- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 100005 OF 2022 C/W HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 100006 OF 2022 IN HRRP NO.100005/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI VIRUPAXHAYYA S/O. BALAYYA HIREMATH AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 3095, NEAR KPTCL POWER CORPORATION, RAMTEERTH NAGAR, KANBARGI, BELAGAVI 591265. 2. SHRI KASHINATH S/O. MALLAYYA HIREMATH AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 819, MENASHE GALLI, BELAGAVI 590001. 3. SHRI SHIVANAND S/O. CHANNAVEERAYYA HIREMATH AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. H.NO.291/1, GOODSHED ROAD, BELAGAVI 590009. 4. SHRI GANESH S/O. NAGAPPA DEVAR AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 1004, SAMARTH NAGAR, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.07 11:28:20 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 NEAR MALIKARJUN NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI SHASHIDHAR S/O. SADASHIVSWAMY HIREMATH AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. PRIEST, R/O. NO. 627, KALMAT ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. 2. VIJAY S/O. SADASHIVSWAMY HIREMATH AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 627, KALMAT ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. 3. SMT. T.M. UMA MALLIKARJUN AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SHANTINIVAS, P.B. ROAD, DODDA BHATE, DAVANAGERE 577002. 4. SMT. SUMA SIDLINGESHWAR KITTUR AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. U.B. HALLIS, MALAMADDI, DHARWAD 58007. 5. SHRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O. SADASHIVSWAMY HIREMATH AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. PRIEST, R/O. 627, KALMAT ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. 6. SMT. PREMA N. SADANAND AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 43-D, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 7. SHRI GANESH S/O. NAGAYYA SANDANAM AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 43-D, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. 8. SHRI PANDI S/O. NAGAYYA SANDANAM AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 43-D, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. 9. SHRI RAJESH S/O. NAGAYYA SANDANAM AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 43-D, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. 10. SHRI SANTOSH S/O. NAGAYYA SANDANAM AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 43-D, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. 11. SMT. RADHA W/O. PAPPU SANDANAM AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 43-D, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. 12. SHRI BALAGNESH S/O. PAPPU SANDANAM AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 43-D, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. 13. KUMARI KALPANA D/O. PAPPU SANDANAM AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 43-D, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 TO R9 SERVED; NOTICE TO R10 TO R13 DISPENSED WITH) THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 28.07.2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN HRC REVISION PETITION NO.5/2019 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN E.P.NO.581/2016. IN HRRP NO.100006/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. VIRUPAXHAYYA S/O. BALAYYA HIREMATH AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 3095, NEAR KPTCL POWER CORPORATION, RAMTEERTH NAGAR, KANBARGI, BELAGAVI 591265. 2. SHRI KASHINATH S/O. MALLAYYA HIREMATH AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 819, MENASHE GALLI, BELAGAVI 590001. 3. SHRI SHIVANAND S/O. CHANNAVEERAYYA HIREMATH AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. H.NO. 291/1, GOODSHED ROAD, BELAGAVI 590009. 4. SHRI GANESH S/O. NAGAPPA DEVAR AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 1004, SAMARTH NAGAR, NEAR MALLIKARJUN NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI SHASHIDHAR S/O. SADASHIVSWAMY HIREMATH AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. PRIEST, R/O. NO. 627, KALMAT ROAD, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 BELAGAVI 590001. 2. VIJAYA S/O. SADASHIVSWAMY HIREMATH AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NO. 627, KALMAT ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. 3. STM. T.M. UMA MALLIKARJUN AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SHANTINIVAS, P.B. ROAD, DODDA BHATE, DAVANAGERE 577002. 4. SMT. SUMA SIDLINESHWAR KITTUR AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. U.B. HILLS, MALAMADDI, DHARWD 580007. 5. SHRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O. SADASHIVSWAMY HIREMATH AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. PRIEST, R/O. NO. 627, KALMAT ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. 6. SMT. ANITA M. MORE AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 43-A, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. 7. SMT. ROOPA D/O. MANOHAR MORE AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 43-A, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. 8. SHRI ROHIT S/O. MANOHAR MORE AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. PVT JOB, R/O. 43-P, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. 9. MISS. DEEPA D/O. MANOHAR MORE - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 43-P, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. 