Shri Uttaradi Mutt Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Decided On : Jun-05-2024

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt Vs. The State Of Karnataka Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 1 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 2 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 144',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 144',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 144',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 144',
			(int) 7 => 'Amendment',
			(int) 8 => 'Article 19(2',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 56',
			(int) 10 => 'the Evidence Act',
			(int) 11 => 'the Evidence Act',
			(int) 12 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
			(int) 13 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 14 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 15 => 'Article 226 the High Court',
			(int) 16 => 'Section 4',
			(int) 17 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
			(int) 18 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
			(int) 19 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
			(int) 20 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 21 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
			(int) 22 => 'Article 226 embark',
			(int) 23 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 24 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 25 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 26 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 27 => 'Section 9',
			(int) 28 => 'Article 25 of the Constitution',
			(int) 29 => 'Section 9',
			(int) 30 => 'Section 9',
			(int) 31 => 'Section 9',
			(int) 32 => 'Section 9',
			(int) 33 => 'Section 9',
			(int) 34 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 35 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 36 => 'Article 25 of the Constitution',
			(int) 37 => 'Section 21 of the Evidence Act',
			(int) 38 => 'Section 31',
			(int) 39 => 'Section 21',
			(int) 40 => 'the Evidence Act',
			(int) 41 => 'the Evidence Act'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 1 => 'DESHPANDE.',
			(int) 2 => 'BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI',
			(int) 3 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 4 => 'KOPPAL5 SHRI NANJANGUDA RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT',
			(int) 5 => 'H.K. RAM RAO AGED ABOUT55YEARS R/O11-110',
			(int) 6 => 'KISHAN RAO S/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO AGED',
			(int) 7 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 8 => 'BTM LAYOUT',
			(int) 9 => 'BANGALORE-560056',
			(int) 10 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 11 => 'ARUN L. NEELOPANT',
			(int) 12 => 'H.R. DESHPANDE.',
			(int) 13 => 'RAGHUVARYA TEERTHA',
			(int) 14 => 'DIST.KOPPAL',
			(int) 15 => 'R.K. VADEENDRA S/O R.KRISHNACHAR AGE',
			(int) 16 => 'JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041',
			(int) 17 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 18 => 'KANAKAGIRI GANGAVATHI',
			(int) 19 => 'DESHPANDE',
			(int) 20 => 'BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI',
			(int) 21 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 22 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 23 => 'a. Quash',
			(int) 24 => 'Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava',
			(int) 25 => 'Raghuvarya Teertha',
			(int) 26 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 27 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 28 => 'Mahimotsava',
			(int) 29 => 'Sri',
			(int) 30 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 31 => 'c. Grant',
			(int) 32 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 33 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 34 => 'Shri',
			(int) 35 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 36 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 37 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 38 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 39 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 40 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 41 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 42 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 43 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 44 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 45 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 46 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 47 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 48 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 49 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 50 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 51 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 52 => 'Shri',
			(int) 53 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 54 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy',
			(int) 55 => 'Shri Uttaradi',
