Nava - Vrundavan Gaddi Case Judgement 22 April 2015

1
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE & CJM., DHARWAD
R.A. No. 123 /2014
Present
A.V. Srinath ,
Principal Senior Civil Judge and
CJM.,Dharwad.
Dated this the 22nd day of April , 2015

Appellant
: SRI UTTARADI MUTT,

By its Peetadhipathi,
Sri Satyatma Teertha Swamiji,
Represented by General
Power of Attorney Holder,
Sri Ayodhya Ramachar , Advocate,
Near Raghavendra Swamy Mutt,
Gangavathi, Koppal District.
(By Sri Jayavittal Kolar, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondent
: SRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT,

By its Peetadhipathi,
Sri Suyathindra Teertharu,
Since deceased, Through successor,
H.H. Sri Subudhendra Teertha
Swamiji,
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt,

Mantralaya , Kurnool District,
Andhra Pradesh.
(By Sri D. Suresh &
Sri K. Suman, Advocates)
-Date of institution of
: 08-07-2011 .
the Appeal
Appeal against
: Judgment and Decree

dated 18-06-2011 passed
by the Court of the Addl.
Civil Judge , Gangavathi in
O.S.No.74/2010.
Duration of the Appeal
Year/s
3
Month/s
09
Day/s
14
( A.V. Srinath)
Principal Senior Civil Judge &
CJM.,Dharwad.
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
:JUDGMENT:
1.
Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and
Decree dated 18-06-2011 passed by the Court of the

learned Addl. Civil Judge , Gangavati, Koppal
District, in O.S. No. 74/2010, the unsuccessful
Plaintiff has preferred this Appeal.
2.
At the outset, it may be noted that the
present Appeal was initially filed before the Court of

Senior Civil Judge, Gangavati and registered as R.A.
No. 14/2011. Pursuant to the Order passed by the
Honble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No.
20346/2014, the Honble Prl. District Judge, Dharwad,
has made over the Appeal to this Court . On receipt of
the records, the Appeal came to be registered by this
Court as R.A. No. 123/2014.
3. It may be noted that when the case was posted
for Judgment, a copy of the Order passed by the
Honble Supreme Court of India extending time to
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
dispose of the Appeal came to be produced. In the said

Order, the Honble Supreme has stated to the effect
that the extention of time by it will not come in the
way of this Appellate Court from pronouncing the
Judgment as scheduled.
4.
For the sake of convenience, the parties in
this Appeal will be referred to as per their rankings

before the trial Court.
5. The records reveal that the Suit was initially
filed by the Plaintiff before the Court of the Civil
Judge, Koppal and was registered as O.S. No.
193/1992. The records further reveal that in view of
the Order passed by the Honble District and Sessions
Judge, Koppal on the administration side, the Suit
came to be transferred to the Court of the Addl. Civil
Judge, Gangavati and registered as O.S. No. 74/2010.
6.
The Suit filed by the Plaintiff is for the
relief/s of Perpetual Injunction praying for restraining

the Defendant Mutt,
its agents, servants, devotees
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
etc., from entering upon the Suit schedule property or

interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the
Suit property and / or from interfering or disturbing
with the performance of annual Aradhana of His
Holiness ( for short H.H. ) Sri Padmanabha Teertharu ,
H.H. Sri Kavindra Teertharu, H. H. Vageesha
Teertharu every year by the Plaintiff Mutt.
7. The Suit property is described in the Schedule
to the Plaint as under :
All the land measuring 100 acres
bearing old Sy. No. 239 and New Sy.
No. 192 of Anegundi village,
Gangavathi Taluka, Raichur District
bounded on the East, West, South and
North by Tungabhadra river, popularly
known as Nava Vrindavanagaddi. The
extent of the land at present visible over
the matter is 27 acres 30 guntas as per
the survey and confirmed by the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
8. The case of the Plaintiff is recapitulated as

under :
a.
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
The Suit property is popularly known as
Navavrindavana Gaddi and is in the exclusive

ownership and possession of the Plaintiff since time
immemorial. The Plaintiff Uttaradi Mutt , as recorded
by the historians , was the prime Pontifical seat of Sri
Madhwacharya, the founder of Madhwa Sect of
Brahmins. Though the Plaintiff Mutt was in existence
from the time of Sri Hamsanamak Paramatma, Sri
Madhwacharya revived the Mutt and is therefore
considered as the first Peetadhipathi of the Plaintiff
Mutt.
Madhwacharya
was
succeeded
by
Sri
Padmanabha Teertharu as the Peethadipathi of the

Plaintiff Mutt. Sri Narahari Teertharu succeeded
Sripada Teertharu.
b.
As recorded by the historians, centuries later
the Defendant Mutt was established by one of the

disciples of the Plaintiff Mutt . During the time of Sri
Ramachandra Teertharu , the then Peethadipathi of
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Uttaradi Mutt, Sri Vibhudendra Teertharu , disciple of

Ramachandra Teertharu, founded the Poorvadi or Sri
Raghavendra
Swami
Mutt,
also
known
as
Sumateendra Mutt.
c.
Navavrindavana Gaddi is situated in the
midst of the river Tungabhadra in the erstwhile

Anegundi
Samsthana.
According
to
the
then
prevailing measurements in the State, Navavrindavana

Gaddi measured 100 Acres in extent and was bearing
Sy. No. 239. One Peshkar Krishna Rao of Anegundi
was the owner of the Navavrindavana Gaddi island.
Peshkar Krishna Rao conveyed the Navavrindavana
Gaddi to Sri Satyadhyana Teertharu , the then
Peethadipathi of the Plaintiff Mutt by way of a
registered Sale Deed dated 26-03-1916. Pursuant to
the said conveyance of the land, the khata was
transferred in the name of the Plaintiff Mutt. The Suit
property has been in exclusive possession of the
Plaintiff Mutt.
d.
The
Defendant
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Mutt
and
the
then
Peethadipathi of Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt put forth a

false claim of their joint ownership of the Suit
property along with the Plaintiff and got their name
entered in the Records of Rights in about the year
1959
in respect of 1/3 share each. As such, the
Plaintiff Mutt filed a Suit against the Defendant Mutt

and Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt for Declaration of title and
other reliefs in O.S. No. 65/1 of 1959-60 before the
Court of the Munsiff at Gangavati. On contest, the
said Suit came to be decreed on 30-03-1968 declaring
the Plaintiff Mutt as the absolute owner of the Suit
property.
e.
The Appeal filed by the Defendants therein
before the Civil Judge at Raichur in R.A. No. 45/1968

came to be dismissed by the said Court by its
Judgment dated 02-02-1972. The further Appeal filed
by the Defendants therein before the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka was also dismissed, thereby the
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 65/1 of

1959-60 have become final and conclusive.
f.
The Plaintiff Mutt has been performing daily
Poojas, Hastodakas, annual Aradhanas and other

religious rituals of Sri Pradmanabha Teertha Swamiji,
Sri Kaveendra Teertha Swamiji and Sri Vageesha
Teertha Swamiji ever since the Vrindavanas were built
by the Plaintiff mutt. There was no interference by
any one in the performance of the rituals by the
Plaintiff mutt.
g.
In the Plaint Schedule property , there are
nine Vrindavanas of three Madhwa Mutts viz., 1) Sri

Uttaradi Mutt 2) Sri Raghavendra Swami Mutt and 3)
Sosale Sri Vyasaraya Mutt . Of the nine Vrindavanas,
four Vrindavanas that of Sri Padmanabha Teertharu,
Sri Kaveendra Teertharu , Sri Vageesha Teertharu and
Sri Raghuvaryaru exclusively belong to the Plaintiff
Mutt and the Plaintiff Mutt has been performing
10
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
annual Aradhanas to the exclusion of the Defendant

Mutt and others. The Defendant has no manner of
right , title or interest over the Vrindavanas belonging
to the Plaintiff Mutt. The Defendant at no point of
time has performed the Aradhanas of the said four
Yatis ( Saints ) . Frustrated by the failure in the earlier
Suit and taking cue from the litigations raised against
the Plaintiff Mutt by the Peethadipathi of Sosale Sri
Vyasaraya Mutt, the Defendant approached the
Special Deputy Commissioner, Raichur and made an
Application on 31-10-1984 to treat the Nava
Vrindavana Gaddi as an Endowment under the
provisions of the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations.
In spite of the Decree in favour of the Plaintiff, the
Defendant , in collusion with Sri Sosale Vyasaraya
Mutt, is trying to interfere with the possession and
enjoyment of the Suit property and in particular during
the period of Aradhanas of four Vrindavanas of the
Plaintiff Mutt and is threatening to enter into the Suit
property.
11
h.
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Pursuant to the application filed by the
Defendant on 31-10-1984, the Special Deputy

Commissioner, Raichur, without holding any enquiry,
passed an Order on 21-11-1984 and the said Order
was challenged by the Plaintiff Mutt before the
Commissioner
of
Religious
and
Charitable
Endowments in Appeal No. ADM.VII.AP.18/84-85 .

By his Order dated 07-11-1987, the Commissioner for
Religious and Charitable Endowments allowed the
said Appeal by holding that the Nava Vrindavana
Gaddi is not an Endowment and that the provisions of
the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations Act were not
applicable to Nava Vrindravana Gaddi . Aggrieved by
the said Order, the Defendant Mutt and the other
Mutts filed Writ Petition before the Honble High
Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 17108/1987. By its
Order dated 22-11-1989, the Honble High Court
dismissed the said Writ Petition by holding to the
effect that it is not the case of the parties that the Nava
12
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Vrindavana in question is an Institution coming under

the said Regulations. In spite of the Order passed by
the Honble High Court of Karnataka, the Defendant
Mutt
again obtained an Order from the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Gangavathi to perform

Aradhana of Kaveerndra Teertharu from 6-00 a.m. on
23-03-1991 to 12-00 p.m. on 24-03-1991 and the
Plaintiff Mutt to perform Aradhana of Sri Kaveerndra
Teertharu from 12-00 p.m. on 24-03-1991 till 6-00
p.m., of 25-03-1991. Similar Orders were passed in
respect of performing annual Aradhana of Sri
Vageesha Teertharu falling on 1st , 2nd and 3rd April,
1991. By filing Writ Petition in W. P. No. 7415/1991
before the Honble High Court of Karnataka,
the
Plaintiff challenged the said Order of the Dy. S.P. The

Honble High Court passed an interim Order of Stay
on
22-03-1991.
In
view
of
the
prevailing
circumstances and the Stay Order of the Honble High

Court, neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant could
perform annual Aradhana of Sri Kaveendra Teertharu
13
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
in the year 1991. The Defendant did not come to the

Suit property on the occasion of annual Aradhana of
Sri Vageesha Teertharu on 1st , 2nd and 3rd April 1991
and the Plaintiff alone performed the Aradhana. By its
Order dated 26-03-1991, the Honble High Court of
Karnataka, allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the
Order passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate,
Gangavati.
i.
By publishing its Almanac ( Panchanga) for
the year 1992-93, ( Angeerasa Samvatsara ) and

circulating the same all over the States of Karnataka
and Andhra Pradesh, the Defendant Mutt stated that it
would perform the annual Aradhana of Sri Kaveendra
Teertharu and Sri Vageesha Teertharu from 10-041992 to 12-04-1994 at Nava Vrindavana Gaddi and
called upon the people in large numbers to attend the
Aradhana. Thereby , the Defendant intended to
interfere with the Plaintiff Mutts possession and
enjoyment of the Suit property and performance of
14
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Aradhana by it. The Defendant is trying to perform

annual Aradhanas of Sri Kaveendra Teertharu and
Vageesha Teertharu at Nava Vrindavana Gaddi with
an object of creating fresh evidence of non-existing
rights. The Plaintiff Mutt made preparations from 0904-1992 and celebrated Aradhana on 10th and 11th
April . On 11-04-1992, the Defendant along with
numerous persons started entering the island after 1200 a.m. Though the Police had assured to give
protection to the Plaintiff for 3 days, later expressed
their helplessness
. The Police asked the Plaintiff to
come out after 12-00 a.m. of 11-04-1992 to prevent

untoward incidents. As such, the Plaintiff could not
celebrate Aradhana on 12-04-1992. The Plaintiff
apprehends that the Defendant and its disciples would
trespass into the Suit property on the annual Aradhana
of Sri Vageesha Teertharu on 19th , 20th
April 1992.
and 21st
15
9.
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Before the trial Court , the Defendant has
filed its Written Statement. On 15-12-2001, the

Defendant has filed its detailed further Written
Statement.
10. In its Written Statement, the Defendant has

contended that the Suit of the Plaintiff without seeking
the relief of declaration of title and without seeking
declaration regarding claim over the Vrindavanas and
without seeking declaration regarding primacy over
the Vrindavanas , is not maintainable. The Defendant
has further stated that the intention of the Plaintiff is to
have exclusive right and claim over the Vrindavanas
of nine Madhwa Saints located in the property called
Nava Vrindavana Gadde. The Defendant has further
stated that though the Plaintiff has styled the Suit as
one for Perpetual Injunction, the intention of the
Plaintiff is to prevent the other Mutts from having
access to the Holy Vrindavanas and perform Poojas
and Aradhanas. The Defendant has further pleaded
16
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
that there is no nexus between the rights over the

property and right to worship and that the right to
property does not include in its fold right to worship
and that it is for these reasons that in the earlier
proceedings the Honble High Court of Karnataka has
given direction to the litigating parties to get their
religious rights established and that it is for the said
reason that the right to worship and to perform
Aradhanas came to be protected time and again. The
Defendant has further stated that the Vrindavanas are
Endowments
coming
under
the
Hyderabad
Endowments Regulations Act and that therefore Civil

Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The
Defendant has further stated that Vrindavanas being
religious institutions and places of worship, no person
can claim them to be his private properties. The
Defendant has further stated that in the alleged Sale
Deed relied on by the Plaintiff, there is no reference to
the existence of nine Vrindradanas though they are in
existence for centuries . The Defendant has further
17
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
contended that the Suit of the Plaintiff is barred by

limitation.
11. In its further Written Statement, the
Defendant has denied the allegation that the Plaintiff is
the owner of and in possession of the Plaint Schedule
property known as Nava Vrindavana Gaddi. The
allegations that the land in Sy. No. 239 was measuring
100 acres and that it was owned by Peshkar Krishna
Rao and that the said Peshkar Krishna Rao conveyed
the same to the Plaintiff on 26-03-1916 are denied by
the Defendant. The Defendant has further stated that
Krishna Rao was not the owner of the said land and
that he had no right to sell the same to any one. The
Defendant has further stated that the Sale Deed alleged
to be executed by the said Peshkar Krishnara Rao is a
fabricated and got up document. The allegation that
pursuant to the Sale Deed executed by Krishna Rao,
the Plaintiff is in possession of the Suit land is denied
by the Defendant . The Defendant has further stated
18
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
that in the alleged Sale Deed executed by Krishna Rao

