- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24418 MFA No. 8341 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8341 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: B.G. NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.59 4TH C BLOCK, 8TH B MAIN KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU- 560 034 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. AKSHATA SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B.G. SEENAPPA ALIAS B.G. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 249 BELLANDUR VILLAGE AND POST VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 037 2. B.G. BABU REDDY S/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 22, BGR COMPLEX NEW THIPPASANDRA MAIN ROAD HAL 3RD STAGE BENGALURU - 560 075 3. B.G. KANTHAMMA D/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY W/O SRI. GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24418 MFA No. 8341 of 2024 RESIDING AT JCR AEGIS OPP. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK NEAR NEW THIPPASANDRA HAL 3RD STAGE, PUTTAPPA LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 075 AND ALSO R/AT C/O. SUNDAR BABU REDDY NO.6/3, 1ST CROSS L.N. REDDY COLONY, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 037 4. B.G. BHARATHI D/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY W/O LATE SRI. VASUDEVAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 634, 1ST MAIN 4TH CROSS, NEW THIPPASANDRA HAL 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 075 5. SMT. VANAJAKSHI D/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY W/O SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 210, 3RD MAIN 4TH CROSS, NEW THIPPASANDRA HAL 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 075 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.06.11.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.8256/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, (CCH- 31), REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24418 MFA No. 8341 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.8256/2023 challenging the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the XXX Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH-31), whereby the appellant's interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC"), seeking interim reliefs in the nature of visitation and management rights over a temple, was rejected. 2. The dispute in the present appeal arises out of the intra-family disagreement between the siblings belonging to the same family. The appellant and the respondents are all sons of late Sri. Gurumurthy Reddy. According to the appellant, during the lifetime of their father, a temple dedicated to Sri. Kodanda Rama was constructed on a portion of land bearing Survey No. 74/1 in Bellandur Village, Bangalore. It is the appellant's case that the temple was intended to be a family shrine and that all descendants of late Gurumurthy Reddy, being the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24418 MFA No. 8341 of 2024 co-heirs, were traditionally involved in its religious observances and management. 3. In the suit, the appellant seeks, inter-alia, a declaration that a family trust be constituted for managing the temple, with trustees to be nominated from each branch of the family, and a permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from interfering with the appellant's access to the temple and his participation in its management and administration. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant filed an interim application praying for directions permitting him to visit the temple and participate in its administration until the disposal of the suit. 4. The trial Court, after considering the pleadings, documents and arguments advanced, dismissed the said application. It is held by the trial Court that the appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case warranting protection, that the balance of convenience did - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24418 MFA No. 8341 of 2024 not favour the grant of interim relief, and that no irreparable injury would be caused if interim relief was not granted. The trial Court also expressed the view that granting the relief prayed for would amount to prejudging the main issues in the suit, thereby rendering the final adjudication redundant. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, now the appellant is before this Court assailing the correctness and legality of the impugned order on multiple grounds. 6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Pavan Chandrashetty, that the trial Court's order is arbitrary and reflects a complete misreading of the pleadings and evidence on record. It is contented that the very foundation of the dispute is based on admitted family history, particularly that the temple in question was constructed by the appellant's father and was intended to serve as a place of worship for all his descendants. According to his submission, the exclusion of the plaintiff - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24418 MFA No. 8341 of 2024 from the temple premises and affairs constitutes a breach of deeply rooted religious rights and family customs. 7. He also argued that the order under challenge was pronounced after an inordinate delay of more than 8 months from the date of conclusion of arguments, which undermines the integrity of the reasoning. Counsel for the appellant submits that during the pendency of the application, respondent No. 1 had filed written statement explicitly stating that he had no objection to the appellant visiting the temple for worship. The trial Court, however, overlooked this crucial concession and refused to even grant limited relief permitting visitation, which according to the appellant, is reflective of non application of mind. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the trial Court erroneously approached the suit as though it were one involving declaration of title or ownership over immovable property, whereas in substance, the suit is one for injunctive relief and the creation of a regulatory framework for shared religious - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24418 MFA No. 8341 of 2024 participation through a Trust. It is also submitted that the denial of access to the temple affects the appellant's fundamental right to freely practice his religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. 8. As against this submission, Senior counsel Smt. Susheela, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 has strongly refuted all these allegations and submissions. She submits that the temple is not located in Survey No. 74/1 as submitted by the appellant, but it is situated in Survey No. 74/5, a distinct property owned by the third parties. It is asserted that respondent no. 1 developed the temple on that land with the permission of the landowners, at his own expense, and that the appellant has no right, title or interest over either the property or the structures thereon. In support of her submission, the counsel for respondent no. 1 relied upon a registered partition deed dated 14.08.2007, which clearly demarcates the division of the ancestral properties, and mutation records, including the Akarband, reflecting exclusive - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24418 MFA No. 8341 of 2024 possession and development rights in favour of respond No. 1. 9. The learned counsel for respond No. 1 would further submit that the appellant has deliberately suppressed material facts and mislead the court regarding the location and ownership of the property. According to respond No. 1, the appellant has failed to place on record any primary documents such as revenue records or historical proof of his involvement in the temple's affairs. The prayer for interim relief, it is argued, that it is motivated and intended to disrupt the temple's functioning, which has hitherto been managed peacefully and efficiently by respondent No. 1. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted the brief synopsis to support her submissions and also filed an affidavit. She submits that in the partition deed dated 14.08.2007, it is clearly stated that, the parties to the partition deed are the owners of an - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24418 MFA No. 8341 of 2024 extent of 0.023/4 guntas of land in Survey No. 74/1 , and the said land has been allotted to the share of respondent No. 1. Thereafter, mutation has been effected in the name of respondent No. 1 and the same has been re- surveyed and given a new number as Survey No. 74/5. She would further submit that the aforesaid facts do indicate that the temple is not in the land that is allotted to the share of branch of Gurumurthy as per the release deed dated 18.08.2005. Therefore, she contends that the appellant cannot contend that the temple is situated in the land allot to their branch. The appellant further cannot contend that respondent No. 1 has illegally encroached and claiming management over the temple. 11. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that, respondent No.1 personally has filed an affidavit with regard to his status, with regard to the Kodanda Rama Temple, and he has stated in para-4 to 7 as under: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24418 MFA No. 8341 of 2024 "4) I submit that, there is no trust which is taking care of the temple and I am only managing the affairs of the temple by taking care of the day to day activities out of the income I have. Further during festivals, Mr. Umashankar and other devotees contribute to the said events by bringing the items which are required. I further submit that, every three to four months, the hundi is opened to meet the day to day expenses of the archak and cleaners. 5) I submit that, all the sevas in the temple are conducted at nominal cost and the expenses are taken care of by my personal contribution and the contribution of other devotees. I submit that, the allegations that are made against me are all false and baseless and I am only managing the temple purely out of devotion. 6) I submit that, though the court below has rejected the said application, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct me to permit the Appellant to enter the temple. I submit that, in fact I have never stopped the Appellant from entering the temple. In fact, in the written statement I have specifically stated that I do not have a problem in the Appellant entering the temple to offer puja. 7) I submit that, neither the temple nor the land belongs to me and I have only constructed the temple by obtaining permission from Mr. Umashankar who is the owner of the land in which the temple is situated. I submit that, I am filing this affidavit in view of the order of this Hon'ble Court directing me to state as to the day to day affairs and management of the temple. Hence, I have filed this affidavit. The same may kindly be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity." 12. The said affidavit is taken on record. In view of the contents of the said affidavit, as respondent No.1 has no objection whatsoever to the appellant/plaintiff to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24418 MFA No. 8341 of 2024 visit the temple and to perform the worship, the same shall have to be continued without any obstruction either from respondent No.1 or other respondents. 13. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the records, this Court is of the considered view that, the trial Court has rightly refused to grants interim relief. As because the requirement of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, namely, establishment of a prima facie case, demonstration of a balance of convenience in the applicant's favour, and the risk of irreparable injury, are cumulative in nature. Absence of any one of these elements would render the application liable to rejection. 14. In the present case, the appellant has not produced any primary evidence to establish that the temple stands on Survey No. 74/1 or that it is located on a property owned jointly by the family. No RTC records, Tax assessments, building plans or affidavits from landowners have been submitted to demonstrate either ownership or - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24418 MFA No. 8341 of 2024 history of shared worship. While oral assertions have been made that the temple was built by late. Gurumurthy Reddy, these are not substantiated by any contemporaneous records. On the contrary, the partition deeds referred supra of the year 2007 and the mutation records lend support to the stand of respondent No. 1 that the temple stands on land outside the appellant's share and that the appellant has not been involved in its maintenance or administration. 15. With regard to the balance of convenience, it is evident that the current arrangement, wherein respondent No. 1 is overseeing the temple affairs without interference, it is functional one. Allowing the appellant's participation at the interim stage, particularly in the absence of a verified right, would destabilize this arrangement and invite further discord. The appellant is now permitted to visit the temple for the purpose of worship. There is no prima facie material to show that the appellant's right would be permanently compromised if he is not granted - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24418 MFA No. 8341 of 2024 interim access or manageable authority at the stage. He can very well continue to visit the temple for the purpose of worship. None of the respondents can object for the same. 16. The contention that the denial of access infringes the appellant's fundamental right to worship, though attractive, must be examined in context. Respondent No. 1 has not denied the appellant's right to worship and has specifically stated before the trial Court that he does not object to the appellant visiting the temple. Before this court also it is fairly submitted by the counsel for respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 1 has no objection to the appellant to visit the temple for the purpose of worship. In light of this concession, the argument of violation of religious rights appears exaggerated and misplaced. 17. Furthermore, the relief claimed in the interim application substantially overlaps with the final relief - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24418 MFA No. 8341 of 2024 sought in the suit. Granting interim permission for management and participation in administration would, in effect, amount to granting the very relief sought in the suit before the completion of the trial. It is well settled that Court should not, under the guise of interim relief, preempt, the issues to be determined at the trial, especially when disputed questions of fact and title are involved. 18. In view of the foregoing reasons, this court finds no infirmity, irregularity or perversity in the order of the learned trial court. The findings are supported by cogent reasoning and based on a proper appreciation of law and facts. The appeal is devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed. 19. Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24418 MFA No. 8341 of 2024 (ii) The impugned order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-31) in O.S.No.8256/2023 is affirmed. (iii) Observations of trial Court regarding the appellant's visit to temple for the purpose of worship remains unaltered. (iv) Under the circumstance, no orders as to cost. (v) All the rights of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36