			(int) 56 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 57 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 58 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 59 => 'Shri Madhva Parampara',
			(int) 60 => 'Shri Kavindra Teertharu',
			(int) 61 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 62 => 'Krishna Rao',
			(int) 63 => 'Nizams',
			(int) 64 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 65 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 66 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 67 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 68 => 'Shri Jaya',
			(int) 69 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 70 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 71 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 72 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 73 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 74 => 'Ardahana',
			(int) 75 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 76 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 77 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 78 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 79 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 80 => 'Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 81 => 'Tahsildar',
			(int) 82 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 83 => 'Tahashildar',
			(int) 84 => 'Shree Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 85 => 'Shree Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava',
			(int) 86 => 'Shree Raghuvarya - 23 - NC:2024',
			(int) 87 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 88 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 89 => 'vii',
			(int) 90 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 91 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 92 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 93 => 'Mahimotsava',
			(int) 94 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 95 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 96 => 'Nos',
			(int) 97 => 'Nos',
			(int) 98 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 99 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 100 => 'No.7',
			(int) 101 => 'Govinda Odeyar',
			(int) 102 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 103 => 'Shri Vysararaj Teertharu',
			(int) 104 => 'Shri Srinivas Teertharu',
			(int) 105 => 'Shri Sudheendra Teertharu',
			(int) 106 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 107 => 'Shri Akshobhya Teertharu',
			(int) 108 => 'Bhageerathi Bai',
			(int) 109 => 'Raghappa Achar',
			(int) 110 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 111 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 112 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 113 => 'Kumar Deshpande',
			(int) 114 => 'Respondent No.5- Shri',
			(int) 115 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 116 => 'Shri',
			(int) 117 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 118 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 119 => 'Shri',
			(int) 120 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 121 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 122 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 123 => 'Shri',
			(int) 124 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 125 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 126 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 127 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 128 => 'v. Liberty',
			(int) 129 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 130 => 'b(1',
			(int) 131 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 132 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 133 => '¦ÃoÁ¢ü¥ÀwUÀ¼ÁwzÀÄÝ',
			(int) 134 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 135 => 'ಇ(cid:21',
			(int) 136 => 'ೇU(cid:31)ಾFE(cid:31)ೆ ಅ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:20)ಗು',
			(int) 137 => 'ÀmÁÖ',
			(int) 138 => 'ಾಡ^ೇTೆಂದು',
			(int) 139 => 'Shri Raghavendra - 38 - NC:2024',
			(int) 140 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 141 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 142 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 143 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 144 => 'Shri',
			(int) 145 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 146 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 147 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 148 => 'Shri',
			(int) 149 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 150 => 'H.S. Stya Pramooda',
			(int) 151 => 'Defts',
			(int) 152 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 153 => 'Brindavanas',
			(int) 154 => 'Moola Brindavana',
			(int) 155 => 'Srinivas Tirtharu Rama Thirtharu',
			(int) 156 => 'Holi',
			(int) 157 => 'Deft',
			(int) 158 => 'Vageesha Tirtharu',
			(int) 159 => 'Sudhendra Tirtharu',
			(int) 160 => 'para No.7',
			(int) 161 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 162 => 'Rajasab',
			(int) 163 => 'Krishn Rao',
			(int) 164 => 'Suyamendra Thirtharu',
			(int) 165 => 'Jayaramachar',