, it is not stated as to when and from whom he had
acquired Sy. No. 239 land.
12. In its further Written Statement, the
Defendant has stated that the revenue records show
that the land in Sy. No. 239 is still existing and it is
not changed as Sy. No. 192 at any point of time and
that as per the revenue records Sy. No. 192 is an
agricultural land and is used as such, whereas the
Nava Vrindravana Gaddi is a hillock and banjara
(barren ) land. The Defendant has further stated that as
per the village map of Anegundi, the island portion is
in midst of Tunga-Bhadra and is shown as Sy. No. 167
and that this aspect falsifies the claim of the Plaintiff
that Nava Vrindavana Gaddi land bears Sy. No. 192.
The Defendant has further stated that the revenue
records show Sy. No. 192 as agricultural land and that
no revenue receipts are produced by the Plaintiff to
show any crop grown by it and to show its possession
19
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
of the said land. While admitting the allegation that in

the year 1959, the records relating to the land was
entered in the joint names of the three Mutts , the
Defendant has further averred that it was so entered as
the Vrindavanas of the Saints in the leaneage of
Madhwacharya were existing in the said property. The
Defendant has further stated that no one including the
Plaintiff Mutt has exclusive right of worship and to
perform Aradhanas , Poojas etc., and thereby prevent
the right of access to the Vrindavanas. The Defendant
has further stated that the findings of the Court in its
Judgment in O.S. No. 65/1/1959-60 cannot be
construed as declaring the Plaintiff as the owner of the
Vindavanas situated in the said land since no person or
Mutt can claim ownership over the Vrindavanas and
over the place where they are situated. The Defendant
has further stated that there is no record to show that
the Vrindavanas are situated in the area of the land
claimed by the Plaintiff.
20
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
13. In its Written Statement the Defendant has

averred that when Anegundi Samsthana was in
existence, the Suit land had been taken over by the
Samsthana and on an Application filed by the
Plaintiff, the Samsthana gave back only 14 acres of
land in Suit Survey number and that there is no
mention that in the said area of 14 acres given to the
Plaintiff, the Vrindavanas are situated. The Defendant
has further stated that Anegundi Samsthana had
imposed conditions on the Plaintiff Mutt not to
obstruct other Mutts from having access to the
Vrindavanas and from performing Aradhanas, Poojas
etc., and that this condition makes it clear that the
Vrindavanas are not situated in the area of 14 acres
released to the Plaintiff Mutt and that therefore the
Plaintiff is estopped from seeking injunctive relief
relating to access to Vrindavanas and performance of
Aradhanas
and
Poojas
of
the
Saints
whose
Vrindavanas are situated in the portion of the Suit

Survey number. The Defendant has further stated that
21
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
the Vrindavanas situated in the Suit Survey number

are deemed endowments within the definition of
Hyderabad Endowments (Regulations) Act and Rules,
wherein it is provided that such Endowments cannot
be private properties of any individuals or Mutts. The
not salable commodities and that therefore Peshkar
Krishna Rao had no right to sell the Vrindavanas of
the Saints.
stated that when the Plaintiff Mutt started interfering
with the activities and functions of the Defendant Mutt
, the Defendant approached the Deputy Commissioner
(Endowments) , Raichur, who allowed performance of
Aradhanas
and
other
religious
functions.
The
Defendant has further stated that the Honble High

Court of Karnataka in the Writ Proceedings has stated
that the right of the parties to worship being a civil
right, has to be established in a Civil Suit. The
22
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
situated in a public place of religious worship and that

therefore no injunction can be granted. The Defendant
has further stated that no where in the Plaint, the
Plaintiff has stated that Vrindavanas are its properties
and that this itself clarifies that the Plaintiff is aware of
the legal position regarding Vrindavanas. The
Defendant has further stated that the right got under
conditional re-grant made in respect of the portion of
Suit Survey number by Anegundi Samsthana came to
be extinguished by the reason of breach of condition
of grant by the Plaintiff by claiming exclusive right to
perform customary Aradhanas , Poojas etc.

denied the allegations that out of nine Vrindavanas,
the Vrindavanas of Sri Padmanabha Teertharu, Sri
Kaveendra Teertharu , Sri Vageesha Teertharu and
Sri Raghuvaryaru exclusively belong to the Plaintiff
Mutt and that the Defendant is in no way concerned
with the said four Vrindavanas . The allegation that
23
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
the Plaintiff Mutt is exclusively performing Aradhanas

of the said four Saints is denied by the Defendant.
Further, the Defendant has pleaded that it ( Defendant
Mutt) has also performed Aradhanas regularly every
year.
16. In its Written Statement , the Defendant has
denied the allegation that the Defendant Mutt is
interfering
with
the
peaceful
possession
and
enjoyment of the Plaint schedule property by the

Plaintiff . While admitting about the proceedings
before the Honble High Court and other Authorities,
the Defendant has further stated that in the said
Proceedings it was not dealt whether or not the
Vrindavanas are endowments under the Hyderabad
Endowments Regulations Act and that therefore the
Plaintiff cannot derive any benefit from the Orders
passed in those Proceedings. The Defendant has
further stated that while disposing of the Writ Petition,
the Honble High Court has explicitly stated that it is
24
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
for the parties to establish their right to perform

Aradhana in a Civil Suit. While admitting the
allegation regarding publication of Panchanga (
Almanac ) by the Defendant Mutt , the Defendant has
further denied the other allegations made in Paragraph
No. 11 of the Plaint . The allegation that without
having right, the Defendant Mutt is scheming and
planning to perform Aradhanas is denied by the
Defendant . The Defendant has further stated that the
Suit of the Plaintiff is barred by limitation. The
Defendant has further stated that the Suit of the
Plaintiff being only in respect of immovable property,
cannot be construed as a Suit regarding the Nava
Vrindavanas and the rights of the Mutts to perform
Aradhanas, Poojas etc., and that therefore the reliefs of
injunction prayed for by the Plaintiff cannot be
granted.
17. On the above Pleadings of the parties, the

trial Court has framed the following Issues .
25
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that he (

Plaintiff ) is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule
property as on the date of suit and
performance of annual aradhana as
pleaded in the plaint?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves alleged
interference by the Defendant ?
3. What order or decree ?
18. The Plaintiff has examined its GPA Holder
and the Peethadhipathi of the Mutt as P.W.1 and
P.W.4 respectively besides examining two other
witnesses as P.W. 2 and P.W.3. Eighty one documents
have been marked for the Plaintiff as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P81. The Defendant examined its GPA Holder as
D.W.1 besides examining four other witnesses as
D.W.2 to D.W.5. Three hundred and forty five
documents have been marked for the Defendant as
Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-345.
26
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
19. After hearing the arguments of both the sides,

the trial Court has dismissed the Suit of the Plaintiff
with costs. The same is assailed in this Appeal.
20. In
the Memorandum of Appeal, besides
narrating the case of the parties before the trial Court,

the following main grounds of Appeal are raised.
1)
The Judgment and Decree of the trial Court
are opposed to the admitted facts and established

principles of law.
2)
The discussions, reasonings and conclusions
of the trial Court on Issue No. 1 are not sustainable in

law and on facts. The trial Court has failed to look
into the documents produced by the Plaintiff to prove
its title and possession of the Suit property.
3)
The trial Court has failed to apply its mind
seriously to the actual controversy involved in the

Suit.
27
4)
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
The trial Court has erred in holding that the
measurement of the property shown in the Decree in

O.S.
No.
65/1/1959-60
is
different
from
the
measurement of the Suit Schedule property. From the

documents produced by the Plaintiff, the trial Court
should have held that the subject matter of the Suit
was not just 14 acres 7 guntas , but it was the entire
island of Nava Vrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy. No. 192
surrounded on all the four sides by Tungabhadra river.
5)
The observation of the trial Court that the
Plaintiff has not sought for the relief of Declaration,

but has only sought for the relief of Injunction to
restrain
the
Defendants
from
interfering
with
performance of the Poojas , Aradhanas etc., is wrong.

The trial Court has failed to understand the scope of
the Suit.
6)
The trial Court has failed to note that the
Suit is not for establishement of any religious rights,
28
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
but is in respect of the established title and possession

of immovable property known as Nava Vrindavana
Gaddi.
7)
At Paragraph No. 27 of the Judgment, the
trial Court has held that the Defendant Mutt has

admitted the Decree passed in O.S. No. 65/1-1959-60.
But the trial Court has wrongly held that the said
Decree cannot be construed to mean that the Plaintiff
has been declared as the owner of the Vrindavanas
located in the Suit schedule land.
8)
In its Judgment, the trial Court observes
that the Defendant has pleaded that in the previous

Suit, the Plaintiff has not pleaded about the existence
of the Nava Vrindavanas in the Suit Schedule property
and that therefore, the declaration given in the earlier
Suit is only in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 192
of Anagundi village measuring 14 acres 7 guntas
and not over the Vrindavanas . The trial Court has
29
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
failed to consider the admissions of the Defendant and

its witnesses both in the previous Suit and in the
present Suit.
9)
The Defendant has admitted in its Pleadings
and in the evidence about the existence of the

Vrindavanas in the Suit property. The trial Court has
dismissed I.A. No. 26 filed by the Defendant under
Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the
Written Statement in this regard. The effort made by
the Defendant to raise an Issue regarding location of
the Vrindavanas was also rejected by the trial Court.
As such, in the absence of an Issue in this regard, the
trial Court has erred in holding that the Vrindavanas
are not situated in the Suit property.
10) The
question
of
existence
of
the
Vrindavanas in the Suit property has already been

decided in O.S. No. 65/1/59-60 and R.A. No. 45/1968
. The Application as per Ex.P-5 dated 12-03-1959
30
submitted
to
the
village
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
accountant
by
the
Peethadipathi of the Defendant Mutt and its P.A.

Holder and survey sketch as per Ex.D-335 show the
existence of the Vrindavanas in the Suit schedule
property. But the trial Court has erred in permitting
the Defendant to raise the question of existence of
Vrindavanas in the Suit schedule property. The trial
Court has failed to note that the Defendant is estopped
from raising the said contention. The trial Court has
failed to note that similar contentions raised in the
earlier proceedings by the Defendant have been
negatived time and again . By picking out an out-ofcontest sentence from the evidence of P.W.1, the trial
Court has held that the Vrindavanas are not situated in
the Suit property.
11) Relying upon the got up documents as per
Ex.D-30 to Ex.D-204 and uncorroborated testimony of
D.Ws. 1 to 4 and without the plea of customary right
set-up by the Defendant in the Written Statement and
31
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
without any Issue being formulated in this regard, the

trial Court has observed that the Defendant has
established a customary right. Further, the trial Court
has erred in holding that the documents as per Ex.D30 to Ex.D-204 are admissible in evidence and are
proved under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. Further,
the trial Court has failed to note that D.W.1 was not
competent to give evidence on the said documents in
view of Sections 45, 47, 65 and 67 of the Evidence
Act.
12) While holding that the documents as per
Ex.P-30 to Ex.D-204 are admissible in evidence being
documents more than 30 years old, the trial Court has
failed to note that the conditions required for
application of Section 90 of the Evidence Act are not
complied with by the Defendant. The trial Court has
further failed to consider the decisions relied on by the
Plaintiff in this regard. The trial Court has failed to
note that D.W.4 is an interested witness and that the
documents as per Ex.D-281, Ex.D-291 and Ex.D-294
32
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
which are alleged to be in the hand writing of Sri

Hanumantacharya Joshi do not satisfy the requirement
of law.
13) The observation of the
trial Court that
Ex.D-30 to Ex.D-204 and Ex.D-344 go to show that

the Defendant has been performing Poojas and
Aradhanas of the Vrindavanas is not correct, as none
of these documents has been proved in accordance
with law. The evidence of the Peetadhipati of Sri
Raghavendra Mutt ( Ex.P-9 and Ex.D-325 ) and the
evidence of the agent of the Defendant Mutt ( Ex.D328) prove that Ex.D-30 to Ex.D-204 are suspicious
and got up documents.
14) The trial Court has failed to appreciate that
the Peetadhipati of the Defendant Mutt who was very
much available at the time of recording of evidence ,
has not been examined by the Defendant . Non-
33
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
examination of the Peetadhipati of the Defendant is

fatal to the case of the Defendant.
15) The observations and findings of the trial
Court regarding Ex.D-343 and Ex.D-344 are contrary
to the findings regarding the said documents in the
Judgments in O.S. No. 65/1-59-60 , Misc. Appeal No.
188/4 of 1964, Misc. Second Appeal No. 70/1965 and
Appeal No. 357/1977 of Karnataka Administrative
Tribunal.
16) While coming to the conclusion that 14
acres
7 guntas land is the granted land and the
Vrindavanas are situated adjacent to the said land and

are not within the boundaries of the said land, the trial
Court has ignored to consider the documents which
have become final and binding.
17) The observation of the
trial Court at
Paragraph No. 29 of the Judgment regarding

genealogy of Madhwa Sect and worshiping of
34
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Vrindavanas are not sustainable. The trial Court has

relied on some pages of Biography as per Ex. D-14 of
Sri Raghavendra Swamiji . The
trial Court has
ignored the Mysore Gazette as per Ex.P-14, Bombay

Gazette as per Ex.P-15 and document as per Ex.P-16
showing the Plaintiff Mutt as the moola (original)
Mutt of Sri Madhwacharya. The observation of the
trial Court that Ex.D-14 is admitted and not disproved
is incorrect, because the Plaintiff has challenged the
contents of Ex.D-14 during the course of crossexamination of D.W.1. Further ,
Ex.D-14 is not
proved by the Defendant in accordance with the

provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.
18) The observations of the
trial Court at
Paragraph No. 29 of the Judgment regarding

acquisition of customary rights are not sustainable in
the absence of plea in the Written Statement, evidence
on the point, issue on the aspect and arguments
canvassed by the Defendant in this regard.
35
19) The finding of the
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
trial Court that the
Defendant has acquired customary rights over the

Vrindavanas is beyond the Pleadings of the parties .
The trial Court has made out a new case in favour of
the Defendant.
20) The Suit of the Plaintiff is for Perpetual
Injunction simpliciter .The Plaintiff has not sought for
any declaration of Pooja or Aradhana rights. The trial
Court has failed to understand the reliefs prayed by the
Plaintiff. The trial Court has failed to note that the
Suit of the Plaintiff is only in respect of immovable
property. The reasonings of the trial Court in this
regard in Paragraph No. 31 of the Judgment are
beyond the scope of the Suit.
21) The trial Court has failed to note that the
title and possession of the Plaintiff over the Suit
property have been upheld in the earlier Suit between
the parties and the existence of the Vrindavanas in the
36
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Suit property have been unequivocally admitted by the