10. MISS ROHINI D/O. MANOHAR MORE AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 43-A, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI 590001. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 AND R5 AND R6 AND R8 AND R10 ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R4 HELD SUFFICIENT; NOTICE TO R7 AND R9 DISPENSED WITH) THIS HRRP IS FILE UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.07.2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN HRC REVISION PETITION NO.4/2019 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN E.P.NO.571/2016 AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) HRRP No.100005/2022 arising out of the order 02.02.2019 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi, in E.P.No.581/2016 which is confirmed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in HRC Revision Petition No.05/2019 dated 28.07.2022. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 2. HRRP No.100006/2022 arising out of the order dated 02.02.2019 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi, in E.P.No.571/2016, which is confirmed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in HRC Revision Petition No.04/2019 dated 28.07.2022. 3. Brief facts leading this petition are: The present revision petitioners had filed I.A.Nos.4 and 6 under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the CPC’), in Execution Petitions No.571/2016 and 581/2016. 3.1. In I.A.No.4 in EP No.571/2016, the applicants have stated that the property bearing CTS No.43/D situated at Mahadwar road, Belagavi belongs to Shri.Hiremath (also known as Kalmath), Belagavi, Public Trust and to declare that the respondents/decree holders (1A to 1E) have no right, title and interest to seek possession of the suit schedule property and consequently, to declare that the decree passed in HRC No.66/2005 dated 29.03.2007 as null and non-est. It is further prayed to restrain the decree holders from taking possession of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 the property under the garb of executing the decree passed in HRC No.66/2005, permanently. 3.2. Similarly, in IA.No.6 in EP No.581/2016, the applicants have stated that the property bearing CTS No.43/A situated at Mahadwar Road, Belagavi belongs to Shri.Hiremath, Belagavi, Public Trust and to declare that the respondents/decree holders (1A to 1E) have no right, title and interest to seek possession of the suit schedule property and consequently, to declare that the decree passed in HRC No.66/2005 dated 29.03.2007 as null and non-est. It is also prayed to restrain the decree holders from taking possession of the property under the garb of executing the decree passed in HRC No.66/2005, permanently. IA.Nos.4 and 6 are supported by the affidavits of Sri.Ganesh S/o Nagappa Devar, who is applicant/revision petitioner No.4 in both the cases. 3.3. The facts of the affidavits remain the same. In the affidavits, it is stated that there is an ancient and old Public Math known as “Shri Hiremath” (for short hereinafter referred to as “Shri Math”), situate at Mahadwar Road Belagavi. There are large number of devotees and followers of the said Shri - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 Math, and they are spread over Belagavi city. The Veershaiva Lingayat Community Members are the main followers of the said Shri Math. The applicants are also followers and devotees of said Shri Math and they are the persons having interest in the welfare and development of the said Math. It is impossible to implead all the members of the community as applicants. 3.4. It is further stated that one Sri. Siddramayya had established Shri Math and later on he executed a Will appointing his successors to the said Math. Shri Math is a shishyavarga Math, and the presiding Swamiji, during his lifetime, appoints the successor and this practice is continued since time immemorial. One Sri. Someshekhar Swamy was the successor to this Math, and he during his lifetime, nominated Sri. Sadashiv Swamy who was minor and his natural father was the guardian. As per customs and traditions of Shri Math the presiding Swamji should be a Sanaysi (Celibate) and should be well-versed with Vedik Knowledge and propagate the Veershavisam to the community people. The said Sadashiv Swamy, after attaining majority, married and present decree holders 1A to 1E, who are wife, sons and daughters - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 respectively, are the legal heirs. Later Sadashiv Swamy became disqualified to continue as presiding Swamiji of Shri Math. The decree holders are strangers and are in no way concerned to Shri Math. 3.5. It is further stated that Sri. Sadashiv Swamy was appointed as Peetaadhipathi of Shri Math of Belagavi under wish by his Guru when he was minor and his natural guardian was his father Sri. Siddaramaraya Channayya Shahapurmath and when the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 came into force in this old Bombay Karnataka Area, he filed an application for registration of Shri.Hiremath of Belagavi before the Asst. Charity Commissioner Belagavi, in enquiry No.1042/1952, and the said application was allowed after holding enquiry by order dated 12-03-1955. By this order, Shri.Hiremath of Belagavi is declared as Public Trust bearing Reg.No.A-3079 (BGM) and following the same, the house and shop properties viz. CTS No.627A, 627B, 682/1, 755, 43B, 43A, 43C, 43/D, 431/1, 43/2, 782/2, and 782/1 and other lands and Shri Math buildings situated in various places, are declared as Public Trust properties of Shri Math. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 3.6. Further, it is stated Sri Sadashiv Swamy and his natural father Sri. Siddramayya, preferred appeal to Charity Commissioner Belagavi, against the order of registration of Shri Math of Belagavi, and the said appeal came to be dismissed. Both the persons preferred miscellaneous application No.67/1955, before the District Judge, Belagavi and the said Miscellaneous Application came to be allowed by order dated 11-02-1955. The order passed by the District Judge Belagavi, was challenged by community people before the High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.139/1965. The said appeal came to be disposed of by setting aside all the orders passed by District Court, Charity Commissioner Belagavi and Asst. Charity Commissioner Belagavi with a direction to hold enquiry suo- motu by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belagavi. 3.7. The Asst. Charity Commissioner Belagavi, conducted suo-motu enquiry No.46/1968 and passed order on 20.01.1997, dropping the proceedings and holding Shri Math of Belagavi is not a Public Trust. Challenging the order passed in enquiry No.46/1968, some of the community members having interest in the Trust, filed Revision petition No.2/1997, before - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 the Charity Commissioner Belagavi, against the Sri. Sadashiv Swamy, Someshekhar Swamy Pattad Devru Hiremath and his natural father Sri Siddramaya Chanabasaya Shahapurmath. Further it is stated that Revision Petition No.2/1997, was fixed for arguments from time to time up to 23.07.2003, and by that time, the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, came to be repealed and Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 came in to force from 01.05.2003. In view of coming into force of new Karnataka Endowment Act 1997, the post of Charity Commissioner stood abolished. 3.8. The Government of Karnataka, by Government Order, transferred all pending cases before the Charity Commissioner, Belagavi to various District Courts and the Revision Petition No.02/1997 was transferred to District Court Belagavi which came to be re-numbered as Misc. No.110/2016 and is now pending before the I Additional District Judge Belagavi. In the interregnum, respondents 2 and 3 in the Revision Petition No.02/1997 expired and an application is filed to bring legal heirs of Sadashiv Swamy who are decree holders No.1A to IE in the said Misc. No.110/2016. The decree holders - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 IA to 1E, being surprised the pendency of the Revision petition No.2/1997, before the Charity Commissioner Belagavi, got their names entered in the CTS records as legal heirs including the suit property and other Public Trust properties behind the back of members of Lingayat Community. On the basis of the City Survey Records the present decree holders 1A to 1E, filed HRC Petition No.20/2005 before the Court against various tenants and seeking possession as owners of the said property. The said Misc. No.110/2016 before the I Additional District Judge, Belagavi, against decree holders 1A to 1E, is still pending for hearing. The controversy as to whether the properties mentioned above are Public Trust properties of Shri Math of Belagavi or a private property as claimed by decree holders 1A to 1E and the finding given by the Asst. Charity Commissioner Belagavi, has not become final and conclusive. 3.9. In view of facts and circumstances, it is to be declared that the decree holders have not become absolute owners of the suit property to obtain possession from the judgment debtors and the decree obtained by decree holders is nullity and non-est in the eye of law. The present applicants - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 filed application before the I Additional District Judge, Belagavi in Misc. Case No.110/2016 to implead them as petitioners 6 to 10 since some of the original petitioners have expired. On all these grounds, sought to allow the Revision Petition. 4. The decree holders have filed their objections to these IAs contending that the application filed by third party applicants at the instigation of judgment debtors to delay the delivery of possession of the premises in compliance of High Court order, is totally misconceived and not tenable in law. The application of the third party applicants is supported by the affidavits of Ganesh Nagappa Devar, who is the judgment debtor No.2 in EP No.571/2016, and he had sworn the affidavit with a different name by taking undue advantage of his second name known to the public, which itself discloses that the third party applicants 1 to 4 are none other than the relatives of the judgment debtors in both the petitions. Therefore, there is no bonafide in filing the application and the same is liable to be rejected in limine. 4.1. Further it is stated that the averments made in para 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the application are not true - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 and bonafide. It is false to allege that the suit properties are the properties of Public Trust known as Kalmath Trust. The allegation that, the applicants are the devotees of the said alleged Trust and they are having interest in the welfare and development of the Shri Math is empathetically denied. Further it is stated that it is difficult to implead all the members of the Lingayat community, and the interested persons in the said Shri.Hiremath of Belagavi have filed the present application representing the entire community in representative manner, is specifically denied and hence contended that the application is liable to be rejected for non-compliance of provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. 