			(int) 166 => 'Joshi Sd/-',
			(int) 167 => 'Prasanna Theertharu',
			(int) 168 => 'Hanumanthacharya',
			(int) 169 => 'joshi',
			(int) 170 => 'Sd/-',
			(int) 171 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 172 => 'Suyamendra Thirtharu',
			(int) 173 => 'Jayaramachar',
			(int) 174 => 'Joshi Sd/-',
			(int) 175 => 'Prasanna Teertharu',
			(int) 176 => 'Hanmanthacharya',
			(int) 177 => 'joshi',
			(int) 178 => 'Sd/-',
			(int) 179 => 'Shri',
			(int) 180 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri',
			(int) 181 => 'Vyasaraya Mutt',
			(int) 182 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 183 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 184 => 'Shri',
			(int) 185 => 'Shri',
			(int) 186 => 'Padmanabha Teertharu',
			(int) 187 => 'Shri',
			(int) 188 => 'Raveendra',
			(int) 189 => 'Shri',
			(int) 190 => 'Sudheendra Teertharu',
			(int) 191 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 192 => 'Shri',
			(int) 193 => 'Sujayendra Teertharu',
			(int) 194 => 'Shri Kavindra',
			(int) 195 => 'Vysararaj Teertharu',
			(int) 196 => 'Shri Srinivas',
			(int) 197 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 198 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 199 => 'Shri Sudheendra Teertharu',
			(int) 200 => 'Shri',
			(int) 201 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri',
			(int) 202 => 'Govinda Wodeyaru',
			(int) 203 => 'Shri',
			(int) 204 => 'Shri',
			(int) 205 => 'Shri',
			(int) 206 => 'Vyasaraya Mutt',
			(int) 207 => 'Shri',
			(int) 208 => 'Kumar Deshpande',
			(int) 209 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 210 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 211 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 212 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 213 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 214 => 'Gurus',
			(int) 215 => 'Shri',
			(int) 216 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 217 => 'Shri',
			(int) 218 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 219 => 'Shri',
			(int) 220 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 221 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 222 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 223 => 'Shri',
			(int) 224 => 'Kaveendra',
			(int) 225 => 'Vageesha Teertharu',
			(int) 226 => 'Shri',
			(int) 227 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 228 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 229 => 'Shri',
			(int) 230 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 231 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 232 => 'Shri',
			(int) 233 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 234 => 'Shri',
			(int) 235 => 'Shri',
			(int) 236 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 237 => 'Shri',
			(int) 238 => 'Shri',
			(int) 239 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 240 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 241 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 242 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 243 => 'Shri',
			(int) 244 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 245 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 246 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 247 => 'Shri',
			(int) 248 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 249 => 'Shri',
			(int) 250 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 251 => 'Shri',
			(int) 252 => 'Shri',
			(int) 253 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 254 => 'Shri',
			(int) 255 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 256 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 257 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 258 => 'Para 51',
			(int) 259 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 260 => 'Shri',
			(int) 261 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 262 => 'Shri',
			(int) 263 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 264 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 265 => 'Karnataka Gazeteer',
			(int) 266 => 'Dharwad District',
			(int) 267 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 268 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 269 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 270 => 'Shri',
			(int) 271 => 'Srinivas Ramanuj Das v.',
			(int) 272 => 'Surjanarayan Das2',
			(int) 273 => 'Gazetteer',
			(int) 274 => 'Gazetteer',
			(int) 275 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 276 => 'Gazetteer',
			(int) 277 => 'Shri',
			(int) 278 => 'Shri',
			(int) 279 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 280 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 281 => 'Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee',
			(int) 282 => 'Bhatinda',
			(int) 283 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 284 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 285 => 'Gunwant Kaur',
			(int) 286 => 'Century Spg',
			(int) 287 => 'para13',