Defendant.
22) The observation of the trial Court that the
Plaintiff has not produced any document to show the
existence of the Vrindavanas in the Suit schedule
property is not correct. The Court has failed to look
into the documents as per Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-7, Ex.P-9,
Ex.P-10, Ex.P-16, Ex.P-18, Ex.P-27, Ex.P-36, Ex.P40, Ex.P-43 to Ex.P-47, Ex.P-63, Ex.D-325, Ex.D326, Ex.D-329 and Ex.D-335.
23) The understanding of the Judgment in O.S.
No. 130/1978 ( Ex.P-44 ) by the trial Court is wrong.
The Plaintiff has produced the said
Judgment to
emphasize that in an identical dispute in respect of the

same Suit property and on identical Pleadings , Issues
and evidence, a Decree for Perpetual Injunction has
been obtained by the Plaintiff
against Sri Sosale
Vyasaraja Mutt. In the Suit property, Vrindavana of

Sri Sudheendra Teertha Swamaji of Defendant Mutt is
also situated and that the Plaintiff has never obstructed
37
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
the Defendant from entering upon the Suit property for

performance of Aradhana of the said Vrindavana. The
title and the possession of the Plaintiff having been
declared in the Judgments as per Ex.P-36, Ex.P-37 ,
Ex.P-41, Ex.P-43 and Ex.P-44, it is for the Defendant
to file a Suit for Declaration of its alleged Pooja rights
in respect of Vrindavanas of Sri Padmanabha
Teertharu, Sri Kaveendra Teertharu and Sri Vageesha
Teertharu and it is not for the Plaintiff to file a Suit for
Declaration as observed by the trial Court. The trial
Court has failed to refer to Ex.P-80 and Ex.P-81 which
would show that in an identical Suit in respect of the
Vrindavana of Sri Narahari Teertha Swamiji situated
in Sy. No. 76 of Venkatapur village, a similar Decree
for Perpetual Injunction has been granted against the
Defendant which has been confirmed by the Appellate
Court.
24. The trial Court has failed to note that the
Books as per Ex.D-3 to Ex.D-27 are written by living
38
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
authors and have no relevance regarding title or

possession of the Suit property or existence of
Vrindavanas in the Suit property.
21. a. In the present Appeal, the Appellant has

filed application (I.A.No.2) under Order 41 Rule 27 of
CPC seeking production of certified copies of the
Judgment dated 26-09-1966 passed by the Honble
High Court of Karnataka in Miscellaneous Second
Appeal No.70/1965 and Judgment dated 17-08-1965
passed by the Court of Civil Judge Raichur in
M.A.No.188/4 of 1964.
b. In the Affidavit accompanying the application,
besides stating about various documents marked as
Exhibits before the trial Court, proceedings between
the parties before the different fora and I.A.Nos.26
and 27 filed by the Defendant before the trial Court,
the GPA holder of the Appellant/Mutt has stated that
the Judgments now sought to be produced were
between the same parties in respect of same subject
39
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
matter decided in an earlier proceeding and that said

Judgments would help the Court to arrive at a proper
decision on questions involved in the Suit. The
deponent has further stated that said Judgments could
not be produced before the trial Court, as the
Appellant was advised that since there was no Issue on
the question of res-judicata or estoppel, there was no
necessity of producing the said
documents. The
deponent has further stated that as the documents now

sought to be produced are certified copies, no further
evidence is necessary in this regard.
c. The Respondent has filed its objections to the
Application by way of Counter Affidavit stating that
the Appellant was aware of the said Judgments whose
certified copies
are sought to be produced in this
Appeal and that therefore, at this stage, the Appellant

cannot be permitted to produce the said documents as
additional evidence. The Respondent has further stated
that in view of the provisions of Government Grants
Act and Rules, no contrary findings regarding the
40
circumstances
leading
to
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
vesting
of
land
in
Government will amount to nullifying the process of

vesting and that the admission made by the Appellant
in Ex.D-43 regarding vesting of land is binding on it
and that therefore additional evidence proposed by the
Appellant is not relevant. The Respondent has further
stated that the Appellant has not shown sufficient
cause for production of additional evidence in this
Appeal.
22. a. In the present appeal, the Appellant has
filed application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with
Section 151 of CPC praying for framing of an
additional Issue.
b.
The additional Issue sought to be framed
reads thus:
Whether the judgment and
decree in O.S.No.65/1/59-60 and
R.A.No.45/1968 operates as
resjudicata
against
the
Defendant/Respondent ?
41
c.
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
In the Affidavit accompanying the
Application , the Deponent has averred about the

proceedings in O.S.No. 65/1/59-60, R.A.No.45/1968,
W.P.No.16975/1987,
W.P.No.16991/1987
and
W.P.No.17108/1987,
proceedings
the
before
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and about proceedings

before Special Deputy Commissioner. The deponent
has further stated that the question of title of the
Plaintiff over the Suit property and its possession over
Nava Vrindavana Gadde has become final and
binding on the Defendant. The deponent has further
stated that the documents produced by the Plaintiff
prove that the Plaintiff-Mutt is the absolute owner and
in possession of Nava Vrindavana Gadde in
Sy.No.192 measuring 27 acres 30 guntas. The
deponent has further stated that before the Trial Court,
the Plaintiff had filed an application to raise an
additional issue on the question of bar of res-judicata
and that the trial court, in its judgment has failed to
consider the contention of bar of res-judicata raised by
42
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
the Plaintiff. The deponent has further stated that in

view of findings in O.S.No.65/1/59-60 and in the
Judgment of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as per
Ex.P-36, it is necessary to frame an additional issue as
proposed regarding res-judicata. It is further stated that
the parties to the Suit have understood their respective
case and adduced evidence regarding the proposed
Issue.
d.
present
The Respondent has filed Objections to the

applications
stating
that
the
Suit
in
O.S.No.65/1/59-60 was regarding mutation of the

name of the Respondent Mutt and Sosale Sri
Vyasaraja Mutt along with the Appellant Mutt in the
Record of Rights and that said Suit was in respect of
14 acres 7 guntas land in Sy.No.192 and not entire
Sy.No.192. The Respondent has further stated that in
the present Suit, the Plaintiff has taken an untenable
stand that Nava Vrindavana Gadde means land
bearing Sy.No.192 measuring 14 acres 7 guntas land
and that nine Vrindavanas are situated in 14 acres 7
43
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
gunts of land, by overlooking the fact that in the Suit

in O.S.No.65/1/59-60, the
Plaintiff itself has not
whispered about the existence of nine Vrindavanas in

the area of 14 acres 7 guntas. The Respondent has
further stated that the Exhibits marked for the Plaintiff
and admission of the Plaintiff in O.S.No.65/1/1959-60
go to prove that Navavrindavanas are outside 14 acres
7 guntas of land. The Respondent has further stated
that in R.A.No.45/1968 the Appellate Court has held
that the location of Vrindavanas in the land measuring
14 acres 7 guntas is not established. The Respondent
has further stated that contents of Ex.P.14 clearly
show that Vrindavanas are situated outside 14 acres 7
guntas of land. The Respondent has further stated that
in view of said facts, framing of an additional Issue as
proposed by the Appellant is not necessary.
23. a.
on 07-01-2012, the Respondent has
filed an Application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC
44
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
praying for receiving 31 documents annexed to the

Application as additional evidence.
b.
The documents sought to be produced as
additional evidence are the documents relating to

survey of Sy. No. 192 , correspondences made
regarding survey and copy of deposition of P.W. 3 in
O.S. No. 65/1-1959-60.
c.
In
Application,
the
Affidavit
besides
accompanying
narrating
in
detail
the
the
proceedings and correspondences relating to survey

settlement, the Power of Attorney Holder of the
Respondent has stated that the documents now sought
to be produced as additional evidence would go to
show that the location of 14 acres 7 guntas in Sy.
NO. 192 is deliberately distorted and wrongly depicted
in Ex.D-335. The Deponent has further stated that the
course of the river has not under gone any change
even now and it flows at Navavrindavana Gaddi from
45
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
south-west to north-east whereas in Ex.D-335 , it is

shown as south to north and that this shows that Ex.D335 is a concocted document. The Deponent has
further stated that the documents sought to be
produced were not within the knowledge of the
Defendant Mutt as the Defendant Mutt was not a party
to the survey proceedings. The Deponent has further
stated that under these circumstances, re-survey has to
be conducted in respect of Sy. No. 192. The Deponent
has further stated that the Appellant has played fraud
on the Revenue and Survey Authorities in getting the
area of the Suit property corrected from 14 acres 7
guntas to 27 acres 30 guntas. The Deponent has
further stated that the said documents are necessary for
the proper adjudication of the rights of the parties and
to reveal the factum of fraud played by the Appellant /
Plaintiff Mutt.
d.
The Appellant has filed Statement of
Objections to the present Application denying the

allegation that it (Appellant) has played fraud on the
46
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Revenue and Survey Authorities in getting the area of

the Suit property corrected from 14 acres 7 guntas to
27 acres 30 guntas. The Appellant has further stated
that the said documents were subject matter of
proceedings before the Revenue Authorities, Survey
Authorities, Revenue Appellate Tribunal and the
Honble High Court of Karnataka and that the validity
of these documents has been upheld. The Appellant
has further stated that this Court is not the proper
forum for challenging the said survey proceedings.
The Appellant has further stated that there is no scope
in this Appeal for directing the Survey Authorities to
conduct resurvey.
24. a.
On 08-06-2012, the Respondent has
filed an Application under Order 14 Rule 5 R/w

Section 151 of CPC praying for framing of an
additional Issue as under :
Whether the Nava Vrindavanas
are located / situated within the area
claimed by the Plaintiff comprised in
47
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
NavavrindavanaGadde bearing Sy.

measuring 14 Acres 07 Guntas or
whether the said Nava Vrindavanas
are located outside the said area
measuring 14 Acres 07 Guntas ?
b.
In
the
Affidavit
accompanying
the
Application, the PA Holder of the Respondent Mutt

has stated that in its Written Statement and further
Written Statement in O.S. No. 65/1-1959-60, the
Defendant
has
specifically
contended
that
Navavrindavanas are not situated within the area of

14 acres 7 guntas land and that the Plaintiff cannot
claim ownership over the Navavrindavanas and that
the Plaintiff is mis-interpreting the Judgment in O.S.
No. 65/1-1959-60 to claim that the Navavrindavanas
were also included in the Decree in the said Suit. The
Respondent has further stated that as the Plaintiff is
contending that the Judgments in O.S. No. 65/1/195960 and R.A. No. 45/1968 operate as res-judicata
48
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
against the Defendant, it is necessary to frame an

additional Issue as proposed.
c.
The Appellant has filed Objections to the
present Application stating to the effect that framing

of an additional Issue as proposed by the Respondent
is not necessary.
25. a)
filed an Application under Section 151 of CPC

praying for direction to the concerned Survey
Authorities to conduct survey of Sy. No. 192 of
Anegundi village.
b.
In
the
Affidavit
accompanying
the
Application , by re-iterating the averments made in the

I.A. filed on 07-01-2012 under Order 41 Rule 27 of
CPC, the Respondent has prayed for direction to the
Survey Authorities to survey the land bearing Sy. No.
192 of Anegundi village.
49
c.
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
The GPA holder of the Appellant has filed
detailed Objections to the Application by way of

Counter Affidavit denying the allegations made by the
Respondent in the Application and further denying the
reasons stated by the Respondent for survey of the
land. The Appellant has further stated that the survey
proceedings have become final and that no Order for
fresh survey of the land can be made.
26. a.

Section 151 of CPC seeking production of the
documents annexed to the Application as additional
evidence.
b.
The documents sought to be produced as
additional evidence are : i)
true representation of
Ex.P-16 from the Head of Department of Telugu

Language of Dravidian University, ii)
Endorsment
dated 03-01-2015 issued by Tahsildar , Gangavathi

regarding survey in Anegundi village , and iii)
50
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Survey sketch prepared by Hampi Development

Authority .
c.
In
the
Affidavit
accompanying
the

has stated that the Appellant is claiming that Pooja
rights were conferred on the Mutt by Raja
Tirumalaraya in the year 1368 Saka which is
equivalent to 1447 AD and this document is marked as
Ex.P-16 , which is emphatically denied by the
Respondent. The deponent has further stated that the
Plaintiff / Appellant has produced Kannada translation
of the said document as per Ex.P-16(a) in which the
year of Saka is tampered as 1368 in the place of 1768
and that the overwriting in the said document is
clearly visible. The deponent has further stated that in
the year 1447 AD , Brindavanas of Sri Padmanabha
Teertharu, Kaveendraru and Vageesha Teertharu were
not in existence. The deponent has further stated that
the regime of
Raja Tirumalaraya of Anegundi
Samsthana was during 1845 1865 and that this
51
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
clearly reveals that the documents produced by the

Appellant / Plaintiff are forged and fabricated- and
that to demonstrate the same, Telugu representation of
Ex.P-16 is now produced. The deponent has further
stated that one Sri Raghavendra Kulkarni has obtained
information from Tahasildar Gangavathi under RTI
Act on 03-01-2015 which goes to show that prior to
introduction of Survey System , the lands were to be
called as Maji or Killah and that only after Survey
system was introduced in the year 1888, the lands
came to be called by Survey numbers and that this
information falsifies the statement in Ex.P-16 that in
Sy. Nos. 112, 113 and 114 , Vrindavanas are situated
and that the Appellant Mutt was permitted to perform
Pooja. The deponent has further stated that in Ex.D335 , the flow of Tungabhadra river is shown from
South to North at Navavrindavana Gaddi and that
earlier survey sketches show that Tungabhadra river
flows towards Navavrindavana Gaddi from SouthWest and after formation of island , it flows towards
52
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
North-East . The deponent has further stated that

Hampi Development Authority has conducted survey
of Anegundi village including Navavrindavana Gaddi
wherein the flow of river is shown from South West
towards North-East and that this establishes that Ex.D335 is a fabricated document. The deponent has
further stated that the documents now sought to be
produced as additional evidence are necessary to
decide the real controversy involved in the case and
for proper adjudication of the matter.
d. The Appellant has not filed Objections to
the present Application.
27. a.
On 20-01-2015 , the Respondent has

Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to produce 16
documents as additional evidence.
53
b.
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
The documents sought to be produced are
replies dated 13-01-2015 and 20-01-2015 given by

Sub-Registrar, Gangavathi under RTI Act , certified
copies of Sale Deed obtained in the years 1979 and
1989 along with Kannada translation , Tippani
documents , Akarband record, Reports of Department
of Telugu language of Dravadian University and
Reply dated 03-01-2015
given by Tahasildar ,
Gangavathi under RTI Act.

