JUDGMENT
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
1. The appellants were defendants and respondents were plaintiffs in the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their rank in the Trial Court.
2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they have got right to perform poojas and other ceremonies in Grama Devatha Temple of Adavi Somapur and for injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the performance of poojas and ceremonies by the plaintiffs in the temple. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the temple belongs to public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and the father of the plaintiffs was the Trustee of the same. After his death, the plaintiffs became the Trustees and performing pooja and ceremonies. Since the defendants caused obstruction in performing the poojas etc., in the temple, the suit is filed.
3. Since the defendants have not filed written statement, the suit was initially decreed. However, in R.A. No. 43 of 1993 the matter was remanded to give opportunity to the defendants. Thereafter, the defendants filed written statement resisting the suit and denying the plaint averments and contending that the suit was not maintainable. It is categorically stated that there is no deity by name Grama Devatha in the Village.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues and went for trial. Parties adduced evidence and produced documents in support of their respective case. Upon consideration of the material brought on record, the Trial Court decreed the suit holding that plaintiffs right to perform the poojas and other ceremonies in the temple and the defendants were restrained from obstructing the plaintiffs to continue their activities in the temple. The appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Being aggrieved by the same the defendants have presented this second appeal.
5. Though the defendants denied the existence of Grama Devatha Temple, plaintiffs have produced documents to prove their case. Ex. P. 1 is the Registration Certificate of the Trust bearing Registration No. A-2111 (DWR) issued by the Charity Commissioner, Belgaum. In Column No. 2 of the said certificate the name of Grama Devatha temple is mentioned. In Column No. 3 the Trustee or Manager is shown as plaintiffs’ father Shankarappa Kuberappa Badiger. In Column No. 4 it is mentioned as ‘heriditary’. P.Ws. 1 and 2 examined by the plaintiffs have clearly deposed that prior to plaintiffs, their father was performing the poojas and ceremonies of Grama Devatha. Thus, both oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs clearly proved the case of the plaintiffs.
6. The First Appellate Court re-appreciated the findings and reasons assigned by the Trial Court and concurred with the same. The First Appellate Court has categorically held that when the Charity Commissioner who has got exclusive jurisdiction has registered the trust and recognised the plaintiffs’ father as the Trustee and that the trusteeship is heriditary, the defendants cannot claim right over the temple. That apart, very pertinently the First Appellate Court has noticed that the registration of the trust is not challenged by the defendants. So far as missing of the word ‘Adavi’ in Ex. P. 1 is concerned, it is held that it might be due to typographical error and that by itself will not take away the right of the plaintiffs. The defendants have not proved the right claimed by them.
7. The judgment and decrees of the Courts below perfectly justified and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. The substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeal do not arise in this appeal is devoid of merit.
8. The appeal stands dismissed.