Chandayya Arasu Kinniyakka Ballal vs The Deputy Commissioner Department Of Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Though this appeal is listed for non-compliance of office objections including objection to maintainability of the appeal, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is finally heard and disposed of.

Facts in brief are:

"I) The temple known as Mahalingeshwara Mahaganapathi in Padubidri, Udupi District, is managed by three hereditary trustees, one from the Jam community, another Brahmin community and yet another Nadava (Bunts) community. The 5th respondent herein by name P. Vishwanatha Hegde S/o. Chandayya Hegde of Petemane, Padubidri, Udupi, claimed to be the successor of hereditary trusteeship of Nadava (Bunts) community to represent in the management of the temple in question. The Deputy Commissioner, Udupi by order dated 13.05.2002 declared the 5th respondent as hereditary trustee of Nadava (Bunts) community. That order of the Deputy Commissioner when called in question by the appellant herein, before the Commissioner for Endowments in Bangalore in Appeal No. 9/2002, by order dated 20.09.2003, the appeal was allowed and the order of the Deputy Commissioner set aside, on the premise that the Deputy Commissioner was required to pass the order under Section 57(b) and not under Section 47 of Madras Hindu religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

II) The order of the Commissioner for Endowments was called in question by the 5th respondent herein, by filing W.P. No. 44314/2003, whence, the learned Single Judge by order dated 12.03.2007 allowed the petition, set aside the order of the Commissioner for Endowments, and confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

III) That order of learned Single Judge when carried in W.A. No. 681/2007, a co-ordinate Division Bench, by order dated 09.07.2012, recorded findings of fact that: no trustee was appointed to represent the Nadava (Bunts) community while the two other hereditary trustees represented the Brahmin and Jam community; that the appellant does not belong to Nadava (Bunts) community and has no right to question the appointment of the 5th respondent and therefore cannot be considered as aggrieved person; that the appellant does not dispute the community to which the 5th respondent belongs i.e. Nadava (Bunts) community; that there were no rival applicants from the Nadava (Bunts) community, and therefore the application by the 5th respondent before the Deputy Commissioner was just, legal and proper and accordingly dismissed the appeal while confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.

IV) That order, when carried in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 33461/2012 by the appellant, the Apex Court found no good reason to entertain it and accordingly dismissed the same by order dated 19.11.2012. Their Lordships reserved liberty to the appellant to raise question as to maintainability of the writ petition filed by the 5th respondent before the High Court as well as the issue that the contesting respondent was not a member of the family, to whom hereditary right would devolve.

V) Appellant filed Review Petition No. 1360/2012 in WA No. 681/2007 and when the matter was listed before the coordinate Division Bench, the appellant sought leave of the Court to withdraw the review petition with liberty to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge and accordingly it was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 15.3.2013.

VI) Appellant preferred Review Petition No. 212/2013 in WP No. 44314/2003, whence learned Single Judge by order dated 09.07.2014 disposed of the petition observing that it was for the appellant to have his say in the matter for any further orders to be made before the Division Bench and not before the learned Single Judge.

VII) Learned counsel for the appellant failed to place before us the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench hence a copy of the same was obtained from the Registry."

Hence, this intra Court appeal.

The genesis of the dispute, apparently, relates to the year 2002 and ever since then parties have been litigating on one pretext or the other, more appropriately by the appellant who is held to have no grievance in the matter of appointing the 5th respondent as hereditary trustee of the Nadava (Bunts) community. That finding of fact recorded by learned Single Judge and confirmed by the co-ordinate Division Bench was affirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition. If the appellant was not aggrieved, then, appellant cannot question the legality or validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge or for that matter the order in the writ appeal.

The fact that the management of the temple in question is assigned to three trustees belonging to three communities, one to Brahmin community, the other to Jam community and yet another to Nadava (Bunts) community, apparently there being no representation from Nadava (Bunts) community, as noticed by learned Single Judge and as affirmed by the Division Bench, the appointment of the 5th respondent as the hereditary trustee to represent Nadava (Bunts) community of which the appellant was neither a rival applicant or did belong to the very same community, in our considered opinion, when justifiably held to be not aggrieved. This appeal must therefore necessarily fail.

D.H. Waghela, C.J.

What stands out from the record of proceedings is that it is at least the seventh round of litigation and fifth attempt of the appellant to move the Court in respect of the same subject matter, apparently without any good cause of action and without bona fide application of mind. This is the kind of litigation which generally takes away more public time of the Court due to which genuine litigant parties would suffer some injustice. It also reflects on the advice of advocates of the appellant that they would think it proper to repeatedly take a chance in one after the other forum at the cost of public time of the Courts and in complete disregard of any professional ethics or duty towards the Court. At least an advocate knows that approaching the same Courts twice for the same cause of action, even after withdrawal of review application after appeal before the Division Bench was gross abuse of the process of Courts. It is high time that the Bar Council looks into such litigations by certain advocates, so as to take appropriate steps to raise the level of ethics and professional competence of members of the bar. The public time already taken by the appellant could not be compensated in terms of money, but it must serve the purpose of setting an example of what regrettable things can happen in a court of law, practically on account of adamance of the party and improper advice and assistance rendered by professional advocates. It would appear that the rules of etiquette and professional ethics have remained only in the old books which are hardly opened for any purpose.

With these remarks, we dismiss the appeal with cost quantified at Rs. 25,000/-, which the appellant shall pay to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru, within a period of 15 days and a copy of this order shall be forwarded and shall be served upon the Karnataka State Bar Council.