c.
In
the
Affidavit
accompanying
the

has stated that one Sri Raghavendra Albanur had filed
an Application under RTI Act before the SubRegistrar , Gangavathi and that the documents
obtained under the RTI Act disclose that the claim of
the Appellant Mutt that a registered Sale Deed was
executed by Vakil Krishna Rao in favour of Sri
Satyadhyana Teertharu on
19-03-1916 is a
concocted and fabricated document and that no such
54
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Sale Deed was registered between the parties with the

Sub-Registrar, Gangavathi. The deponent has further
stated that the documents No. 1 and 2 now sought to
be produced go to show that pages No. 1 to 3 of Vol. I
, Register No. III relate to Sy. Nos. 314 and 598 of
Chickajantakal village and not Sy. No. 239 of
Anegundi village . The deponent has further stated
that in the Sale Deed produced by the Plaintiff, one
Rama Rao is shown as Sub-Registrar, but the fact is
that on the said date , one Hussain Alikhan was the
Sub-Registrar as per the records. The deponent has
further stated that in the survey proceedings, the
Appellant had produced certified copy of the Sale
Deed obtained on 20-02-1973 issued by the SubRegistrar, Gangavathi and that in O.S. No. 74/2010,
the Appellant had produced certified copy of the Sale
Deed
obtained on 30-11-1989 issued by the Sub-
Registrar, Gangavathi. The deponent has further stated

that the office of Sub-Registrar, Gangavathi has
furnished information under the RTI Act that the said
55
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
certified copies of the Sale Deed were not issued by

the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gangavathi and that
the said certified copies are fabricated and concocted
documents. The deponent has further stated that the
Tippani copy obtained under RTI Act discloses that
the extent of cultivable land in Sy. No. 192 is only 14
acres 07 guntas and the rest of the land is Nala
Gaddi Porampok and Hillock area. The deponent has
further stated that moola Tippani shows that Sy. No.
of 192 was in the name of Veera Ramaraja till the year
1935 and that if really Sri Satyadhyana Teertharu had
purchased the land validly under the Sale Deed ,
Mutation Records should have been in the name of
Sri Satyadhyana Teertharu and not Veera Ramaraja .
The deponent has further stated that the Akarband
record now sought to be produced discloses that the
total area of Anegundi village wherein Nadinala is 140
acres, the extent of the land of Uttaradhi Mutt is 14
acres 7 guntas and the extent of Nadinala is reduced to
126 acres and the land of Uttaradi Mutt in the year
56
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
1975 was changed to 27 acres 30 guntas .
The
deponent has further stated that the above said

documents disclose that by playing fraud and in
connivance with the Survey and Revenue Authorities,
the Appellant has concocted documents to claim right
over 27 acres 30 guntas in Sy. No. 192. The deponent
has further stated that the survey re-settlement
conducted in the year 1935 was incorrect and that the
records obtained under RTI Act and produced now go
to show that survey was conducted only in the year
1930 and that no survey re-settlement took place in the
year 1935 and the documents now sought to be
produced show the acts of fraud and fabrication of
public documents by the Plaintiff in order to
unlawfully claim right over Sy. No. 192 to an extent of
27 acres 30 guntas. The deponent has further stated
that the documents now sought to be produced are
necessary to decide the real controversy and proper
adjudication of the case and would enable the Court to
pronounce the Judgment.
57
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
d. The GPA holder of the Appellant Mutt has

filed Objections to the present Application stating that
the Respondent has filed similar Application and has
produced
the same documents before the Honble
High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in WP No.

111125/2014 and also before the jurisdictional Deputy
Commissioner,
Respondent
Koppal
cannot
and
that
prosecute
therefore
two
the
matters
simultaneously . The Appellant has further stated that

there is enormous delay in the filing of the present
Application since all the proceedings and the
documents referred to by the Respondent were within
its knowledge in the year 1973-74 itself
and also
during the trial of the Suit before the trial Court . The
Appellant has further stated that the documents sought
to be produced are not necessary for the purpose of
determining the dispute involved in the Appeal. The
Appellant has further stated that so long as the
Judgment and Decree in the previous proceedings
between the parties stand unchallenged , the
58
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Respondent is barred from raising any contention on

the basis of the said documents. The Appellant has
further stated that the matter has attained finality as
the Appellate Court in R.A. No. 45/1968 has held that
the Suit was not only in respect of 14 acres 7 guntas
land in Sy. No. 192 , but was in respect of the land
comprising in the Sale Deed and bounded on all the
sides by the river Tungabhadra. The Appellant has
further stated that its land was forfeited for nonpayment of land revenue and that subsequently on an
Application made by the Appellant Mutt, the forfeited
land was restored by the Raja of Anegundi to the
Appellant Mutt . The Appellant has further stated that
the allegation that only 14 acres 7 guntas was restored
is a false statement. The Appellant has further stated
that it has not suppressed any information while
seeking correction of the extent of land in Sy. No. 192
in the Revenue records. The Appellant has further
stated that after issuing notice to the representative of
the Respondent Mutt and the representative of the
59
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
other Mutt , survey was conducted in accordance with

law and that the Respondent cannot challenge the said
proceedings before this Court . The Appellant has
further stated that the Sale Deed relied on by it is a
registered document relied on and referred to in
various judicial proceedings between the parties which
Sale Deed has not been questioned by the Respondent
till this day. The Appellant has further stated that the
contentions now raised by the Respondent and the
documents referred to by the Respondent have been
the subject matter of findings in Appeal No. 356/1977
on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and in
WP No. 2329/1981 on the file of the Honble High
Court of Karnataka and that therefore the ground of
fraud alleged by the Respondent cannot be entertained.
The Appellant has further stated that the Telugu
representation sought
to
be
produced
by
the
Respondent is only a procured interpretation to suit the

Respondent and that the alleged translator has not
properly
looked
into
Ex.P-16
document.
The
60
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Appellant has further stated that the Tippanis and

Revenue records and the sketches now produced by
the Respondent have already been considered in the
Judgments as per Ex.P-36 and Ex.P-37 and that
therefore the Respondent cannot raise the said
contentions before this Court.
28. a. The Respondent has filed an Application

praying for initiation of an inquiry under Section 340
of Cr.P.C., against the Pontiff and the Power of
Attorney Holder of the Appellant Mutt for the
offences under Sections 195-A, 196 , 463 , 464 , 466 ,
471 , 474 and 420 R/w Section 34 of IPC .
b. In the Affidavit accompanying the application ,
the deponent has stated that the claim of the Appellant
/ Plaintiff in O.S.No.65/1 of 1959-60 was restricted to
an extent of 14 acres 7 guntas and that later,
suppressing the re-grant Order made by the Raja of
Anegundi and the Decree passed in O.S.No.65/1 of
61
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
1959-60 , the Appellant Mutt by producing certified

copy of the Sale Deed alleged to be supplies on 20-021973 by the office of the Sub-Registrar , Gangavathi,
made representation to the Survey Authorities for
modification of the extent of Sy.No.192 and also
induced one Deputy Director of Land Records ,
Gulbarga to pressurize the ASLR , Raichur to conduct
survey and modify the extent - and that accordingly ,
the area of Sy.No.192 came to be modified as 27 acres
30 guntas . The deponent has further stated that the
information obtained by one Mr.Raghavendra Albanur
under the RTI Act discloses that the Sale Deed dated
19-03-1916 is a concocted and fabricated document
and that no such Sale Deed was registered between the
parties mentioned therein in the office of the SubRegistrar , Gangavathi . The deponent has further
stated that pages No. 1 to 3 of Vol. I , Register No. III
relate to Sy. Nos. 314 and 598 of Chickajantakal
village and does not pertain to Sy. No. 239 of
Anegundi village . The deponent has further stated
62
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
that in the Sale Deed produced by the Plaintiff, one

Rama Rao is shown as Sub-Registrar, Gangavathi , but
the fact is that on the said date , one Hussain Alikhan
was the Sub-Registrar as per the records. The
deponent has further stated that in the survey
proceedings, the Appellant had produced certified
copy of the Sale Deed obtained on 20-02-1973 issued
by the Sub-Registrar, Gangavathi and that in O.S. No.
74/2010, the Appellant had produced certified copy of
the Sale Deed obtained on 30-11-1989 supplied by
the Sub-Registrar, Gangavathi. The deponent has
further stated that the office of Sub-Registrar,
Gangavathi has furnished information under the RTI
Act that the said certified copies of the Sale Deed were
not issued by the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Gangavathi and that the said certified copies are
fabricated and concocted documents. The deponent
has further stated that
in O.S.No.74/2010
the
Appellant has produced document as per Ex.P-16

alleged to be executed by Raja Tirumalaraya in the
63
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
year 1368 Saka which is equivalent to 1447 AD and

that in the Kannada translation of the said document
as per Ex.P-16(a) , the year of Saka is tampered as
1768 in the place of 1368 and that there is mention
about existence of Brindavanas of Sri Vyasarajaru and
the other Pontiffs . The deponent has further stated
that as on that date ,
except the Brindavanas of
Padmanabha Teertharu, Kaveendraru and Vageesha

Teertharu , no other Brindavanas were in existence .
The
deponent
has
further
stated
that
Raja
Tirumalaraya of Anegundi Samsthana ruled during

1845 1865 and that this clearly reveals that the
documents produced by the Plaintiff are forged and
fabricated . The deponent has further stated that in
Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-16(a) , there is mention about
existence of Brindavanas in Sy. Nos. 112, 113 and 114
, when in fact there was no system of Survey Number
at that time . The deponent has further stated that the
documents produced by the Respondent go to show
that the Appellant has fraudulently created public
64
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
documents and used them in the Administrative and

Judicial proceedings with intent to defeat the rights of
the third parties and to knock-off the rights of the
Respondent . Stating thus , the Respondent has prayed
for initiation of inquiry against the Pontiff and the
Power of Attorney Holder of the Plaintiff Mutt under
Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
c . The Appellant has filed Statement of
Objections to the Application by para-wise denying
each and every allegation made in the Application by
the Respondent .
29. I have heard the arguments of the learned
Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Counsel for
the Respondent at length on the merits of the case as
well as on the Applications filed by the parties in this
Appeal . Besides , the learned Counsel for the
Respondent has submitted written arguments . I have
gone through the written arguments . I have perused
65
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
the records of the case , including the records of the

trial Court .
30. The following Points arise for my consideration
:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Whether the Plaintiff proves its

possession of the Suit property as on
the date of the Suit ?
Whether
the
Plaintiff
proves
interference by the Defendant with its
possession of the Suit property ?
Whether framing of an additional
Issue regarding res-judicata as prayed
for by the Appellant is necessary ?
Whether framing of an additional
Issue regarding the existence of
Navavrindavanas within or outside
the area of 14 acres 7 guntas land in
Sy. No. 192 as prayed by the
Respondent is necessary ?
Whether the Appellant proves that in
spite of exercise of due diligence , the
documents sought to be produced in
this Appeal as additional evidence
could not be produced before the trial
Court ?
66
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Whether the Respondent proves that

in spite of exercise of due diligence ,
the documents sought to be produced
in this Appeal as additional evidence
could not be produced before the trial
Court ?
Whether the Respondent has made out
a case for ordering for fresh survey of
Sy. No. 192 of Anegundi village ?
Whether the Respondent proves that it
is expedient in the interests of Justice
that an inquiry should be made against
the Pontiff and the Power of Attorney
Holder of the Appellant Mutt under
Section 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure ?
Whether the Judgment and Decree of
the trial Court require interference in
this Appeal ?
What Decree or Order ?
31. My Answer to the above Points is as under :

Point No. 1 : In the Affirmative .
Point No. 2: In the Affirmative .
Point No. 3: In the Negative .
67
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

Point No. 9: In the Affirmative .
Point No. 10 : As per the Final Order,
for the following:
REASONS
32. Points No. 1 and 3 to 7 : For the sake of
convenience and to avoid repetition , these Points are
taken together for discussion.
33. The learned Counsel for the Appellant,
narrating the Pleadings of the parties and the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record before the
trial Court , argued that in spite of adducing cogent
and convincing evidence by the Plaintiff to prove its
possession over the Suit property and interference by
the Defendant , the trial Court has dismissed the Suit
of the Plaintiff by considering only few documents
produced by the Defendant and without properly
68
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
appreciating the scope of the Suit , the documents

produced by the Plaintiff and the oral evidence
adduced by it . The learned Counsel further argued
that the Judgment and Decree passed by the Court of
Munsiff, Gangavathi in O.S. No. 65/1/1959-60 and the
Judgment of the Civil Court, Raichur in O.S. No.
45/1968
operate as res judicata against the
Defendants and that therefore an additional Issue may

be framed in this regard. The learned Counsel further
argued that the documents now sought to be produced
by the Appellate in this Appeal would help the Court
to properly adjudicate the questions involved in the
Suit .
34. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the
Respondents, while supporting the Judgment of the
trial Court, argued that the very Suit of the Plaintiff is
not maintainable without seeking the relief of
Declaration of title and that the trial Court has rightly
dismissed the Suit of the Plaintiff. The learned
Counsel further argued that no Vrindavanas as alleged
69
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
by the Plaintiff are situated in the Suit property and

that the question whether or not Vrindavanas are
situated within the extent of 14 acres 7 guntas is a
crucial question to be answered in this Suit and that
therefore an additional Issue has to be framed in this
regard. The learned Counsel further argued that the
documents now sought to be produced by the
Respondent in this Appeal through the three
Applications filed by it would go to show that the
survey proceedings and survey report showing the
extent of the Suit land as 27 acres 30 guntas , are out
come of fraud played by the Plaintiff and that to
adjudicate on the said aspects, the Respondent may be
permitted to produce the said documents as additional
evidence. The learned Counsel further argued that the
Sale Deed as per Ex.P-3 is a fabricated and concocted
document and that no such Sale Deed was registered
on the relevant date in the Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Gangavathi and that the documents now produced by
the Respondent in this Appeal would demonstrate the
70
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
same. The learned Counsel further argued that the

Decrees obtained by the Plaintiff in O.S. No.
65/1/1959-60 and in R.A. No. 45/1968 are the out
come of fraud played by the Plaintiff and that
therefore the said Judgments are not binding on the
Defendant and they do not operate as res judicata
against the Defendant.
The learned Counsel further
argued that the earlier Suit filed by the Plaintiff in the

year 1959-60 was only in respect of an extent of 14
acres 7 guntas land whereas the present Suit is filed in
respect of 27 acres 30 guntas and that therefore
without seeking the relief of declaration , the Suit of
the Plaintiff is not maintainable. The learned Counsel
further
argued that the Pontiff and the Power of
Attorney Holder of the Plaintiff Mutt are guilt of

committing fraud, fabrication of documents and
producing such documents before the Courts and other
Authorities and that therefore they may be prosecuted
under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Relying on the decisions
reported in AIR 1994 SC 893 ( S. C. Changalaraya
71
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Naidu, by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath, by L.Rs. and others )

and (2012) 1 SCC 476 ( Union of India Vs. Ramesh
Gandhi ), the learned Counsel argued that the
Judgment and Decree obtained by a party to the Suit
by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non-est
in the eyes of law and that such Judgments would not
operate as res judicata against the opposite party.
The learned Counsel
has relied on the decision
reported in AIR-2013 SC 523 ( Bhaskar Laxman

Jadhav Vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education
Society and others ) to argue that the Court is bound
to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do
not have any respect for truth and who make mis
statements and who suppress material facts.
Description of the Suit property

35. It is contended by the Defendant that the
Plaintiff has not properly described the Suit property
and that the description of the Suit property made by
72
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
the Plaintiff does not fulfill the requirements of Order

7 Rule 3 of CPC. In the Plaint, the Plaintiff has
described the Suit property as under :
All the land measuring 100 acres
bearing old Sy. No. 239 and New Sy.
Gangavathi Taluka, Raichur District
bounded on the East, West, South and
North by Tungabhadra river, popularly
known as Nava Vrindavanagaddi. The
extent of the land at present visible
over the matter is 27 acres 30 guntas as
per the survey and confirmed by the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
36. In the Sale Deed as per Ex.P-3, the property
sold under the Sale Deed are shown to be bounded on
all the four sides by Tungabhadra river. There is no
dispute that the Navavrindavana Gaddi is an island
surrounded by Tungabhadra River. The Plaintiff has
described the Suit property with its Survey Number
and boundaries. The description of the Suit property
made by the Plaintiff, in the opinion of the Court,
73
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
fulfills the requirement of Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC.