4.2. It is submitted that Sadashiv Swamy and his natural father filed an appeal before the Charity Commissioner, Belagavi which came to be dismissed and the challenge made to the same before the District Judge, Belagavi, came to be allowed in the year 1955. It is also admitted that the said order has been challenged in MFA No.139/1965 before this Court and this Court was pleased to set aside all the orders passed by the Courts below and directed the Assistant Charity - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 Commissioner to hold suo-motu enquiry. In view of the said direction, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belagavi held enquiry and was pleased to hold that, the petition premises comprised in the decree, is a private property of late Sadashiv Swamy who is the petitioner in the present decree. The allegation that the said order has been challenged before the Court, is not within the knowledge of the decree holders. 4.3. Further it is stated the original petitioner Sadashiv Swamy G Hiremath, filed eviction petitions against the respective tenants. It is submitted that the petitions came to be allowed holding that there is a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the petition. It is submitted that the said order has been challenged by the judgment debtor before the Additional District Judge, Belagavi and during the pendency of the revision petitions they have filed application seeking amendment to the written statement contending that the petitioner-landlord is not the owner of the properties as the same are the properties of Public Trust. The said amendment application came to be allowed by the I Addl. District Judge, Belagavi. Against that, the decree Holders have - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 filed HRRP No.514/2012 before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench and during the pendency of the said revision petition, the High Court considered the submission made by the Advocate for judgment debtors regarding the ownership of the properties and was pleased to reject the submission. Therefore, now, this Court cannot re-open the said fact in view of the present application filed by the relatives at the instance of the judgment debtors, and hence the application is strongly objected. 4.4. Further it is submitted that judgment debtors have admitted the jural relationship during the pendency of the petition by paying a rent to the decree Holders. Therefore, they have lost their right to challenge the status of the decree holders and under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, now instigated their relatives to file the present application. The present applicants are not parties to the proceedings pending before the District Court, and therefore, they are not competent to file the application to help the judgment debtors. Moreover, the ownership is not a criterion to decide whether the decree holders are entitled to take possession or not in view of - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 provisions of law. Once the jural relationship is held positive, then the judgment debtor has to vacate and handover the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff/decree Holder. Ultimately, if the applicants before the District Court in Misc. No.110/2016 are entitled to get declared their rights in the said Court, the possession is not a criteria to decide the said miscellaneous petition. Even the said miscellaneous petition has been instigated at the instance of the judgment debtors only to make hurdles in the present execution petitions and thereby to protract the proceedings to hand over the vacant possession. Further they denied all averments made in the affidavit as false and sought for dismissal of this petition. 5. Applications, both in EPs No.581/2016 and 571/2016 before the II Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi, came to be dismissed by order dated 02.02.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, Revision Petitioners have preferred Revision Petition in Nos.04/2019 and 05/2019 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi and both the petitions came to be rejected by the District Court on 28.07.2022 with cost of Rs.10,000/-. Being aggrieved by these orders passed by both - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 Courts, the revision petitioners have filed present Revision Petitions. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would vehemently submit that the trial Court has not conducted a detailed enquiry on the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC and dismissed the same merely based on merits. The Executing Court ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence of their independent right, title and interest when such a claim was put forth by them instead of dismissing the said application based on a preliminary hearing. The First Revision Court, instead of upholding the impugned judgment of the Executing Court, ought to have corrected this anomaly in the application. Both the courts have bypassed the mandate of law in a glaring fashion by not permitting them to adduce evidence of their independent right, title and interest in the subject property which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice to the petitioners. He would submit that the First Revision Court has misapplied the law with regard to locus standi of the petitioners in filing the application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC by - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 placing reliance on decision of the Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of SMT. USHA JAIN AND OTHERS v. MANMOHAN BAJAJ AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1980 MP 146 (FB). 