- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 102504 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI VITTHAL DEVASTHAN TRUST COMMITTEE KITTUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT PRESIDENT SHRI NARASIMHA S/O RAMACHANDRA NAIK AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. PRESIDENT, R/O KITTUR-591115, TQ. KITTUR, DIST.BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI VITTHAL DEVASTHAN TRUST COMMITTEE KITTUR REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT SECRETARY SHRI PRAHLAD S/O NARASIMHA SHIGGAVI AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. SECRETARY, R/O KITTUR-591115, TQ.KITTUR, DIST.BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI RAJENDRAKUMAR S/O KRISHNAJI PAGAD AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. H.NO.943, GURUWARPETH, KITTUR-591115, TQ.KITTUR, DIST.BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI VIJAY S/O KRISHNARAO PAGAD AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O #9/1 A/3, HALIYAL NAKA, NARAYANPUR DHARWAD-580008. AT PRESENT C/O R K PAGAD AT POST BASARKOD VILLAGE TQ. KITTUR, DIST. BELAGAVI. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.27 17:00:47 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 3. SHRI VITHAL GOPALRAO PAGAD AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O H NO 946, GURUWARPETH, KITTUR-591115, TQ.KITTUR, DIST.BELAGAVI. 4. SHRI ARVIND GOPALRAO PAGAD AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. ARICULTURE, R/O DHANWANTARI BUILDING NEAR K.C.PARK ROAD, TRAINING COLLEGE ROAD, DHARWAD-580001. TQ/DIST DHARWAD. 5. SHRI ANIL GOPALRAO PAGAD AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O DHANWANTARI BUILDING NEAR K.C.PARK ROAD, TRAINIJNG COLLEGE ROAD, DHARWAD-580001. TQ/DIST DHARWAD. 6. SHRI JAYANT GOPALRAO PAGAD AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. ARICULTURE & MEDICAL PRACTITIONER R/O 2ND STAGE, BANASHAKARI BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU. 7. SHRI HANUMANT S/O TAMMAJI KOTABAGI AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC ARICULTURE, R/O KITTUR-591115, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 5TH CROSS, BESIDES MALLIKARJUN MANSUR HOUSE MALMADDI, DHARWAD-580007. TQ/DIST DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1-2 IS SERVED, SRI PRASHANT MATHAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3-6, SRI K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE OR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 18.12.2023 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 28/2021 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KITTUR ALLOWING I.A. NO. 8 FILED BY THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT NO.7 AND DISMISS THE I.A. NO. 8 FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 (2) R/W. SECTION 151 OF CPC FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.7 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. To issue or writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 passed in O.S. No.28/2021 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kittur, allowing I.A.No.8 filed by the proposed defendant No.7 and dismiss the I.A. No. 8 filed under order i rule 10 (2) R/w. Section 151 of CPC filed by the respondent No.7 as per Annexure-A. ii. Grant such other reliefs as deems fit by this Hon’ble Court in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. 2. The facts of the case in brief are; 2.1. Respondents No.1 and 2 herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.28/2021 seeking for the following reliefs: A) It be declared that, the sale deed dtd. 4.5.1994 is null and vide and not binding upon trust. B) Further A decree fro possession may also be passed directing the defendant No.3 to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 hand over the possession of the suit property to the Trust. C) A Decree for consequential relief of injunction may also be passed against the defendant Nos.3 to 6 and in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the said defendants or anybody acting on their behalf from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the defendant No.1 committee of Kittur. D) Cost of suit be awarded. E) Any other relief/s deemed fit be granted to the plaintiff. F) Permission to amend the plaint as and when required, be granted to the plaintiff. 2.2. In the said suit, alleging that there is collusion between the plaintiffs and the defendants, respondent No.7 filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to come on record as party defendant in the said suit. 2.3. In the said application, it is alleged that the plaintiffs and defendants were colluding with each other. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 2.4. The written statement which had been filed was tailored to suit the requirements and support defendant No.3 and 4 therein, who were allegedly misappropriating monies and usurp the properties of the Trust and had, in fact, gone on to have a partition of the properties of the Trust. 2.5. In that background, respondent No.7 herein contended that there is a possibility of the plaintiffs entering into a compromise with the defendants and that the plaintiffs would withdraw the suit. Thus the entire reliefs which have been sought for, which was in the interest of the Trust/Temple, would be rendered nugatory. 2.6. The said application came to be opposed by the plaintiffs, contending that respondent No.7 does not have any independent right over the property of the Trust. The plaintiffs being - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 family members of the trustees, were trying to protect the interest of the Trust. They denied collusion. They contended that merely on account of respondent No.7 being a devotee would not be a ground for allowing the application to be impleaded. 2.7. The Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2023, allowed the application and permitted respondent No.7 to come on record as defendant No.7 on the ground that respondent No.7 was trying to protect the property of the Trust. If respondent No.7 joined in the suit, the suit cannot be bad for impleading the party and further went on to hold that the devotees have a right to protect the interest of the religious entity. 2.8. It is challenging the said order that the petitioners are before this Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 3. Sri. Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that; 3.1. Respondent No.7 is a third party. The dispute is between the family members of the trustees and it is in that background the suit had been filed. 3.2. The petitioner herein is the Trust itself represented by its current President and Secretary. The reliefs which have been sought for in the suit are for the benefit of the Trust. If the plaintiffs succeed in the suit, then the Trust will be benefited by the said order. The Trust is not in any manner entering into any compromise with either the plaintiffs or other defendants. The Trust is making all efforts to secure the property belonging to the Trust and the stand of the Trust is that the property belongs to the Trust exclusively and not to either the plaintiffs or other defendants, and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 as such, the Trust would protect the interest of the Trust by itself, and there is no requirement for respondent No.7 to support the Trust. 