Hence I am of the opinion that the said contention of
the Defendant cannot be accepted.
Possession of the Suit property, question of
title and maintainability of Suit for Perpetual
Injunction :
37. It is the specific case of the Plaintiff that it
has purchased the Suit property from one Peshkar
Krishna Rao and is in possession of the same. The
same is denied by the Defendant.
38. The learned Counsel for the Appellant
argued that inspite of the Plaintiff producing the
original Sale Deed and the Judgments and Decrees in
the earlier proceedings between the parties and
documents showing its possession of the Suit property,
the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the Suit by
holding that a bare Suit for Perpetual Injunction is not
maintainable. Per contra , the learned Counsel for the
Respondent argued that the Suit of the Plaintiff
74
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
without seeking the relief of Declaration of title is not

maintainable. The learned Counsel further argued that
the relief of declaration granted by the Court in O.S.
No. 65/1/1959-60 was only in respect of 14 acres 7
guntas land whereas in the present Suit, the Plaintiff is
alleging to be in possession of 27 acres 30 guntas land
and that therefore the Plaintiff ought to have sought
for the relief of declaration of its title . The learned
Counsel further argued that the documents produced
by the Respondent in this Appeal go to show that no
such Sale Deed was registered on the relevant date in
the Office of Sub-Registrar , Gangavathi . This aspect
will be discussed in later part of the Judgment .
39. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has

relied on the decision of the Honble High Court of
Karnataka reported in AIR 2007 KAR 40 ( Smt.
Nirmala Vs. Naveen Chhaggar and another) . In the
said case, where the documents revealed that the
Defendant therein was in possession of the Suit
75
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
property, the Honble High Court of Karnataka , in the

facts and circumstances of the said case , has held the
Suit of the Plaintiff therein to be not maintainable. The
Appellant has relied on the decisions reported in AIR
1989 SC 1809 ( Corporation of the City of Bangalore
Vs M. Papaiah and another), ILR 2006 KAR 1049 (
SC) ( Rame Gowda , by L.Rs. Vs. M. Varadappa
Naidu , by L.Rs. and another ) ,
200
A.L.V.R.
Ct.
AIR 1936 Madras
Veerappa
Chettiar
Vs.
Arunachalam Chetti and others ), AIR 1936 Madras

936 ( Muthayyan Swaminatha Sastrial and others Vs.
S. Narayanaswami Sastrial and others ) and AIR 1971
Calcutta 1 ( Biswanath Bandapadhyay Vs. Purnamony
Dassi and another)
to argue that a Suit for mere
Perpetual Injunction is maintainable.
40. Both the sides have relied on the decision of

the Honble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR
2008 SC 2033 [ ( 2008 ) 4 SCC 594 ] ( Anathula
Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy , by LRs. and Others ) .
76
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
It is profitable to excerpt the observations made by the

Honble Supreme Court at Paragraphs No.13 to 15 [
SCC ] which read thus :
13. The general principles as to when
a mere suit for permanent injunction will
lie , and when it is necessary to file a suit
for declaration and /or possession with
injunction as a consequential relief , are
well settled . We may refer to them briefly .
13.1 . Where a plaintiff in lawful or
peaceful possession of a property and such
possession is interfered or threatened by
the defendant, a suit for an injunction
simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to
protect his possession against any person
who does not prove a better title by seeking
a prohibitory injunction. But a person in
wrongful possession is not entitled to an
injunction against the rightful owner.
13.2 Whether the title of the plaintiff is
not disputed, but he is not in possession, his
remediy is to file a suit for possession and
seek in addition, if necessary, in injunction.
A person out of possession, cannot seek the
relief of injunction simpliciter, without
claiming the relief of possession.
77
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
13.3.
Whether the plaintiff is in
possession, but his title to the property is in
dispute, or under a cloud, or where the
defendant asserts title thereto and there is
also a threat of dispossession from the
defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for
declaration of title and the consequential
relief of injunction. Where the title of the
plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and
he is not in possession or not able to
establish possession , necessarily the
plaintiff will have to file a suit for
declaration, possession and injunction.
14. We may, however, clarify that a
prayer for declaration will be necessary
only if the denial of title by the defendant or
challenge to the plaintiffs title raises a
cloud on the title of the plaintiff to the
property. A cloud is said to raise over a
persons title, when some apparent defect in
his title to a property, or when some prima
facie right of a third party over it, is made
out or shown. An action for declaration, is
the remedy to remove the cloud on the title
to the property. On the other hand, where
the plaintiff has clear title supported by
documents, if a trespasser without any
claim to title or an interloper without any
78
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
apparent title, merely denies the plaintiffs

title , it does not amount to raising a cloud
over the title of the plaintiff and it will not
be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for
declaration and a suit for injunction may
be sufficient. Where the plaintiff, believing
that the defendant is only a trespasser or a
wrongful claimant without title, files a mere
suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the
defendant discloses in his defence the
details of the right or title claimed by him,
which raise a serious dispute or cloud over
the plaintiffs title, then there is a need for
the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and
convert the suit into one for declaration.
Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for
bare injunction, with permission of the
court to file a comprehensive suit for
declaration and injunction. He may file the
suit for declaration with consequential
relief, even after the suit for injunction is
dismissed, where the suit raised only the
issue of possession and not any issue of title.
41. I have carefully gone through the
Pleadings of the parties and the oral and documentary
evidence adduced by them. The Plaintiff has produced
Judgment as per Ex.P-10 passed by the Court of
79
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Munsiff , Gangavathi in O.S. No. 65/1 of 1959-60.

That was a Suit filed by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant Mutt , Sri Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt and two
others.
In the said Suit , the Court of Munsiff ,
Gangavathi has declared the title of the Plaintiff over

Sy.No.192.
42. It is worthwhile to extract Issues No. 2 and 3

framed in O.S. No. 65/1 of 1959-60, which read as
under :
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
suit property originally belonged to
Krishta Rao, the alleged Vendor in favour
of H.H. Sathyadhyan Teertharu , the
Peetadhipathi of plaintiff Math ?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
said Krisht rao executed the sale deed
dated : Shalivahana Sekha 1837 Pahlguna
Bahula 4(1325 Fasli ) in favour of the
plaintiff Mutt ? If so, is the sale deed true
and valid ?
80
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
43. In the said Suit in O.S.No.65/1/1959-60 , the

son of the vendor Krishna Rao , by name Sethu Rao
was examined by the Plaintiff therein as P.W.6. The
Plaintiff therein had also examined the son of one of
the attesting witnesses to the Sale Deed as P.W.8. The
original Sale Deed was produced in the said Suit and
was marked as Ex.P-17. By considering the evidence
of P.W.6 and P.W.8 therein and by raising
presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act in
respect of the Sale Deed , the Court of Munsiff ,
Gangavathi has answered Issues No. 2 and 3 therein in
the Affirmative . In the said Suit , the Court of
Munsiff has elaborately discussed about the Sale Deed
and has even discussed regarding the consideration
amount in respect of the said Sale transaction . The
said Sale Deed is marked as Ex.P-3 in the present Suit.
The title of the Plaintiff in respect of the property
purchased under Ex.P-3 Sale Deed has already been
declared by a competent Court of law. The same has
been upheld by the Appellate Court in R.A. No.
81
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
45/1968 and by the Honble High Court of Karnataka

in the Regular Second Appeal.
44. Merely because even in the present Suit, the

Defendant has denied the title of the Plaintiff , that
does not mean that the Plaintiff has to again prove its
title . The Defendant herein being a party to the Suit in
O.S. No. 65/1 of 1959-60, the declaratory relief
granted therein in favour of the Plaintiff is binding on
the Defendant.
45.Though in the present Appeal, the Respondent
has tried to project a theory that no such Sale Deed
was registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Gangavathi, it is pertinent to note that the said Sale
Deed has not been cancelled by any Court of law. In
fact, the Appeal and the Second Appeal against the
Decree passed in O.S. No. 65/1 of 1959-60 have ended
in their dismissal. It is pertinent to note that in the Suit
in O.S. No. 65/1 of 1959-60 , the then Peethadipathi of
82
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
the Defendant Mutt who was examined in the said Suit

as D.W.1 has stated in his evidence ( as per Ex.P-9 ) to
the effect that the Defendant Mutt does not possess
any title deeds in respect of the Suit land from the
inception. The right of the Defendant over the landed
property as such having been negatived in the previous
litigations between the parties, the right , if any , of
the Defendant
is only regarding performance of
Aradhanas and Poojas and nothing more . Even that

right ought to be established in a separate proceeding
. Needless to say that the present Suit being one for
mere Perpetual Injunction, the trial Court has not
framed any Issue regarding the rights of the Defendant
to perform Aradhanas and Poojas of Navavrindavanas.
Even this Appellate Court does not venture to give any
finding on the rights of the parties to perform
Aradhanas and Poojas of Navavrindavanas situated in
the island. At any rate, I am of the opinion that it is not
incumbent upon the Plaintiff to prove its title in each
and every Suit filed by it or against it .
83
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
46. As regards the extent of land in Sy. No. 192 ,

the Judgment of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in
Appeal No. 356/1977 (Rev) [ as per Ex.P-36] and the
Judgment of the Honble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P. No. 18017/1987 would give answer to the said
Point. It is profitable to extract the observations made
by the Honble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.
18017/1987 , wherein at Paragraphs No. 6 ,7 ,9 ,10 ,11
and 13 the Honble High Court of Karnataka has
observed thus :
6. Prior to these proceedings,
there was a Civil Suit between the
Petitioner and the Uttaradhi Mutt in
Original Suit No. 65/1 of 1959-60 which
was filed by Uttaradhi Mutt. The case of
the Uttaradhi Mutt was that the land
bearing survey No. 192 was sold by one
Vakil Krista Rao and he conveyed the
title under a registered sale deed dated
23-03-1916 executed by him. The land
measured 100 acres. In that suit, the title
of the Uttaradhi Mutt was upheld and
the claim made by the Petitioner was
84
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
rejected. There was an appeal preferred

by the petitioner in Appeal No. 45 of 1968
before the Civil Judge , Raichur. It was
dismissed on 2-2-1972. ----- Thus, by
reason of the decree passed by the Civil
Court, the petitioner seized to have or
claim any right in the land in question.
7. After the Civil Court decided the
claim of the Uttaradhi Mutt, the
Department of Survey and Settlement
was approached to correct the extent of
land in question bearing Survey No. 192
of Anegundi village from 14 acres and 7
guntas to 27 acres 30 guntas. The
Superintendent of Land Records,
Bellary, on examining the records, found
that survey No. 192 of Anegundi village
measured 27 acres 30 guntas and there
no Government land was comprised in it.
It was neither treated as Kharab nor an
independent survey number was assigned
as Government land. Therefore, it was
held that the entire extent of 27 acres 30
guntas pertaining to survey No. 192 only.
Accordingly, he ordered for correction
of the extent of the land. The petitioner
who had lost in the civil suit could not
have agitated the matter any longer,
85
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
nevertheless he took up the matter in

appeal before the Joint Director of Land
Records, Gulbarga in appeal No.
CLRA.1/75-76. The Joint Director of
Land Records went into the matter in
detail, examined it with reference to the
sale deed and the boundaries given
therein and held that the entire land in
question fell within the boundaries
mentioned in the sale deed which was
executed in favour of the Uttaradhi Mutt
within which, Nava Brindavan was
situated. Accordingly, he dismissed the
appeal. He also held that the petitioner
had no locus standi to challenge the
order of the Superintendent of Land
Records inasmuch as it had no right
whatsoever in the land in question.
9. It is contended on behalf of the
petitioner that when the Uttaradhi Mutt
fought the civil case on the basis that the
land measured 14 acres and thereafter
the petitioner made an application for
grant of the remaining land available,
pending that application, it was not
proper nor permissible for
the
authorities to correct the extent of the
survey number and reject his application
86
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
on that ground. Once, the petitioner lost

the suit and the Uttaradhi Mutt was held
to be the owner of the land, it lost
everything in the matter regarding right,
title and interest claimed by it in the land
in question except the religious right
claimed by the petitioner, because the
religious right was not the subject matter
of any of the proceedings. It is made clear
that the findings recorded by the
authorities and this order should not be
construed as affecting the religious rights
claimed by the petitioner and Uttaradhi
Mutt in Nava Brindavan situated in
the land in question.
10. It was not at all permissible for
the
petitioner
to
challenge
the
proceedings in relation to measurement
of the land and determination of the
extent and the change of entries in the
Records of Rights pursuant to the
determination of the extent of the land.
In fact, after the decree of civil court,
there was no lis between the petitioner
and the Uttaradhi Mutt. The Joint
Director of Land Records and the
Tribunal are right in holding that the
87
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
petitioner had no locus standi to