			(int) 288 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 289 => 'Shri',
			(int) 290 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 291 => 'Shri',
			(int) 292 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 293 => 'Shri',
			(int) 294 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 295 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 296 => 'Shri',
			(int) 297 => 'Raghuvara Teetharu',
			(int) 298 => 'Shri',
			(int) 299 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 300 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 301 => 'Shri',
			(int) 302 => 'Shri',
			(int) 303 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 304 => 'Shri',
			(int) 305 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 306 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 307 => 'Jain Sangh v. State',
			(int) 308 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 309 => 'Himmatlal',
			(int) 310 => 'Mahabir Prasad',
			(int) 311 => 'B.S. Gupta',
			(int) 312 => 'Jain Sangh’s',
			(int) 313 => 'Shri',
			(int) 314 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 315 => 'Shri',
			(int) 316 => 'Shri',
			(int) 317 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 318 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 319 => 'Raghuvarya Rayaru',
			(int) 320 => 'Shri',
			(int) 321 => 'Shri',
			(int) 322 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 323 => 'Shri',
			(int) 324 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 325 => 'Shri',
			(int) 326 => 'Shri',
			(int) 327 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri',
			(int) 328 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 329 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 330 => 'Shri',
			(int) 331 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 332 => 'Shri',
			(int) 333 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 334 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 335 => 'Shri',
			(int) 336 => 'Shri',
			(int) 337 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 338 => 'Shri',
			(int) 339 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 340 => 'Shri',
			(int) 341 => 'Shri',
			(int) 342 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 343 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 344 => 'Shri',
			(int) 345 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 346 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 347 => 'Shri',
			(int) 348 => 'Shri',
			(int) 349 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 350 => 'Nirupa',
			(int) 351 => 'Shri',
			(int) 352 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 353 => 'Shri',
			(int) 354 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 355 => 'Shri',
			(int) 356 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 357 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 358 => 'Shri',
			(int) 359 => 'Shri',
			(int) 360 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 361 => 'Shri',
			(int) 362 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 363 => 'Shri',
			(int) 364 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 365 => 'Shri',
			(int) 366 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 367 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 368 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 369 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 370 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 371 => 'O.S.No.193/1992',
			(int) 372 => 'Shri',
			(int) 373 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 374 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 375 => 'Dharwad District',
			(int) 376 => 'Shri',
			(int) 377 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 378 => 'Shri',
			(int) 379 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 380 => 'Shri',
			(int) 381 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 382 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 383 => 'Shri',
			(int) 384 => 'Sri',
			(int) 385 => 'Kumar Deshpande',
			(int) 386 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 387 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 388 => 'Shri',
			(int) 389 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 390 => 'BNK Sharma',
			(int) 391 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 392 => 'M.R.Anantha Padmanabha Rao',
			(int) 393 => 'Sannur Bheema Bhat',
			(int) 394 => 'Shri',
			(int) 395 => 'Kannada',
			(int) 396 => 'Shri',
			(int) 397 => 'Shri',
			(int) 398 => 'T.K.Venugopala Dasaru',
			(int) 399 => 'Dasa Parampara',
			(int) 400 => 'Srimad Jaya',
			(int) 401 => 'Anegundi Utsava',
			(int) 402 => 'Sharana Basappa Kolkar',
			(int) 403 => 'Shri.-',
			(int) 404 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 405 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 406 => 'Shri',
			(int) 407 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 408 => 'Shri',
			(int) 409 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 410 => 'Moran Mar',