3.3. Lastly, he submits that, if a devotee were to be permitted to be impleaded in any suit, there being large number of litigations before the courts regarding various temples, mosques/wakfs, churches and other institutions, there would be a floodgate of applications filed by devotees seeking to come on record. Those aspects could not be adjudicated. 3.4. The petitioner Trust, being bestowed with the obligation and duty to protect the interest of the Trust, the petitioners would be so doing and the petitioner Trust is also seeking to get the properties for the use and benefit of the Trust and the devotees. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 4. Sri. K. L. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.7, would submit that; 4.1. There is collusion between the plaintiffs and defendants inasmuch as when the suit was filed, the Trust was represented by its Chairman, Sri. Srikrishnaji Tammaji Kotabagi and now the Trust is represented by its President Sri.Narasimha Ramachandra Naik and Secretary Pralhad Narasimha Shiggavi, who are also the trustees along with Vittal Gopal Rao Pagad, who also claims to be the President along with Vijay Krishnarao Pagad, as regards which Miscellaneous No.242/2023 has been filed under Sections 3 and 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920. 4.2. Thus, the fact that the Chairman and Secretary of the Trust before this Court and defendant No.3, against whom all the allegations have been made, is also a trustee - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 in a petition filed by defendant No.3 in Miscellaneous No.242/2023, contending that the President, Chairman, and Secretary have been appointed in terms of the resolution passed, would indicate clear collusion between the Chairman and Secretary before this Court and defendant No.3, against whom all the allegations have been made in O.S.No.28/2021. It is for that reason that respondent No.7 seeks to come on record to guard the properties of the Trust so that there is no collusion between the parties to usurp the properties of the Trust. 4.3. An exception would be required to be made in the present case, taking into consideration the collusion between the parties on record, namely the trustees. If respondent No.7 is not brought on record, grave loss and injury would - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 be caused to the properties of the Trust and the affairs of the Trust. 5. Respondents No.1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court, have chosen to be unrepresented. 6. Respondents No.3 to 6, who are defendants No.3 to 6 before the Trial Court, represented by the learned counsel Sri.Prashant Mathapati, support the case of the petitioners and submit that the order of impleading is bad in law and requires this court to intercede. 7. Heard Sri.Shriharsha A. Neelopant, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.K. L. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.7 and Sri.Prashant Mathapathi, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 6. Perused the records. 8. The submission of learned counsel Sri.K. L. Patil is that, the devotees do not recognise the persons who - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 are represented themselves to be the President and Secretary of the Trust. They have been set up by defendant No.3, and as such, the devotees have no confidence in the so-called President and Secretary. 9. The suit as filed was by two devotees and family members of the trustees, contending that, on account of the action of defendant No.3 therein, in purchasing the property in the name of defendant No. 4 using the funds of the Trust, the reputation of the family has adversely suffered. It is further contended that the interest of the Trust is suffered on account of the actions of defendant No.3 and in that background, the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.4 is sought to be set aside, and possession sought to be recovered in the name of the Trust for the Trust to administer the property and for injunction restraining defendant No.3 and other trustees from interfering with the possession of the Trust. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 10. Respondent No.7 also claims to be a devotee but not a family member of the trustees, who is now alleging that the family members, who are the trustees, are seeking to collude with each other and enter into a compromise to the detriment of the Trust. In that background, Sri. K. L. Patil has submitted that respondent No.7 wants to come on record as a guard dog to protect the properties of the Trust. 11. In my considered opinion, coming on record as a defendant does not serve any purpose, since even according to respondent No.7, the submission is that the property belongs to the Trust and the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff is proper and correct and those reliefs are required to be granted. 12. A person seeking to come on record as defendant by way of impleading application, cannot contend after coming on record that the suit has to be allowed. By having chosen to come on record as a defendant. The rights that are sought to be agitated by the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 impleading applicant are to be agitated on his own or in the representative capacity in proceedings, if any, which are provided for. A third person cannot seek to come on record as a defendant to contend that the plaint has to be decreed. 13. Furthermore, as rightly contended by Sri.Shriharsh Neelopant, learned counsel for the petitioners, in a dispute between trustees, a devotee cannot come on record, which, in my considered opinion, would have to be accepted. If the devotees were permitted to come on record in any suit, it would open floodgates as there could be thousands of devotees seeking to come on record to frustrate and protract the proceedings, taking away the crux of the matter required to be decided by a court of law. 14. If at all there are any independent rights which are required to be agitated by a devotee, there are suitable avenues available for such a devotee to agitate those rights. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 15. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the correctness of the suit or the correctness of the claim of the impleading applicant. The manner in which the impleading applicant has sought to come on record as a defendant to support the claim of the plaintiffs cannot be sustained. 16. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 18.12.2023 in O.S.No.28/2021 passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.8, allowing the said I.A.No.8 is set aside. iii. Consequently, I.A.No.8 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed. iv. Liberty is reserved to respondent No.7 to agitate any independent rights that respondent - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3812 WP No. 102504 of 2024 No.7 has in an appropriate forum as per the applicable law. v. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and/or contentions, the same would have to be decided on merits. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT:GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3