challenge the same.
11. Even to this day, the stand of
the State Government as submitted by
the learned Government Pleader is that
whatever finding recorded by the
Superintendent of Land Records and the
Joint Director of Land Records is
accepted as correct, because at no point
of time remaining extent of land was
considered to be outside the boundaries
of survey No. 192 and nor it was claimed
or shown in the revenue records as
belonging to the State Government. In
fact, a reading of the sale deed would
make it clear that the land in question at
the time when the sale deed was
executed, measured more than 27 acres.
It appears to me that floods in the river
appears to have changed its course every
now and then and as a result thereof
there was a reduction in the total extent
of 100 acres and in course of time, it
appears to have reduced to 27 acres 30
guntas as it measures today. Before the
civil court, the plaintiff- Uttaradhi Mutt
had not claimed that the land measured
only 14 acres, but it had depended upon
the sale deed and gave the boundaries as
88
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
found in the sale deed . Under these

circumstances, I am of the view that the
petitioner has no locus standi to
challenge the order of the Superintendent
of Land Records and the Joint Director
of Land Records.
13. From the findings recorded in the
orders of the Superintendent of Land
Records, the Joint Director of Land
Records and the Tribunal and also of the
Assistant Commissioner in Appeal No.
SR/RRT/10/75-76 it emerges that
originally the land in question must have
measured 100 acres and because of
alluvion it must have been reduced.
Whatever the land available in the island
belongs to survey No. 192 since there is
no other survey number therein. When
there is no Kharab numbered or
unnumbered the entire land must belong
to survey number 192 and the Survey
Department might have committed an
error while conducting survey in 1925
knowingly or unknowingly. Hence, the
petitioners argument that the area other
than 14 acres 7 guntas in the island
belongs to Government has been rightly
rejected.
89
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
47. It is contended by the Defendant Mutt that

as it was not a party to the proceeding in Appeal No.
356/1977 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and
in W.P. No. 18017/1987, the said Judgments are not
binding on it and that the Plaintiff cannot rely upon the
said Judgments in this case. To counterweight this
contention , the Appellant has relied on the decision
of the Honble Supreme Court of India reported in
(1998) 3 SCC 331 ( Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams
Vs. K. M. Krishnaiah ) and the decision of the
Honble High Court of Kerala reported in AIR 2002
Kerala 133 ( Raman Pillai Krishna Pillai and others
Vs. Kumaran Parameshwaran and others ) . In the
decision reported in (1998) 3 SCC 331 , the Honble
Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision
reported in AIR 1954 SC 379
( Srinivas
Krishnarao Kango Vs. Narayan Devji Kango ) , has

held that a Judgment not inter-partes is admissible in
90
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act as

evidence of assertion of right to property in dispute.
48. It is not the case of the Defendant herein that
the title of the Suit property vests in it. The rights , if
any, of the Defendant are only regarding performance
of Poojas and Aradhanas of the Vrindavanas situated
in the Suit property. But the Defendant cannot claim
any right over the immovable property as such in Sy.
No. 192. Such being the case, merely because the
Defendant has denied the title of the Plaintiff over the
Suit property, that cannot be taken to mean that a
cloud is raised over the Plaintiff Mutts title to the Suit
property. It may be true that the Defendant was not a
party to the above said proceedings before the Honble
High Court of Karnataka and the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal. But, notwithstanding
the said fact , the
observations made in the said Judgments cannot be

brushed aside by this Court . The observation made by
the Honble High Court in its Judgment in W.P. No.
91
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
18017/1987 that the Petitioner therein ( i.e., Sri

Vyasaraja Mutt ) has lost everything in the matter
regarding right, title and interest in the land in
question , excluding the religious rights, is equally
applicable to the Defendant Mutt.
49. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of

the Defendant as per its Pleadings that besides Suit Sy.
No. 192 , there is some other survey number land in
the island. Absolutely there is no Pleading by the
Defendant on these lines. Such being the case, when
there is only one Survey Number i.e., Sy. No. 192 in
the island and when the Plaintiff has purchased Sy.
No. 192 and when the entire Sy.No. 192 is surrounded
on all the four sides by Tungabhadra river , the only
inference that may be drawn is that whatever land is
available in Sy. No. 192 , the title over the same vests
in the Plaintiff Mutt. As such , merely because in the
earlier Suit the extent of the land was shown as 14
acres 7 guntas , that will not affect the title of the
92
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Plaintiff over the land purchased by it under Ex.P-3

Sale Deed
Kar.L.J.9
. In the decision reported in

(
Sri
Mahalingeshwara
1971(1)
Devaru
Vs.
Seetharama Bhatta ) relied on by the Appellant , the

Honble High Court of Karnataka , while discussing
the question of res-judicata , has held at Paragraph
No.3 that the primary test of res-judicata depends
upon the identity of title in the two litigations and not
the identity of the actual property involved in the two
cases .
50. Except the religious rights ( subject of-course

to the establishment of the same in a separate
proceeding as observed by the Honble High Court ) ,
the Defendant Mutt cannot put forth any title in itself
over the Suit property or over a part of it. The Sale
Deed of the Plaintiff mentions the boundaries of the
Suit property as Tungabhadra river on all the four
sides . It is an established principle of law that when
there is discrepancy in a document as regards extent
93
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
and boundaries, the recitals as to boundaries shall

prevail.
Regarding the law on the Point , the
Appellant has relied on the decisions reported in AIR

1969 Manipur
84 ( Tronglaobi Pisciculture Co-
operative Society Ltd., Vs. Chief Commissioner of

Manipur & others ) , ILR 1988 KAR 554 ( Narasimha
Shastry Vs. Mangesha Devaru ) and AIR 2003 Madras
78 ( N. S. Ramanathan and another Vs. N.
Krishnamoorthy Iyer and others ).
51. When the Sale Deed of the Plaintiff says that

the entire Sy. No. 192 is bounded on all the four sides
by Tungabhadra River , whatever land is available in
Sy. No. 192
( with aluvion and deluvion ) belongs
to the ownership of the Plaintiff . Under these

circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Suit of the
Plaintiff is maintainable without seeking the relief of
declaration of title.
94
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
52. Another aspect that may be taken note of by

this Court is that in respect of the very same Suit
property , the Plaintiff has obtained a Decree of
Perpetual Injunction against Vyasaraja Mutt in O.S.
No. 130/1978 , that too with the measurement of the
property as 27 acres
30 guntas . Ex.P-44 is the
certified copy of the Judgment passed by the Court of

the Civil Judge, Koppal , in O.S. No. 130/1978 .
The Appeal in R. A. No. 4/1989 filed by the Sri
Vyasaraj Mutt against the said Judgment has been
dismissed. Ex.P-45 is the certified copy of the Decree
in R.A. No. 4/1989. Even the Second Appeal filed by
Vyasaraja Mutt in R.S.A. No. 214/1992 ( as per Ex.P46 ) has been dismissed by the Honble High Court of
Karnataka.
After going through the oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the parties in the

present Suit , I am of the opinion that the contentions
raised by the Defendant that the Suit of the Plaintiff is
not maintainable, cannot be accepted. I am of the
opinion that by adducing oral and documentary
95
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
evidence, the Plaintiff has proved its possession over

the Suit property as on the date of the Suit .
Forfeiture , Re-grant, Restoration etc.,

53. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the
Respondent that after forfeiture of the land by the
Plaintiff for non-payment of the revenue in respect of
the land in Sy.No.192, what was restored later was 14
acres 7 guntas and nothing more and that therefore
the Plaintiff has no right to put forth its claim in
respect of the remaining area. It is further argued that
Ex.D-334 Grant Certificate does not refer to the
existence of Navavrindavanas in the granted land and
that the Plaintiff has not pleaded either in the earlier
Suit or in the present Suit regarding re-grant of the
land by Anegundi Samsthana and thereby the Plaintiff
has suppressed material facts. The learned Counsel has
relied on the decision reported in (2011) 5 SCC 270 (
96
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Pradeep Oil Corporation Vs. Municipal Corporation of

Delhi and another). In the said decision, the Honble
Supreme Court has held that the provisions of
Government Grants Act, 1895 , has over-riding effect
and prevails over the Transfer of Property Act.
54. To counter the said contention, it is argued

by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that neither
in the present Suit nor in the earlier Suit , the Plaintiff
has suppressed any material facts and that in the
earlier Suit, the claim of the Plaintiff was based on the
Sale Deed executed by Peshkar Krishna Rao. The
learned Counsel further argued that there was no fresh
grant or re-grant of the land by Anegundi Samsthana
to the Plaintiff Mutt and that Nazim Samsthan and
Rajasab of Anegundi, through Order dated 27-04-1355
Fasli has ordered for restoration of the land in the
name of the Plaintiff. The learned Counsel further
argued that as the Anegundi Samsthana was coming
under Hyderabad Province ( which was a Part B
97
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
State ), the provisions of Government Grants Act ,

1895 were not applicable to the Suit Sy. No. 192. The
learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the
decisions reported in AIR 1954 Mys. 39 ( Nagappa
Gowda and others Vs. Doddamane Gurupadappa and
others ) and ILR 1994 KAR 663 ( Zaheera Banu
Kareem Vs. Gomathi Bai G. Kamath ). In the decision
reported in AIR 1954 Mys. 39, the Honble High
Court of Mysore has held that mere forfeiture of the
land under Section 54 of the Land Revenue Code
followed by restoration to the defaulting holder does
not wipe out all the earlier rights. In the decision
reported in ILR 1994 KAR 662 , the Honble High
Court of Karnataka has held to the effect that the legal
effect of the Order of restoration of the land is that it
revives ownership and whatever right, title and interest
the owner had over the land as on the date of forfeiture
would revert back.
98
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
55. It may be noted that it is not the case of the

Defendant Mutt that the remaining extent of the land
in Sy. No. 192 ( excluding 14 acres 7 guntas ) belongs
to it . In the previous proceedings , it has been held
that the Defendant has no right in the Suit property
and that its rights , if any , are only regarding
performance of Aradhanas and Poojas. After going
through the records of the case, I am of the opinion
that it is not proper on the part of this Court to re-open
the
question
of
grant,
re-grant,
forfeiture
or
restoration. In its Judgment in Appeal No. 356/1977,

the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has elaborately
discussed these aspects. Though the Defendant Mutt
was not a party to the said Proceeding , the said
Judgment having not been set aside by the Honble
High Court or the Honble Supreme Court of India,
the observations made in the said Judgment, can
certainly be relied on by this Court to adjudicate the
dispute involved in the present Suit.
99
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

Respondent that the extent of land re-granted to the
Appellant was only 14 acres 7 guntas and nothing
more. It is pertinent to note that by Order dated 11-11351 Fasli, Nazim of Anegundi had forfeited the land
in Sy. No. 192. On payment of the revenue by the
Plaintiff Mutt, the
Nazim did set aside his earlier
Order. In the Suit in O.S. No. 65/1/1959-60 , Issues

No. 6 and 7 had been framed by the Court of the
Munsiff, Gangavathi in this regard. By treating the
said Issues as Preliminary Issues, the Court of
Munsiff, Gangavathi had earlier dismissed the Suit of
the Plaintiff. Challenging the dismissal of the Suit, the
Appellant Mutt had preferred an Appeal before the
Court of the Civil Judge , Raichur . The Court of the
Civil Judge, Raichur, set aside the Order of the
dismissal of the Suit passed by the Court of Munsiff ,
by holding that the Order of forfeiture was void and
illegal and that the Provisions of the Hyderabad Land
Revenue Act was not applicable. By allowing the said
100
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Appeal, the Court of the Civil Judge, Raichur in fact

remanded the matter to the Court of Munsiff. The
records reveal that Misc. Second Appeal filed by Sri
Vyasaraja Mutt before the Honble High Court of
Karnataka came to be dismissed , thereby confirming
the Order passed by the Civil Judge, Raichur. In its
Judgment in Misc. Second Appeal, the Honble High
Court has held to the effect that the genesis of the title
of the Plaintiff was not re-grant by Nazim, but the
genesis was the purchase of the land by the Plaintiff
through the Sale Deed . In the opinion of this Court,
the question of grant , re-grant , forfeiture and
restoration cannot be re-agitated by the Defendant in
this proceeding .
Besides, the provisions of the
Government Grants Act , 1895 was not applicable to

Part B States. At the time of passing of the Order of
re-grant, the Anegundi Samsthana was coming within
the area of part B States . As such , even on this count,
I opine that the contention of the Respondent is not
tenable. These aspects have been elaborately discussed
101
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in its Judgment

in Appeal No. 356/1977 from Paragraphs No. 43 to
46.
Navavrindavanas vis--vis Rights of parties to
perform Aradhanas , Poojas etc.,
57. It is the case of the Plaintiff Mutt that the
Vrindavanas of Sri Padmanabha Teertharu, Sri
Kaveendraru , Sri Vageesha Teertharu
and Sri
Raghuvaryaru exclusively belong to it (Plaintiff Mutt)

and that the Defendant Mutt has no manner of right ,
title or interest over the said Vrindavanas and that at
no point of time , the Defendant has performed the
Aradhanas of the said four Saints. The same is denied
by the Defendant. The case of the Defendant Mutt is
that it has been performing Aradhanas of the said four
Saints . The records of the trial Court reveal that
there is a serious dispute between the parties regarding
performance of Aradhanas and Poojas of the
Navavrindavanas . The learned Counsel for both the
102
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
sides argued at length regarding the concept of

Vrindavanas and Hastodakas
in Madhwa Sect of
Brahmins and right to perform Aradhanas and Poojas

of the Vrindavanas . By producing documents as per
Ex.D-30 to Ex.D-204 and other documents marked as
Exhibits , the Defendant is contending that it has right
to perform Aradhanas of Vrindavanas of some of the
Saints . In W.P. No. 18017/1987 , the Honble High
Court of Karnataka , way back in the year 1988 has
observed that the parties to the
dispute have to
establish their right to perform Aradhanas and Poojas

in a separate proceeding in a Civil Court.
58. The learned Counsel for the Respondent
argued that right to perform Poojas and Aradhanas
being an incorporeal right, that has nothing to do with
the right in the immovable property and that the
intention of the Plaintiff in filing the present Suit is to
deprive the Defendant and other Mutts to perform
Aradhanas and Poojas of Vrindavanas. By producing
103
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
documents as per Ex.D-30 to Ex.D-204 , the

