘ first appellate Court in RA, No.26/U7.

, ya
/V ,2

6

2. wnp. NO62463/{)9 is filed by the mg} de_fs_ndant

challenging the order passed by the ma} Court afifsi’

permitting the piajntifis to amend the prayer..jt:o11;J’1{.§:§i:Eo:’o;!’

plaint. 1 H

3. The records reveal tliat this ?mspo1idefi’ts:’V-1__1e§:§ii1

filed suit for declaration that ‘Nos. Esofistgg Vt3:2t_.: ‘ L.

trustees of plaintiff No.1 havo’ lawfully
administer the trust’ oft1q1′:Av”co;1sét’;11cn1ia’i ‘oencfits are
also sought for, Defen§§afit_VNoV,_3 suit is the State

of of notice on dcfenant No.1, he
filed Section 21 of CPC praying for

of nthszfisuitéion the ground of want of jurisdiction.

.’ “I’11:ot1gi1i,. vérious contentions were raised before the trial

._ of hearing the appfication under Section 21

of ttial Court mtgativod such contentions, except

V. (roe i.’e.; the Triai Court has pracfically held that the suit is

A’ Vnyoomaintainable on the ground that the plaizatifis have not

.–[taken requisite permission fiom the authorities conccmod

under Section Si) and 51 of Bombay Public Trust Act. The

fl./3»

that the ::>rder of remand passed by the appc1}ats ‘_’is

not improper, this court refuses to interfsit V

impugned order. As the matter is u ‘

will have one. more chance to T 611 ithé’

maintainability also. Aocozfiisglg, {gm-.ng _oi%iéi<:._isv ma-51¢:

MSA 910.320 of Q
Since thesuit is..at:’t§§3.e’s.ta.ge, issues are
not yet that interest of
justice of the plaintiffs for
amcn¢§sss1V:1 t;A “V This course avoids
sf Themfots, the trial Court has

r.Lg’ htky tbs’ afipfissfion for amendment. Hence, the

‘- _ 3¢’3i’1’%1.kC3IE¥Ci~5°-I’ ‘@150 ca” 11’ “3:1″o”1«:V be intezfered with. Acconiingly, Writ

of 2999 stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

% ..s.::;ss