			(int) 411 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 412 => 'Srimad Perarulala',
			(int) 413 => 'Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami',
			(int) 414 => 'Srimad Perarulala',
			(int) 415 => 'Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami',
			(int) 416 => 'Stainislaus v. State of M.P.',
			(int) 417 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 418 => 'Adeshwarji',
			(int) 419 => 'Swetamberis',
			(int) 420 => 'Dhwajadand',
			(int) 421 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 422 => 'Moran Mar Basselios',
			(int) 423 => 'Catholicos',
			(int) 424 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 425 => 'Moran Mar Basselios',
			(int) 426 => 'Catholicos',
			(int) 427 => 'Moran Mar Marthoma’s',
			(int) 428 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 429 => 'Basant Singh -v- Janki Singh',
			(int) 430 => 'Janki Singh',
			(int) 431 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
			(int) 432 => 'Ramanand Singh',
			(int) 433 => 'Janki Singh',
			(int) 434 => 'Janki Singh',
			(int) 435 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
			(int) 436 => 'Ramanand Singh',
			(int) 437 => 'Ramanand Singh',
			(int) 438 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 439 => 'Ramanand Singh',
			(int) 440 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
			(int) 441 => 'Homeopathic',
			(int) 442 => 'Janki Singh',
			(int) 443 => 'Janki Singh',
			(int) 444 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
			(int) 445 => 'Ramyad Singh',
			(int) 446 => 'Ramyad Singh',
			(int) 447 => 'Ramyad Singh',
			(int) 448 => 'Chanderjoti Debi',
			(int) 449 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 450 => 'Jairam Mahaton',
			(int) 451 => 'Lokenath Mahaton',
			(int) 452 => 'S.T. Chendikamba v. K.I. Viswanathamayya',
			(int) 453 => 'Indian Law',
			(int) 454 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 455 => 'Kamta Prasad',
			(int) 456 => 'Shri',
			(int) 457 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 458 => 'Peetadhipati',
			(int) 459 => 'Shri',
			(int) 460 => 'Shri',
			(int) 461 => 'Nirupa',
			(int) 462 => 'Nirupa',
			(int) 463 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 464 => 'Nirupa',
			(int) 465 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 466 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 467 => 'Shri',
			(int) 468 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 469 => 'Shri',
			(int) 470 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 471 => 'Shri',
			(int) 472 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 473 => 'Prabhuling K. Navadgi',
			(int) 474 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 475 => 'Shri',
			(int) 476 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 477 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 478 => 'Uttaradi Mutt, Shri',
			(int) 479 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri',
			(int) 480 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 481 => 'Mahimotsava',
			(int) 482 => 'Sri',
			(int) 483 => 'Anegundi Village',
			(int) 484 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 485 => 'Shri',
			(int) 486 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 487 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 488 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 489 => 'Shri',
			(int) 490 => 'Shri',
			(int) 491 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 492 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 493 => 'Shri',
			(int) 494 => 'Shri',
			(int) 495 => 'Althaf Ahamed v. State',
			(int) 496 => 'Will',
			(int) 497 => 'Shri',
			(int) 498 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 499 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2023',
			(int) 1 => '2023',
			(int) 2 => '2024',
			(int) 3 => '2023',
			(int) 4 => '2023',
			(int) 5 => '2023',
			(int) 6 => '2023',
			(int) 7 => '2023',
			(int) 8 => '2023',
			(int) 9 => 'R6-R15',
			(int) 10 => '2023',
			(int) 11 => 'TO1007-2023',
			(int) 12 => '11TH MAIN45H',
			(int) 13 => '2023',
			(int) 14 => '2023 1',
			(int) 15 => 'THIS DAY',
			(int) 16 => '2023',
			(int) 17 => '2023',
			(int) 18 => '2023',
			(int) 19 => '2023',
			(int) 20 => '6th July 2023, 7th July 2023',
			(int) 21 => '8th July 2023',
			(int) 22 => '2023',
			(int) 23 => '2023',
			(int) 24 => '2023',
			(int) 25 => '2023',
			(int) 26 => 'the year 1959',
			(int) 27 => '2023',
			(int) 28 => '2023',
			(int) 29 => '2023',
			(int) 30 => '2023',
			(int) 31 => 'centuries',
			(int) 32 => '2023',
			(int) 33 => '2023',
			(int) 34 => '2023',
			(int) 35 => '2023',
			(int) 36 => '2023',
			(int) 37 => '2023',
			(int) 38 => '6th, 7th and',
			(int) 39 => '8th July 2023',
			(int) 40 => '2023',
			(int) 41 => '2023',
			(int) 42 => 'the year *1916',
			(int) 43 => '2023',
			(int) 44 => '2023',
			(int) 45 => 'the year 1988-89',
			(int) 46 => '2001-02',
			(int) 47 => '2003-04',
			(int) 48 => '2004-05',
			(int) 49 => '2008-09',
			(int) 50 => '2009-10',
			(int) 51 => '2023',