Defendant is contending that it has right to perform
Aradhanas of some of the Vrindavanas in the island.
According to the Plaintiff , the said documents are got
up documents created by the Defendant only to
establish a non-existing right of worship. Both the
sides have drawn the attention of the Court to the oral
and documentary evidence placed on record regarding
right to perform Aradhanas etc. Having regard to the
scope of the Suit , I am of the opinion that this is not
the proper proceeding to adjudicate the rights of the
parties to perform Aradhanas etc. In the Memorandum
of Appeal, the Appellant itself has stated that the Suit
filed by it is not for any declaration of Pooja or
Aradhana rights.
59. It may be noted that the parties are fighting
for over half a century . No Court has declared the
rights of the parties to perform Poojas and Aradhanas
of the Vrindavanas in the island. The records reveal
104
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
that in the past 30 40 years, the Defendant has

performed Aradhanas on the strength of some Orders
passed by the Government Authorities. Of course, in
the present Suit / Appeal, the Court has passed some
interim Order regarding performance of Aradhanas.
Be that as it may, none of the three Mutts , has so far
initiated a separate proceeding to establish its right to
perform Aradhanas. In particular, the Defendant , who
indisputably does not have any title over the Suit
property, ought to have initiated separate proceeding
to establish its right to perform Aradhanas and Poojas
. Instead of initiating a separate proceeding in the
direction of establishing its religious rights, the
Defendant is trying to put forth its claim over the Suit
property , in spite of the fact that it has no title over
the island and in spite of the fact that its rights , if any
, are only to perform Aradhanas and nothing more .
The parties to the Suit have produced umpteen number
of documents like Gazettes , Religious Books , Texts,
Almanacs and Biographies of Madhwa Saints to show
105
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
the leneage of Madhwa Sect, origin of Madhwa Mutts

etc. In fact , the Defendant has adduced oral evidence
in this regard .
I am of the opinion that having regard
to the scope of the Suit, the said evidence need not be

discussed in detail in the present Appeal .
60. Having suffered a Decree, the right , if any ,
of the Defendant is only in respect of performing
Poojas and Aradhanas of the Vrindavanas in the Suit
property . If the parties initiate proceedings for
establishing their rights to perform Aradhanas and
Poojas or if the parties arrive at an amicable settlement
in this regard, certainly the lis would come to an end.
Even now, it is advisable for the parties to settle the
matter at the earliest , in order to maintain amity and
harmony in their community. In the opinion of this
Court, it is high time for the Peetadhipathis of the
Mutts to take necessary steps in the said direction .
106
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Framing of Additional Issues
Application filed by the Appellant :

61. In the present Appeal, by filing an
Application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC , the
Appellant is praying for framing of an additional Issue
to the effect that the Judgment in O.S. No. 65/1/195960 and R.A. No. 45/1968 operate as res-judicata
against the Defendant. The learned Counsel for the
Appellant argued that the Judgments of the Civil
Courts in O.S. No. 65/1/1959-60 and R.A. No.
45/1968 and the Judgment of the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal in Appeal No. 356/1977 operate as resjudicata and that in the said proceedings , it has been
held that the Navavrindavanas are situated within the
extent of 14 acres -7 guntas in Sy. No. 192 and that the
said findings in the earlier proceedings operate as resjudicata against the Defendant. After going through
the Pleadings of the parties and the Judgments passed
107
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
in the earlier proceedings and also bearing in mind the

nature of the present Suit , I am of the opinion that
there is no necessity of framing an additional Issue as
proposed by the Appellant .
Application filed by the Respondent :

62. By filing an application under Order 14 Rule
5 of CPC, the Respondent is praying for framing of an
additional Issue as to whether the Navavrindavanas
are situated within the extent of 14 acres 7 guntas land
or outside the said extent of land . It is argued by the
learned Counsel for the Respondent that the
Respondent
/ Defendant disputes the existence of
Navavrindavanas within the extent of 14 acres 7

guntas land in Sy. No. 192 and that in view of the
same , framing of an additional Issue as proposed by
the Respondent is necessary.
108
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
63. In this Appeal , by producing a certified

copy of the deposition of P.W.3 in O.S.No.65/1/195960 , the Respondent is contending that the said witness
for the Plaintiff himself has stated in the earlier Suit
that the Navavrindavanas are situated outside the said
extent of 14 acres 7 guntas . In producing the said
certified copy of the deposition , the Respondent has
not satisfied any of the conditions enumerated in
Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC .
Respondent that in Ex.D-343 [ Ex.D-343(a) being its
English translation ] , it is stated that the
Navavrindavanas are situated adjacent to 14 acres 7
guntas
land
and
that
this
shows
that
the
Navavrindavanas are not situated within the area of 14

acres 7 guntas land . I have carefully gone through the
documents as per Ex.D-343 and Ex.D-343(a) in the
light of the oral and documentary evidence let in by
both the parties . I am of the opinion
that only on
109
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
the ground of usage of the word adjacent ( Muttasal

in Urdu language ) in the said document , the Court
cannot
jump
to
the
conclusion
that
the
Navavrindavanas are not situated within the extent of

14 acres 7 guntas land . It is pertinent to note that the
Defendant
through its agent had submitted an
Application as per Ex.P-5 to the Revenue Authorities

stating that the Navavrindavanas are situated within
the extent of 14 acres 7 guntas land in Sy. No. 192 ,
which in fact was the cause of action for the Plaintiff
to file the Suit in O.S.No.65/1/1959-60 . It is
worthwhile to extract the relevant portion of Ex.P-5 ,
which reads thus :
ig,
CUAAi vAUs z z zsz Ag
192 JPg 14-7 g ( Az UrAi) izs AzAiz
ovAiU owU MAsv g AzU E.
------
110
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
----------CzPV AdUq gWAzs Ug o,

gdg o U Gvgo U g
oU jU ovAiUr JAz Ag 192 JPg 14-7
g
17-00
DPg
Az
UrAi
qPAz rP.
UAUw
AdUq
gWAz
U
12-3-59.
oz gV.
dAig ge, UAUw
AzUr JeAl.
65. Having submitted an Application as per Ex.P5 stating that the Navavrindavanas are situated within
the area of 14 acres 7 guntas , now the Respondent /
Defendant cannot project a theory to the contrary . It
is on the premise that Navavrindavanas as situated
within the extent of Sy.No.192 that the Defendant had
111
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
made the said Representation to the Revenue

Authorities . The Defendant has not disputed the said
document. Under these circumstances , I opine that
absolutely there is no necessity of framing a separate
Issue on this aspect.
Additional Evidence in Appeals Position of
law
66. In the present Appeal, the Appellant has
filed an Application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC
praying for permission to produce two documents as
additional evidence. The Respondent has filed three
Applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking
production of documents as additional evidence.
67. On the position of law relating to production
of additional evidence in an Appeal , it is profitable to
refer to the decision of the Honble High Court of
Karnataka reported in ILR 2007 KAR 773 ( Gabriel
Bhaskarappa Kuri and others Vs. The United Basel
112
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Mission Church of India Trust Association, Betageri

Gadag and others ) . In the said decision , the Honble
High Court has laid down the conditions to be
satisfied by the parties to an Appeal to lead additional
evidence . At Paragraphs No. 6 to 8 of the decision ,
the Honble High Court has made the following
observations :
6. A careful reading of the provision
shows that additional evidence could be
produced under five circumstances . They
are :(1) When the trial Court refused to
admit evidence , which ought to have been
admitted .
(2) Notwithstanding the exercise of
due diligence , such evidence was not
within his knowledge .
(3) Even after the exercise of due
diligence , such evidence was not within
his knowledge .
(4) Appellate Court requires any
evidence to enable to pronounce judgment
.
(5) Any other substantial cause .
113
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
7. If any one of those conditions is

satisfied or exists, the appellate Court has
the power to allow a document to be
produced and a witness to be examined .
But, before the appellate Court decides to
admit
additional
evidence,
the
examination of evidence on record has to
take place. On examination of such
evidence on record, the appellate Court
comes to the conclusion that there is some
inherent lacuna or defect, then it may
admit additional evidence. Until this is
done, the appellate Court has no power to
admit additional evidence, not even if the
evidence offered be the evidence of new
matter discovered after the Court of first
instance had pronounced its judgment.
The legitimate occasion for the application
of the present rule is when, on examining
the evidence as it stands, some inherent
lacuna or defect becomes apparent. But,
not where a discovery is made, outside the
Court, of fresh evidence and the
application is made to import it. This rule
is not intended to allow a litigant who has
been unsuccessful in the lower Court to
patch up the weak points in his case and
fill up the omissions in appeal, thus
remove the lacunae and fill in gaps in
114
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
evidence. Therefore, it follows the

application for additional evidence cannot
be considered as an interlocutory
application in a pending appeal. The said
application has to be necessarily
considered along with the appeal, while
hearing the appeal on merits.
8. In a case falling under clause (b)
of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27, the requirement
of the appellate Court must be limited to
those cases where it found it necessary to
obtain such evidence for enabling to
pronounce judgment. This provision does
not entitle the appellate Court to let in
fresh evidence at the appellate stage,
where even without such evidence it can
pronounce judgment in a case. It does not
entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh
evidence only for the purpose of
pronouncing judgment in a particular
way. In other words , it is only for
removing a lacuna in the evidence that the
appellate Court is empowered to admit
additional evidence. The true test,
therefore is, whether the appellate Court
is able to pronounce judgment on the
materials before it without taking into
consideration the additional evidence
sought to be adduced. Ultimately, it is
115
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
established by authority that it is the

requirement of the Court and not the
requirement of the litigant in considering
whether or not additional evidence will be
allowed to be produced. It may be
required to enable the Court to pronounce
Judgment or for any other substantial
cause, but in either case it must be the
Court that requires it.
68. It is clear from the provisions of Order 41
Rule 27 of CPC that the parties to an appeal cannot be
permitted to produce additional evidence for mere
asking. If only the case of a party falls within one of
the conditions stipulated in Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC ,
the Appellate Court may permit him to lead additional
evidence.
Additional evidence sought to be adduced by
the Appellant
69. In the present Appeal, the Appellant is
seeking production of certified copy of the Judgment
in Misc. Second Appeal No. 70/1965 passed by the
116
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Honble High Court of Karnataka and certified copy

of the Judgment in Misc. Appeal No. 188/4 of 1964
passed by the Civil Judge, Raichur. It is not the case of
the Appellant that the said certified copies were not
available with it.
The reason assigned by the
Appellant for non-production of the said documents

before the trial Court is that during the trial of the Suit,
it ( Appellant Mutt ) was advised that as there was no
Issue on the question of forfeiture , there was no
necessity of producing the said documents. The said
reason assigned by the Appellant , in the opinion of
this Court , does not fall within any of the conditions
provided in Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for leading
additional evidence . Even otherwise, I am of the
opinion that the question of forfeiture and re-grant of
land has been elaborately discussed by the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 356/1977. I am of
the opinion that
even in the absence of the said
documents sought to be produced by the Appellant,

this Court is able to pronounce the Judgment. No other
117
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
substantial cause is shown by the Appellant to lead

additional evidence in respect of the said documents .
Additional evidence sought to be adduced by

the Respondent
(A) Application filed on 07-01-2012 :
70. By filing an Application under Order 41
Rule 27 of CPC on 07-01-2012 , the Respondent is
seeking production of as many as 31 documents.
Except very few documents, the rest of the documents
produced by the Respondent through this Application
pertain to survey of land in Sy. No. 192 of Anegundi
village. It is vigorously argued by the learned Counsel
for the Respondent that the said survey documents
would demonstrate that the extent of land in Sy. No.
192 was changed from 14 acres 7 guntas to 27 acres
30 guntas on account of fraud played by the Appellant
Mutt.
118
71.
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
At this juncture itself, it may be noted that
the Respondent has filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.

111125/2014 before the Honble High Court of
Karnataka , Dharwad Bench praying for quashing the
survey proceedings and survey Report dated 18-041974 of the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records
( ASLR ) and for quashing of the Order dated 07-091974 passed by the Superintendent of Land Records,
Bellary . On 15-04-2015, by getting the case
advanced, the learned Counsel for the Respondent
produced a certified copy of the Order dated 08-042015 passed by the Honble High Court of Karnataka
in W.P. No. 111125/2014. In the said Order, the
Honble High Court of Karnataka has sought for
clarification from the concerned authorities of the
Revenue Department . The Honble High Court has
formulated as many as 8 questions in this regard. In its
Order, the Honble High Court has clarified that the
said Order passed by it will not come in the way of
this Appellate Court to pass Judgment independently
119
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
in accordance with law in the present Appeal between

the private parties.
72. As the survey proceedings are challenged in

the said Writ Petition before the Honble High Court
of Karnataka, I am of the opinion that the Respondent
cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence
regarding the said documents in this Appeal. Unless
the said proceedings are set aside and unless the
revenue entries showing the
Sy.No.192
extent of land in
as 27 acres 30 guntas are set aside by a
competent Authority , this Court cannot hold that the

extent of land in Sy.No.192 belonging to the Plaintiff
Mutt is only 14 acres 7 guntas . It may be noted that it
is not the case of the Defendant Mutt that excluding
14 acres 7 guntas , the remaining extent of land in the
island belongs to it and that the same is in its
possession . That is not at all the case of the
Defendant. At any rate , as the survey proceedings are
the subject matter of challenge before the Honble
120
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
High Court of Karnataka and as the Honble High

Court has sought for clarification from the concerned
Department regarding survey conducted in respect of
Sy.No.192, the Respondent cannot be permitted to
lead additional evidence in respect of the said
documents in this Appeal .

