- 1 - WP No.106337 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.106337 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SHREE MARUTI DEVASTHAN JEERNODHAR COMMITTEE HARUGERI, A REGISTERED SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS WORKING PRESIDENT, SHRI. BASAGOUDA S/O. RUDRAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HARUGERI, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDRIMANI AND SRI.S.S.KALLATTI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SHREE MARUTI TEMPLE HARUGERI, MAHAL RAIBAG, TALUKA: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI, A HEREDITARY TRUST, REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, REPRESENTED BY PROPOSED HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SHRI. SANTOSH RAYAPPA GURAV, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s., REYAPPA ADOPTED FATHER SATTEPPA GURAV, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s. i) SATISH S/O. RAYAPPA GURAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HARUGERI, TAL: RAIBAG. ii) SANTOSH S/O. RAYAPPA GURAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HARUGERI, TAL: RAIBAG. iii) SUNIL S/O. RAYAPPA GURAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.29 16:27:07 +0530 - 2 - WP No.106337 of 2016 R/O: HARUGERI, TAL: RAIBAG. 2). BALAPPA S/O. GOVINDAPPA GURAV, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s. i) HANAMANT S/O. BALAPPA GURAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HARUGERI, TAL: RAIBAG. ii) MALLAPPA S/O. BALAPPA GURAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HARUGERI, TAL: RAIBAG. iii) MUTEPPA S/O. BALAPPA GURAV, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s. iiia) VIJAY S/O. MUTTEPPA GURAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HARUGERI, TAL: RAIBAG. iiib) SANJAY S/O. MUTTEPPA GURAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HARUGERI, TAL: RAIBAG. iiic) SRIDHAR S/O. MUTTEPPA GURAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HARUGERI, TAL: RAIBAG. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1(I TO III), R2(I), R2(II) AND R2(IIIA TO IIIC) ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND THEREBY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BELAGAVI, IN MISC.NO.13/2016 DATED 30.04.2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-H MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 26.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - WP No.106337 of 2016 CAV ORDER The present petition is filed by the Maruti Devasthan Jeernodhar Committee, Harugeri, a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned District Judge, whereby the reconstitution of the Board of Trustees by inducting the legal heirs of the original trustees was approved. The said order, impugned herein, is annexed as Annexure-H. 2. The petitioner-society is represented by its President. It contends that it has an independent managing committee constituted in accordance with its bye-laws, comprising thirteen members, including office bearers. The petitioner further asserts that the said committee and its bye-laws have been duly approved by the Registrar of Societies, as evidenced by Annexures-B and B1. The petitioner claims to have been formed specifically to manage the affairs of Maruti Devasthan and states that the society came into existence at the instance of one Ashok Ishwar Gurav, who was a - 4 - WP No.106337 of 2016 hereditary trustee of the said Trust. At his initiative, a meeting of like-minded individuals was convened, wherein a resolution was passed to register the society. Pursuant to this resolution, the society was formed and has since been actively managing the Trust, including undertaking substantial renovation and developmental works at Maruti Devasthan, Harugeri. 3. The grievance of the petitioner-society is primarily directed against the ex parte order passed by the learned District Judge under Sections 3 and 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1920’), whereby the reconstitution of the Board of Trustees was approved without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. This Court has meticulously examined the records. 5. The order impugned in the present writ petition discloses that Maruti Temple, Harugeri is a Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public - 5 - WP No.106337 of 2016 Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BPT Act’), bearing Registration No.E-2511 (BGM). The Trust is registered with the Office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belagavi, and it is primarily governed by hereditary trustees. The respondents herein filed an application invoking the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1920’), seeking judicial approval for reconstitution of the Trust committee on the premise that certain original trustees had passed away. In support of their application, it was submitted that a meeting of the Trust committee was convened, in which it was resolved to induct the legal heirs of the deceased trustees namely, the successors of Rayappa, Satteppa, and one Balappa s/o Govindappa Gurav, into the reconstituted committee of the Trust. 6. Upon perusal of the Trust records, particularly the Public Trust Register (PTR) maintained under the BPT Act, the learned District Judge found that the Trust was of a hereditary nature and that succession to the office of - 6 - WP No.106337 of 2016 trustee followed a familial line. It was observed that the original or founder trustees were no longer surviving, and hence, their respective legal heirs were found to be eligible to succeed to the position of trusteeship. Relying on the documentary materials including entries in the PTR, the learned District Judge concluded that the legal heirs of the deceased trustees had a rightful claim to participate in the management of the respondent-Trust, which stood registered under the BPT Act. 7. In exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act, 1920, the learned District Judge undertook a summary enquiry and allowed the application of the respondent-Trust. Upon consideration of the death certificates of the deceased trustees, the succession details, and the resolutions passed by the Trust committee, the learned District Judge permitted the deletion of the names of the deceased trustees and approved the inclusion of their legal heirs in the reconstituted Trust committee. The order was passed in a summary manner, as contemplated under the statutory - 7 - WP No.106337 of 2016 framework of Sections 3 and 7 of the Act, 1920, which provide for limited judicial scrutiny and are intended primarily to facilitate basic administrative oversight concerning the maintenance and management of charitable and religious trusts, including keeping proper accounts, compiling inventories, and ensuring that trust property is managed by appropriately constituted trustees. 8. The petitioner-society, however, contends that in light of the formation and registration of the Maruti Devasthan Jeernodhar Committee under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, it is the petitioner-society that is currently managing the affairs of the Maruti Temple. The petitioner asserts exclusive managerial control over the temple, disputing the legitimacy of the respondents’ claim as trustees. It is significant to note that the issues raised by the petitioner go far beyond the scope of a summary enquiry under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act, 1920. The provisions of the said Act are designed to confer only a limited jurisdiction upon the District Judge, primarily to supervise matters such as maintenance of accounts, - 8 - WP No.106337 of 2016 inventories, and to permit administrative changes necessary for the continuity of Trust governance. The said provisions do not vest the District Judge with the authority to adjudicate complex and adversarial disputes concerning title, management rights, or ownership of Trust property. 9. In the instant case, the nature of the dispute raised by the petitioner is essentially adversarial and involves competing claims of control over the Maruti Devasthan. The petitioner’s claim, which is premised on the registration of the society and the participation of one of the hereditary trustees in the formation of the society, requires detailed examination of evidence and legal rights, which can only be appropriately adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. Moreover, the petitioner’s own materials acknowledge the existence of the registered Public Trust under the BPT Act, and hence, the petitioner’s recourse lies in initiating proper proceedings before a Civil Court rather than seeking relief under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act, 1920. - 9 - WP No.106337 of 2016 10. Accordingly, this Court finds that the limited jurisdiction exercised by the learned District Judge under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act, 1920 was proper and within the bounds of the statute. The contentions raised in the present petition cannot be entertained within the narrow framework of the 1920 Act. Therefore, while liberty is reserved to the petitioner-society to approach an appropriate Civil Court for adjudication of its rights, if so advised, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER (i) The writ petition stands dismissed. (ii) However, it is made clear that the dismissal of this petition shall not preclude the petitioner- society from seeking appropriate relief before a competent Civil Court or any other forum, in accordance with law, for redressal of its grievances, if so advised. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE AM/- Ct:vh