			(int) 52 => '2023 5',
			(int) 53 => 'the year 2022',
			(int) 54 => 'the month of July 2022',
			(int) 55 => '2023',
			(int) 56 => 'days',
			(int) 57 => 'the year 2023',
			(int) 58 => '2023',
			(int) 59 => '2023',
			(int) 60 => '2023',
			(int) 61 => '2023',
			(int) 62 => 'fifth, sixth',
			(int) 63 => 'June, 2023',
			(int) 64 => '2023',
			(int) 65 => '2023',
			(int) 66 => '4th July to 7th July, 2023',
			(int) 67 => 'both days',
			(int) 68 => '8th July to 10th July 2023',
			(int) 69 => 'both days',
			(int) 70 => '2023',
			(int) 71 => '100391/2023',
			(int) 72 => '2023',
			(int) 73 => 'the same day',
			(int) 74 => '2023',
			(int) 75 => '2023 6',
			(int) 76 => '2023',
			(int) 77 => '2023',
			(int) 78 => '2023',
			(int) 79 => '2023',
			(int) 80 => '2023',
			(int) 81 => '2023 9.5',
			(int) 82 => '1324',
			(int) 83 => '1388',
			(int) 84 => '1398',
			(int) 85 => '1406',
			(int) 86 => '1534',
			(int) 87 => '2023',
			(int) 88 => '2023 6',
			(int) 89 => '1539',
			(int) 90 => '1564',
			(int) 91 => '1584',
			(int) 92 => '1683',
			(int) 93 => '2023',
			(int) 94 => '2023 9.10',
			(int) 95 => 'the year 1958',
			(int) 96 => 'the year 2022',
			(int) 97 => '2023',
			(int) 98 => '2023 10',
			(int) 99 => '2023',
			(int) 100 => '2023',
			(int) 101 => '2023',
			(int) 102 => '2023',
			(int) 103 => 'fifth, sixth',
			(int) 104 => 'June, 2023',
			(int) 105 => '2023',
			(int) 106 => '2023',
			(int) 107 => '100391/2023',
			(int) 108 => '2023',
			(int) 109 => '2023 ii',
			(int) 110 => '2023',
			(int) 111 => '2023',
			(int) 112 => '14-7ರ(cid:21)((cid:22',
			(int) 113 => '2023',
			(int) 114 => '2023 5(cid:16)ೕ(cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರು 2',
			(int) 115 => '2023',
			(int) 116 => '2023',
			(int) 117 => '2023',
			(int) 118 => '2023',
			(int) 119 => '1959-60',
			(int) 120 => '2023',
			(int) 121 => '2023 1.-',
			(int) 122 => 'the year 1351',
			(int) 123 => 'the year 1355 F.',
			(int) 124 => '2023',
			(int) 125 => '2023',
			(int) 126 => '2023',
			(int) 127 => '2023',
			(int) 128 => 'this day',
			(int) 129 => '2023',
			(int) 130 => '24.12.1967',
			(int) 131 => '16',
			(int) 132 => '2023',
			(int) 133 => '2023 10.16',
			(int) 134 => '2023',
			(int) 135 => '2023 10.18',
			(int) 136 => '13.03.1968',
			(int) 137 => 'the year 1991',
			(int) 138 => '2023',
			(int) 139 => '2023',
			(int) 140 => '2023',
			(int) 141 => '2023',
			(int) 142 => '2023',
			(int) 143 => '2023 10.25',
			(int) 144 => 'the year 2022, Shri',
			(int) 145 => '15.07.1952',
			(int) 146 => '2023',
			(int) 147 => '2023 10.27',
			(int) 148 => 'centuries',
			(int) 149 => 'centuries',
			(int) 150 => '2023',
			(int) 151 => '2023 10.28',
			(int) 152 => '1 1989(2',
			(int) 153 => '2023',
			(int) 154 => '2023',
			(int) 155 => '2023',
			(int) 156 => '1966',
			(int) 157 => '2023',
			(int) 158 => '2023',
			(int) 159 => 'under 2 1966',
			(int) 160 => '2023',
			(int) 161 => '2023 Section 56',
			(int) 162 => '2002',
			(int) 163 => '3 (2004',
			(int) 164 => '2023',
			(int) 165 => '2023',
			(int) 166 => '1969',
			(int) 167 => '2023',
			(int) 168 => '2023',
			(int) 169 => '2023',
			(int) 170 => '1969',
			(int) 171 => '1970',
			(int) 172 => '2023',
			(int) 173 => '2023',
			(int) 174 => '1969',
			(int) 175 => 'the year 1985',
			(int) 176 => '2023',
			(int) 177 => '2023',
			(int) 178 => 'the year 1985',
			(int) 179 => 'the year 1985',
			(int) 180 => '2023',
			(int) 181 => '2023 10.39',
			(int) 182 => '2023',
			(int) 183 => '2023',
			(int) 184 => '1957',
			(int) 185 => '1985',
			(int) 186 => '2023',
			(int) 187 => '2023',
			(int) 188 => '2023',
			(int) 189 => '2023 10.42',
			(int) 190 => 'the last several centuries',
			(int) 191 => '2023',
			(int) 192 => '2023 10.43',
			(int) 193 => 'the year 1985',
			(int) 194 => 'centuries',
			(int) 195 => '2023',
			(int) 196 => '2023',
			(int) 197 => '10.45',
			(int) 198 => 'centuries',
			(int) 199 => '2023',
			(int) 200 => '2023',
			(int) 201 => '2023',
			(int) 202 => 'the year 1966',
			(int) 203 => '2023',
			(int) 204 => '2023',
			(int) 205 => '2023',
			(int) 206 => '2023',
			(int) 207 => '2023 11.4',
			(int) 208 => '2023',
			(int) 209 => '2023',
			(int) 210 => '2023',
			(int) 211 => '2023',
			(int) 212 => '1995',
			(int) 213 => '2023',
			(int) 214 => '2023',
			(int) 215 => '1972',
			(int) 216 => '1977',
			(int) 217 => '1983',
			(int) 218 => '1983',
			(int) 219 => '2023',
			(int) 220 => '2023',
			(int) 221 => '1970',
			(int) 222 => '1971',
			(int) 223 => '2023',
			(int) 224 => '2023',
			(int) 225 => '1991',
			(int) 226 => '1912',
			(int) 227 => '1934',
			(int) 228 => '2023',
			(int) 229 => '2023',
			(int) 230 => '1935',
			(int) 231 => '2023',
			(int) 232 => '2023',
			(int) 233 => '2023',
			(int) 234 => '1939',
			(int) 235 => '2023',
			(int) 236 => '2023',
			(int) 237 => '20236',
			(int) 238 => '2023',
			(int) 239 => '2023',
			(int) 240 => '2023 5.06.1985',
			(int) 241 => '2023',
			(int) 242 => '2023 12',
			(int) 243 => '2023',