7. He submits that the First Revision Court has failed to take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BRAHMDEO CHOUDHARY v. RISHIKESH PRASAD JAISWAL & ANOTHER reported in (1997)3 SCC 694. On all these grounds, learned counsel sought to remand the case to the Executing Court with a direction to provide an opportunity to the revision petitioners to establish their right, interest and title over the properties in question. 8. Despite service of notice, respondent remained absent and unrepresented. 9. Having heard the arguments of the Counsel for the Revision Petitioners and on perusal of materials placed for me, the following point would arise for my consideration: “Whether the revision petitioners have made out a round to interfere with the impugned judgment - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 passed by the Executing Court, which is confirmed by the First Revision Court?” 10. I have carefully examined the materials placed before me. Admittedly, Revision Petitioners are not parties to HRC proceedings. As the applicants, the present revision petitioners have filed application before the Executing Court under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. That application is resisted by the decree holders by filing written objections. The revision petitioners have filed application to declare the property bearing CTS number 43D and 43A situate at Mahadwar Road Belagavi declared as the property belonging to Shri Math, also known as Kalmath, a Public Trust. To substantiate this, revision petitioners have not placed any materials before the Executing Court, except filing an affidavit. The Executing Court, in its order, has observed that the applicants are strangers to the petition premises. The applicants have claimed their interest in the Math as followers of Math. Prima facie, they have no right, title or interest in the petition premises. Further, the Executing Court has observed that the question of ownership of properties stated in the application including the present petition property is pending adjudication - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 in Miscellaneous No.110 of 2016 before the First Additional District Judge, Belagavi. Under the circumstance, the said question is sub-judice and this Court cannot adjudicate the same in these Revision Petitions, as prayed for by the applicants. Moreover, this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the case involving the Public Trust. The Revision Court has also observed that under Order XXI 21 Rule 97 of CPC, the persons cannot approach the Executing Court as obstructers without having any right, title or interest over the same. Further, the Revision Court has observed that the applicants ought to have filed application in a representative nature in respect of public charitable trust and must obtain leave of the Court by filing necessary application, which is not filed in the present case. Even before this Court or before the Revision Court, the revision petitioners have not placed any materials to show that the property in question is a Public Trust. Since the Revision petitioners have failed to place prima facie material to show that the property in question is a Public Trust property, the question of holding enquiry by the Executing Court does not arise. Therefore, the arguments advanced on behalf of the revision petitioners cannot be accepted. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 11. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any error, legal infirmities or illegalities in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court, which is confirmed by the First Revision Court. Admittedly, the question of ownership of properties stated in the application is pending adjudication in Miscellaneous No.110 of 2016 on the file of District Court, Belagavi. Under the given set of circumstances, the applicant/Revision Petitioners can establish their right, title or interest over the property before the said Court. Observing thus, I answer the point arose for consideration in the negative. 12. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Revision petitions dismissed; ii) The application filed under section just in both the cases or dismissed; iii) Revision Petitioners are at liberty to urge all the grounds before the First Additional District Judge, Belagavi in Miscellaneous No.110 of 2016 and the First Additional District Judge, Belagavi - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9414 HRRP No. 100005 of 2022 C/W HRRP No. 100006 of 2022 shall consider the rights of the parties in accordance with law; iv) Registry to send the copy of this order along with the trial court records to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AC,LNN Ct-cmu List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36