Respondent that the deposition of P.W.3 in O.S. No.
65/1/1959-60 ,
a copy of which is sought to be
produced as additional evidence in this Appeal , would

go to show that the said witness for the Plaintiff
himself
has
stated
in
his
evidence
that
the
Navavrindavanas are situated outside the extent of 14

acres 7 guntas land and that in order to substantiate
the same, the said document is now produced. The
Respondent / Defendant was a party to the Suit in O.S.
No. 65/1/1959-60. It is not the case of the Respondent
that the said deposition of P.W. 3 was not available
with it. Nothing prevented the Respondent from
121
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
producing the said document before the trial Court. No

ground is made out by the Respondent for producing
the said document in this Appeal. As discussed above ,
in the Application as per Ex.P-5 submitted by the
agent of the Defendant Mutt to the Revenue Officer,
Anegundi , the said agent of the Defendant Mutt
himself
has
stated
to
the
effect
that
the
Navavrindavanas are situated in 14 acres 7 guntas land

in Sy. No. 192. No ground is made out by the
Respondent for producing the said document in this
Appeal. I am of the opinion that the reason assigned
by the Respondent does not fall under any of the
conditions provided in Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for
leading additional evidence.
(B) Application filed on 05-01-2015 :
74. On 05-01-2015, the Respondent has filed an

Application under Order 41 Rule 27 R/w Section 151
of CPC seeking production of the true representation
122
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
of Ex.P-16 from the Head of Department of Telugu

Language of Dravidian University, Endorsment dated
03-01-2015
issued
by
Tahsildar
Gangavathi
regarding survey in Anegundi village , and
Survey
sketch prepared by Hampi Development Authority as

additional evidence.
75. According to the Respondent , the said true

representation of Ex.P-16 issued by
the Head of
Department of Telugu Language of Dravidian

University would demonstrate that in the Kannada
translation of Ex.P-16 document as per Ex.P-16(a) ,
the year of Saka is tampered as 1768 in the place of
1368. On the face , it reveals that there is no such
tampering in the mentioning of numerals in Ex.P-16(a)
Kannada
Translation
as
now
alleged
by
the
Respondent . On the face , it appears that using of

Telugu vernacular numerals in Ex.P-16 [ as
] has
confused the translator of Ex.P-16 document
to
initially type the year as 1368 and then overwrite the
123
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
numeral 3 by correcting it as 7. Using of Telugu

numeral
in Ex.P-16 clarifies the same . The
Telugu true representation of Ex.P-16 now sought to

be produced by the Respondent , in the opinion of the
Court , does not depict the clear picture of the
document. At any rate , I opine that no malafides can
be attributed to the Appellant in this regard . No
ground is made out by the Respondent to produce the
said document as additional evidence in this Appeal .
76. The other documents sought to be produced

by the Respondent as additional evidence
are
Endorsment dated 03-01-2015 issued by Tahsildar ,

Gangavathi regarding survey in Anegundi village , and
Survey sketch prepared by Hampi Development
Authority . For the reasons stated by the Court while
discussing about the Application dated 07-01-2012
filed by the Respondent ( i.e., Writ Petition pending on
the file of the Honble High Court of Karnataka ) , I
am of the opinion that the Respondent cannot be
124
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
permitted to produce the said documents as additional

evidence in this Appeal . In view of the said Writ
Petition pending before the Honble High Court , I am
of the opinion that , it is not proper on the part of this
Court to discuss regarding the flow of Tungabhadra
river and regarding the sketches showing the direction
of flow of water .
(C) Application filed on 20-01-2015 :
77. By filing an Application under Order 41 Rule

27 R/w Section 151 of CPC on 20-01-2015 , the
Respondent is seeking permission to produce Replies
dated 13-01-2015 and 20-01-2015 given by SubRegistrar, Gangavathi under RTI Act , certified copies
of Sale Deed obtained in the years 1979 and 1989
containing Kannada translation , Tippani documents ,
Akarband record, Reports of Department of Telugu
language of Dravadian University and Reply dated 03-
125
01-2015
given by the
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Sub-Registrar, Gangavathi
under RTI Act , as additional evidence .
78. In view of the Writ Petition pending before

the Honble High Court of Karnataka in which the
survey proceedings are challenged , I opine that the
Respondent cannot be permitted to lead additional
evidence in respect of the said Tippani documents ,
Akarband record and
Reports of Department of
Telugu language of Dravadian University .
79. In the present Appeal, now the Respondent is

trying to propel a new theory that no such Sale Deed (
with the
Volume Number and Register Number
mentioned therein
) alleged by the Plaintiff was
registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar ,

Gangavathi on 04-01-1325 Fasli and that the Volume
Number and Register Number furnished by the
Plaintiff
pertain
Sy.
Nos.
314
and
598
of
Chickajantakal village and do not pertain to Sy. No.
126
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
239 of Anegundi village . By producing an

endorsement dated 13-01-2015 issued in this regard by
the Sub-Registrar, Gangavathi, the Respondent is
seeking permission to lead additional evidence with
respect to the said document. As an answer to this , the
learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the said
Sale Deed pertaining
to the landed properties in
Survey Nos. 495, 496, 497, 578 and 579 and a house
property of Chickkaljantakal village was registered in
the office of Sub-Registrar, Gangavathi , whereas the
Sale Deed of the Plaintiff was registered in the then
existing office of the Sub-Registrar, Anegundi . On
09-03-2015 , the learned Counsel for the Appellant
has produced a memo to the Court along with copies
of the Application dated 09-01-2015 filed by one Sri
Alabanur Raghavendra Rao to the Sub-Registrar,
Gangavathi, Application dated 03-01-2015 submitted
by the GPA Holder of the Plaintiff to the SubRegistrar, Gangavathi for issuing certified copy of
Ex.P-3 Sale Deed , Application filed by the GPA
127
Holder
of
the
Plaintiff
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
to
the
Sub-Registrar,
Gangavathi praying for issuing copy of the said

Application
given
by
the
said
Sri
Alabanur
Raghavendra Rao and certified copy of the Sale Deed

executed by Vakil Krishna Rao
in favour of
the
Plaintiff Mutt , issued by the Sub-Registrar on 20-022015.

80. The records reveal that in answer to the
Application submitted by the GPA Holder of the
Appellant Mutt, on 20-02-2015 , the Sub-Registrar,
Gangavathi has issued certified copy of the Sale Deed
executed by Vakil Krishna Rao in favour of
the
Plaintiff Mutt . If really Ex.P-3 Sale Deed was not

executed by Krishna Rao in favour of the Plaintiff
Mutt as now contended by the Respondent , certainly
the Sub-Registrar would not have furnished certified
copy of the very same Sale Deed. The very fact that
even in the year 2015, the Sub-Registrar has issued
certified copy of Ex.P-3 Sale Deed goes to show that
128
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
Peshkar Krishna Rao has executed
Sale Deed in
respect of Sy. No. 239 ( new Sy. No. 192) of

Anegundi village in favour of the Plaintiff Mutt.
81.
On the face, it appears to the Court that by
making mis-description of the registering authority in

the Application filed , an endorsement regarding the
Sale Deed of the even date registered in the Office of
Sub-Registrar, Gangavathi has been obtained . May be
that in respect of Survey Nos. 495, 496, 497, 578 and
579 and a house property of Chickkaljantakal village ,
Sale Deed
Registrar,
was registered in the office of SubGangavathi.
Appellant, the
But,
according
to
Sale Deed as per Ex.P-3
the
was
registered in the office of Sub-Registrar of erstwhile

Anegundi Samsthana . The very fact that even in the
year 2015, a copy of Ex.P-3 Sale Deed was supplied
by the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Gangavathi goes to
show that such a Sale Deed was executed by the said
Krishna Rao. By producing an endorsement relating
129
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
to Sale Deed pertaining to Chickkjanthakal village ,

the Respondent is trying to divert the matter.
Absolutely , no ground is there to entertain the
Application
filed
by
the
Respondent
seeking
permission to lead additional evidence in this regard.

Through the Application , the Respondent is also
seeking permission to produce copies of revenue and
survey documents as additional evidence . For the
reasons stated while discussing about the other
Applications filed by the Respondent under Order 41
Rule 27 of CPC ,
I am of the view that the
Respondent cannot be permitted to produce the said

documents as additional evidence .
Fresh Survey
82. By filing an Application under Section 151 of

CPC , the Respondent is praying for direction to the
concerned survey authorities to conduct survey of Sy.
No. 192 of Anegundi village. As the Respondent Mutt
130
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
has challenged the survey proceedings before the

Honble High Court of Karnataka and as the Honble
High Court has sought for clarification from the
concerned Department regarding survey conducted in
respect of Sy.No.192 , this Court cannot Order for any
fresh survey in respect of the very same property .
General
83. Appreciation of evidence in a civil case is not

of the standard expected in a criminal case . If the
Plaintiff is able to probabilise his case by placing
acceptable evidence , nothing more requires to be
done by him . In the instant case , I am of the opinion
that
by producing
Sale Deed , Judgments in the
earlier proceedings and other documents and by

adducing oral evidence , the Plaintiff has proved its
possession of the Suit property as on the date of the
Suit . None of the Applications filed in this Appeal by
the Appellant and the Respondents deserves to be
131
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
allowed . For the above reasons , I answer Point No.1

in the Affirmative and Points No.3 to 7
in the
Negative .
84. Point No. 2 : It is the case of the Plaintiff that

the Defendant is interfering with its possession of the
Suit property and is obstructing it in performing the
Aradhanas and Poojas of the Vrindavanas in the Suit
property. Even in the evidence, the PA Holder of the
Plaintiff, the Peethadipathi of the Plaintiff Mutt and
two witnesses examined by the Plaintiff have stated to
the said effect.
The very fact that in spite of the
position of the Defendant Mutt being made clear in the

earlier Suit in O.S. No. 65/1/1959-60, the Defendant
is still staking its claim over the Suit property, is
sufficient to infer threat of interference by it with
the Plaintiffs possession of the Suit property. It is
made clear that this observation of the Court is only in
relation to the possession and enjoyment of the Suit
property as an immovable property as such and has
132
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
nothing to do with the rights of the parties to perform

Poojas or Aradhanas of the Vrindavanas. It is reiterated that the rights of the parties to perform
Aradhanas and Poojas have to be adjudicated in a
separate proceeding. From the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record by the Plaintiff, I am of the
opinion that the Plaintiff has proved interference by
the Defendant with its possession and enjoyment of
the Suit property. For the above reasons, I answer
Point No. 2 in the Affirmative.
85. Point No.8 : The Respondent has not shown

to the Court that the Peetadhipathi or the Power of
Attorney Holder of the Appellant Mutt is guilty of
fraud and fabrication of documents or of production
of such documents before the Court . Section 340 of
Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary remedy . The Court has to
invoke the said provision sparingly and only on
satisfying the requirements stated therein . The Court
cannot press the said provision into service for mere
133
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
asking . No ground is made out by the Respondent for

ordering for an inquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.,
against the Peethadhipathi and the Power of Attorney
Holder of the Appellant Mutt . For the above reasons ,
I answer Point No. 8 in the Negative .
86. Point No.9 : I have gone through the

Judgment of the trial Court . The trial Court , by
referring to only few documents , has dismissed the
Suit of the Plaintiff . The trial Court has not
appreciated the scope of the Suit , Pleadings of the
parties and the evidence let in by them in the proper
perspective
. The trial Court has not
properly
appreciated the Judgments of Civil Courts in the

earlier proceedings and the observations made by the
Honble High Court of Karnataka in the Writ
Proceedings . Though the Plaintiff is not entitled for
all the reliefs of Perpetual Injunction prayed for by it ,
I am of the opinion that having regard to the Pleadings
of the parties and the oral and documentary evidence
134
placed on record
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
, the trial Court ought to have
granted an Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining

the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiffs
possession and enjoyment of the Suit property ,
subject of-course to the customary or religious rights ,
if any , of the Defendant . For the above reasons , I
answer Point No.9 in the Affirmative .
87. Point No.10 : From the above discussion , I

am of the opinion that all the interlocutory
Applications
filed
by
the
Appellant
and
the
Respondent deserve to be dismissed . The Appeal filed

by the Appellant deserves to be allowed in part .
Subject to the rights of the Defendant to perform
Aradhanas and Poojas of the Vrindavanas in the Suit
property , the Plaintiff is entitled for an Order of
Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendant from
interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the
Suit property . In the present Appeal , a number of
reported decisions relating to res-judicata , fraud ,
135
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
evidence of Power of Attorney Holder , additional

evidence in Appeals , presumption under Section 90 of
the Evidence Act , appreciation of evidence etc., are
referred to by the parties . This Court has felt that it is
not necessary to discuss in this Judgment in detail all
the decisions relied on by the parties.
In the
circumstances of the case , I opine that the parties are

to be directed to bear their own costs . In the result , I
proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
The Application filed by the
Appellant under Order 41 Rule 27
R/w Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure is dismissed .
R/w Section 151 of the Code of
136
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

Respondent under Order 14 Rule
5 R/w Section 151 of the Code of
The Applications filed by the
Respondent under Order 41 Rule
27 R/w Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure are dismissed .
Respondent under Section 151 of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
seeking survey of Sy.No.192 of

Anegundi Village is dismissed .

Respondent under Section 340 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is
dismissed .
137
The
Appeal
filed
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
by
the

of the Code of Civil Procedure is
allowed in part . The Judgment
and
Decree
dated
18-06-2011
passed by the Court of the Addl.

Civil
Judge
Gangavathi
in
O.S.No.74/2010 are set-aside .

The Suit of the Plaintiff is
decreed in part. Subject to the
right , if any , of the Defendant
Mutt to perform Aradhanas and
Poojas of the Vrindavanas in the
Suit property , the Defendant is
restrained by way of Perpetual
Injunction from interfering with
the Plaintiff Mutts possession and
enjoyment of the Suit property . It
is hereby clarified that the above
said raider shall not be construed
138
R.A. No. 123/2014 - J
as declaring the right of

Defendant
Mutt
to
the
perform
Aradhanas and Poojas.
Costs are made easy .
The Office is directed to

transmit a copy of the Judgment
and Decree to the trial Court along
with LCR .
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected , signed

and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this day 22nd
day of April , 2015).
( A.V. Srinath)
Principal Senior Civil Judge &
CJM.,Dharwad.

Nava - Vrundavan Gaddi Case Judgement 22 April 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nava - Vrundavan Gaddi Case Judgement 22 April 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL

Dated this the 22nd day of April , 2015

: SRI UTTARADI MUTT,

: SRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT,

R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt,

: Judgment and Decree

Duration of the Appeal

R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and

Decree dated 18-06-2011 passed by the Court of the

At the outset, it may be noted that the

present Appeal was initially filed before the Court of

R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

dispose of the Appeal came to be produced. In the said

For the sake of convenience, the parties in

this Appeal will be referred to as per their rankings

The Suit filed by the Plaintiff is for the

relief/s of Perpetual Injunction praying for restraining

its agents, servants, devotees

R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

etc., from entering upon the Suit schedule property or

8. The case of the Plaintiff is recapitulated as

R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

The Suit property is popularly known as

Navavrindavana Gaddi and is in the exclusive

Padmanabha Teertharu as the Peethadipathi of the

As recorded by the historians, centuries later

the Defendant Mutt was established by one of the

R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

Uttaradi Mutt, Sri Vibhudendra Teertharu , disciple of

Navavrindavana Gaddi is situated in the

midst of the river Tungabhadra in the erstwhile

prevailing measurements in the State, Navavrindavana

R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

Peethadipathi of Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt put forth a

in respect of 1/3 share each. As such, the

Plaintiff Mutt filed a Suit against the Defendant Mutt

The Appeal filed by the Defendants therein

before the Civil Judge at Raichur in R.A. No. 45/1968

R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 65/1 of

The Plaintiff Mutt has been performing daily

Poojas, Hastodakas, annual Aradhanas and other

In the Plaint Schedule property , there are

nine Vrindavanas of three Madhwa Mutts viz., 1) Sri

R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

annual Aradhanas to the exclusion of the Defendant

R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

Pursuant to the application filed by the

Defendant on 31-10-1984, the Special Deputy

Endowments in Appeal No. ADM.VII.AP.18/84-85 .

R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

Vrindavana in question is an Institution coming under

again obtained an Order from the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Gangavathi to perform

Plaintiff challenged the said Order of the Dy. S.P. The

circumstances and the Stay Order of the Honble High

R.A. No. 123/2014 - J

in the year 1991. The Defendant did not come to the