			(int) 244 => '2023 12.3',
			(int) 245 => '2023',
			(int) 246 => '2023',
			(int) 247 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 248 => 'daily',
			(int) 249 => '2023',
			(int) 250 => '2023',
			(int) 251 => '2023',
			(int) 252 => '2023',
			(int) 253 => '11.3.2024 - 88 - NC:2024',
			(int) 254 => '2023',
			(int) 255 => '2023'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 1 => 'KARNATAKA',
			(int) 2 => 'C/W WRIT PETITION No.103994 OF2023(GM-RES',
			(int) 3 => 'SR',
			(int) 4 => 'SATISH S RAICHUR & SHRI',
			(int) 5 => 'ADVOCATES',
			(int) 6 => 'PRINCIPAL',
			(int) 7 => 'DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA',
			(int) 8 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 9 => 'GOPAL KRISHNA S/O DR',
			(int) 10 => 'CROSS',
			(int) 11 => 'MAIN',
			(int) 12 => 'SRINAGAR',
			(int) 13 => 'BANASHANKARI',
			(int) 14 => 'BANGALORE SOUTH KARNATAKA-560050.8',
			(int) 15 => 'K MARUTHI GURUPRASAD S/O K. BHEEMASENA RAO AGED ABOUT50YEARS R/',
			(int) 16 => 'UTTARAHALLI',
			(int) 17 => 'BANGALORE',
			(int) 18 => 'KARNATAKA-560061',
			(int) 19 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 20 => 'NARASINGA RAO S/O D. KISHAN RAO AGED ABOUT64YEARS R/O ANUGRAHA NILAYA JAYANAGAR',
			(int) 21 => 'SRINAGAR',
			(int) 22 => 'PRASANNA DESAI W/O PRASANNA DESAI AGED',
			(int) 23 => 'CROSS',
			(int) 24 => 'THALAGHATTAPURA',
			(int) 25 => 'BENGALURU',
			(int) 26 => 'KARNATAKA-560062',
			(int) 27 => 'No.1077',
			(int) 28 => 'MAIN',
			(int) 29 => 'SRINAGAR',
			(int) 30 => 'MUTTAGI S/O M.L. NARAYANACHAR AGED ABOUT47YEARS',
			(int) 31 => 'MAIN',
			(int) 32 => 'ITTAMADU',
			(int) 33 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 34 => 'J.M. AAG',
			(int) 35 => 'AGA',
			(int) 36 => 'SR',
			(int) 37 => 'C.V. NAGESH',
			(int) 38 => 'SR',
			(int) 39 => 'FILE NO.SAM/KAM',
			(int) 40 => 'NO.524',
			(int) 41 => 'SR',
			(int) 42 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 43 => 'KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF REVENUE REP',
			(int) 44 => 'PRINCIPAL',
			(int) 45 => 'AAG A/W SHRI',
			(int) 46 => 'AGA',
			(int) 47 => 'SR',
			(int) 48 => 'S. RAICHUR & SHRI',
			(int) 49 => 'DATED',
			(int) 50 => 'ETC',
			(int) 51 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 52 => 'Court',
			(int) 53 => 'Original',
			(int) 54 => 'Annexure-N',
			(int) 55 => 'Respondent no.5',
			(int) 56 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 57 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 58 => 'Court',
			(int) 59 => 'i. Issue',
			(int) 60 => 'Aradhana of Shri',
			(int) 61 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 62 => 'District Kalaburagi',
			(int) 63 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 64 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 65 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 66 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 67 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 68 => 'O.S. No.65/1/59-60',
			(int) 69 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 70 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 71 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 72 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 73 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 74 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 75 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 76 => 'Court',
			(int) 77 => 'Court',
			(int) 78 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
			(int) 79 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 80 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 81 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 82 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde in Sy',
			(int) 83 => 'Gangavathi Taluk',
			(int) 84 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 85 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 86 => 'the State of Karnataka -respondent No.1',
			(int) 87 => 'Tahsildar',
			(int) 88 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 89 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 90 => 'RSA No.100446/2015',
			(int) 91 => 'W.P. No.111125/2014',
			(int) 92 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 93 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 94 => 'the Raja of Anegundi',
			(int) 95 => 'Shri Jaya Theetharu',
			(int) 96 => 'Court',
			(int) 97 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 98 => 'Shri Jaya Theetharu',
			(int) 99 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 100 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 101 => 'W.P. No.102614/2022',
			(int) 102 => 'Court',
			(int) 103 => 'Court',
			(int) 104 => 'Court',
			(int) 105 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 106 => 'Brindavanas',
			(int) 107 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 108 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 109 => 'Court',
			(int) 110 => 'Court',
			(int) 111 => 'Court',
			(int) 112 => 'Court',
			(int) 113 => 'Court',
