- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28379 WP No. 14974 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 14974 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: PADUVARAHALLI (VINAYAKANAGAR) GRAMABHUDAYA TRUST (REGD.) VINAYAKA NAGAR, SRI BASAVESHWARA KALYANAMANTAPA, 1ST MAIN ROAD, (PADUVARAHALLI) VINAYAKANAGAR, DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001 REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI M. BYRAPPA, SON OF LATE MANCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI.A.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.T.N.VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI CHIKKA ARASANAYAKA SON OF LATE SIDDAPPANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2500, 5TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGAR, MYSURU -570 001 2. SRI RACHANAIKA, SON OF KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.2502/3, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28379 WP No. 14974 of 2026 PADUVARAHALLI VINAYAKA NAGAR, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU -570 002 3. SRI M.R. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SON OF LATE LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.2423, 3RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGARA, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 002 4. SRI MANIKYA KUMARA NAYAKA, SON OF CHIKKANNA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.2508/D 10, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGAR, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU -572 002 5. SRI PRADEEP NAYAKA, SON OF MAHADEVANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.2452, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGAR, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU - 572 992 6. SRI G.M. MAHADEV, SON OF VADGALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.131, NADANAHALLI, MYSURU - 570 028 7. SRI SHASHIKUMAR K. SON OF KRISHNA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28379 WP No. 14974 of 2026 RESIDING AT NO.2508/1, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI VINAYAKANAGAR, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU 570 002 8. SRI RAMANAYAKA, SON OF KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT 2504, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGAR, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU -570 002 9. SRI. CHIKKA BYRANAYAKA C. SON OF CHIKKANNA M. AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2508/1D, 10/1D, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGAR, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU 570 002 10. SRI DIWAKAR G.M. SON OF GOVINDA MURTHY C. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9/2, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGAR, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 002 11. SRI JAYARAMA NAYAKA L. SON OF LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2508, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGAR, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU -570 002 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28379 WP No. 14974 of 2026 12. SRI S. SATISH, SON OF SIDDANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2485, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGAR, V.V.MOHALLA, MYSURU 570 002. 13. SRI MANJUNJATH SON OF NAGANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2502/3, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGAR, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 002 14. SRI NANJUNDASWAMY, SON OF SIDDAMMA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2500, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGAR, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 002. 15. SRI NANDISH NAYAKA, SON OF CHIKKA ARASA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2500, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGAR, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU 570 002 16. SRI JITENDRA KUMAR, SON OF CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2508/D-10, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28379 WP No. 14974 of 2026 3RD MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI VINAYAKANAGAR, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU -570 002 17. SRI RAVIKUMAR NAYAKA, SON OF KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2502/3, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGAR, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU- 570 002 18. SRI CHIKKANNA, SON OF MANCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2508/1D, 10/1D, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI, VINAYAKANAGAR, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU- 570 002 19. SRI NANDAN NAYAKA, SON OF M. CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2508/1D, 10/1D, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS, PADUVARAHALLI VINAYAKANAGAR, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CHAMU SHIVA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 NOTICE TO R2 TO R19 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O/D:08/06/2026) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 18.02.2026 PASSED IN M.A. 24/2024 ON THE - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28379 WP No. 14974 of 2026 FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A I.A. NO. 1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in M.A.No.24/2024 dated 18.02.2016 by the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The facts of the case are the petitioner herein has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.1636/2023 against the respondent herein before the VII Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru seeking declaration of the Trust deed formed by the defendant on 12.06.2023 under the name and style of “Paduvarahalli Sri Jodi Maramma (Marigudi) Devayala Abhivruddhi Trust patra” is illegal, void and not enforceable under the eye of law and also sought for injunction restraining the defendants from any kind of interference of the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment and administration of suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever. In that the plaintiff had filed I.A seeking temporary injunction. The respondents have filed their - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28379 WP No. 14974 of 2026 objections. On 20.02.2024 the trial Court allowed I.A.No.I by granting injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, family members, power of attorney holder or any persons acting on their behalf are restrained from doing any acts or deeds in pursuance of alleged Paduvarahalli Sri Jodi Maramma (Marigudi) Temple Development Trust. In any manner whatsoever pertaining to the scheduled temple is concerned till disposal of the suit. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has filed M.A. No. 24/2024 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru. The court by dated 18.02.2026 has allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed in I.A and has passed further order that the trial court shall give an opportunity of hearing to both parties and appoint a receiver for the management of the Jodi Maramma temple No. 2482, new No. 8, situated at 1st main, Vinayaka Nagara, Paduvarahalli, Devaraja Mohalla, Mysore measuring East to West 30 ft. and North to South 25 ft. with vacant space, until pending disposal of the suit under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC without expecting an - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28379 WP No. 14974 of 2026 application in that behalf. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from infirmity, illegality and requires modification from the hands of this Court. The appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the defendants without even considering the prima-facie case set up by the plaintiff. The appellate Court has failed to consider the documents that were placed before the court, which shows that the plaintiff's Trust established had been taking care of the maintenance of the Temple and the Trust deed was fabricated by contesting respondents in order to defeat the claim of the petitioners. It is stated that the Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the alleged Trust deed was created by the respondents only to create problem in the smooth running of the Petitioner trust. It is submitted that by creating such a trust there is lot of confusion in the minds of the villagers on which Trust is running the affairs of the temple. The appellate Court having noticed that the petitioner Trust is in possession and management of the temple, had allowed the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28379 WP No. 14974 of 2026 appeal and the said order is contrary to the facts on record. The appellate court had failed to consider the fact that the petitioner's trust came into existence on 29.08.2009 which is earlier to the alleged Trust of the defendants and the appellate court ought not to have allowed the M.A by dismissing the IA that is filed by the petitioner seeking injunction by vacating the order passed by the court. It is submitted that the petitioners could prima facie make out the case that they have been running the temple, and the respondent by creating a Trust is interfering with their functioning. The question of entitlement and all other issues are matters for trial which would be decided eventually in the suit. At this juncture the appellate Court, without appreciating all this had dismissed the petition which is contrary to the settled law and the facts of the case. It is submitted that the court has went on further and appointed a receiver. When the plaintiff has filed a suit stating that he is in possession of the property and he has been running the management of the Temple, there is no occasion for the court to appoint a Receiver without any pleadings. It is submitted that the order passed in M.A needs to be set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28379 WP No. 14974 of 2026 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants has raised the issue with regard to maintainability of the suit stating that the petitioner being one of the trustees cannot file a suit on behalf of the Trust. He has relied on the judgment of this Court in case of Chikkamuniyappa Reddy Memorial Trust Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1997 Karnataka 2460. It is submitted that the suit itself is not maintainable. Further it is submitted that under the guise of the trial Court's order though the petitioners/plaintiffs have admitted that he has been rendering the Archakathvam and that he is entitled for the plate collection, they are not letting the petitioner to perform the duties of Aarchaka. It is submitted that the appellate court had rightly considered the aspects and had rightly allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the trial Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. It is the case of the plaintiff that that they have been taking care of the affairs of temple and the trust was constituted way back in the year 2009. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that the defendant had established - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28379 WP No. 14974 of 2026 his Trust and is interfering with the activities of the petitioner's Trust in managing the affairs of the temple. The trial Court has granted an injunction against the defendant. This court has perused the order of the appellate Court. The order of the appellate Court where the injunction is set aside and receiver is appointed, cannot be sustained as the same is passed without any pleading of the parties. In this case, according to the petitioner/Trust, they have been running the temple and defendant is doing Archakathvam in the Temple and according to the defendant, he was also receiving the plate collection. Looking at the prima-facie and having satisfied the other ingredients for grant of temporary injunction the trial Court has rightly granted injunction, the appellate court ought to have continued the same till the disposal of the suit. The other issues have to be decided by the Court on the merits of it and not at this stage. The learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that now under the guise of the order, the plaintiffs are not permitting the defendant to perform the duties of the priest and he is not permitted to take the plate collection. The plaintiff also does not dispute the fact that he is a priest in the Temple and the appellate Court by giving clarity to this, should have - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28379 WP No. 14974 of 2026 continued the order of injunction. Then coming to the other submissions of the defendant that the suit is not maintainable and the petitioner cannot represent this Trust, this Court is not inclined to go into that aspect. If the petitioner is advised so, he can move an appropriate application before the trial court and the trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law. 7. In the light of above discussion, this Court is passing the following: ORDER. i. The order passed in M.A.No.24/2024 dated 18.02.2016 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru,is set aside. ii. The order that is passed in I.A.No.II in O.S No.1636/2023 is clarified that defendant No.1 is permitted to perform the duties of Priest as he was doing prior to establishment of the Trust. However with regard to affairs of the Trust are concerned, the order of injunction that is granted by the trial Court holds good. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28379 WP No. 14974 of 2026 iii. The defendant can continue to receive for the plate collection. iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. v. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15