			(int) 114 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 115 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 116 => 'Asst',
			(int) 117 => 'Asst',
			(int) 118 => 'Court',
			(int) 119 => 'Court',
			(int) 120 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
			(int) 121 => 'Kom/Devasthana/2023-24',
			(int) 122 => 'Court',
			(int) 123 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 124 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 125 => 'Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 126 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
			(int) 127 => 'Court',
			(int) 128 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 129 => 'Court',
			(int) 130 => 'Court',
			(int) 131 => 'Court',
			(int) 132 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 133 => 'Shraddha',
			(int) 134 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 135 => 'Court',
			(int) 136 => 'Writ Petition No.103982/2023',
			(int) 137 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
			(int) 138 => 'Anegundi, Taluka-',
			(int) 139 => 'District-Koppal',
			(int) 140 => 'Shree Raghavendraswamy Mutt',
			(int) 141 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
			(int) 142 => 'Anegundi, Taluka-',
			(int) 143 => 'District-Koppal',
			(int) 144 => 'Court',
			(int) 145 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 146 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
			(int) 147 => 'the RSA Court',
			(int) 148 => 'Court',
			(int) 149 => 'RSA',
			(int) 150 => 'Court',
			(int) 151 => 'W.A. Nos.100390/2023',
			(int) 152 => 'WA No.100390/2023',
			(int) 153 => 'W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023',
			(int) 154 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 155 => 'I.A. No.5/2023. v) Liberty',
			(int) 156 => 'the Writ Petition',
			(int) 157 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 158 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 159 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 160 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 161 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 162 => 'the Civil Court',
			(int) 163 => 'JMFC',
			(int) 164 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 165 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 166 => 'believed.-',
			(int) 167 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 168 => 'JMFC',
			(int) 169 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 170 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 171 => 'Shri Madhwacharyaru',
			(int) 172 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 173 => 'Smt',
			(int) 174 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 175 => 'the Petitioner-Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 176 => 'WP No.103982/2023',
			(int) 177 => 'Court',
			(int) 178 => 'the Aradhana of Shri',
			(int) 179 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 180 => 'W.P. No.102614/2022',
			(int) 181 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 182 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
			(int) 183 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
			(int) 184 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 185 => 'Kom/Devasthana/2023-24',
			(int) 186 => 'Court',
			(int) 187 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 188 => 'Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 189 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
			(int) 190 => 'Court',
			(int) 191 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 192 => 'Court',
			(int) 193 => 'Court',
			(int) 194 => 'Court',
			(int) 195 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 196 => 'Shraddha',
			(int) 197 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 198 => 'Division Bench',
			(int) 199 => 'WA No.100390/2023',
			(int) 200 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 201 => 'W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023',
			(int) 202 => 'I.A. No.5/2023',
			(int) 203 => 'the Writ Petition',
			(int) 204 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 205 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 206 => 'AiÀÄ',
			(int) 207 => 'cid:5)ಾಲುD',
			(int) 208 => 'cid:5)ಾಲುD',
			(int) 209 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 210 => 'ಈ ಸ;ಳವX5cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
			(int) 211 => 'ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
			(int) 212 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 213 => 'O.S. No.65/1/59-60',
			(int) 214 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 215 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 216 => 'Munsiff',
			(int) 217 => 'Gangavathi',
			(int) 218 => 'the Court of Munciff at',
			(int) 219 => 'H.H. Suyanendra Tirtharu &',
			(int) 220 => 'CPC',
			(int) 221 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 222 => 'Brindavanas of Shri Vyasaraya Mutt',
			(int) 223 => 'Vyasarayaru',
			(int) 224 => 'Govinda Tirtharu',
			(int) 225 => 'Padmanabha Tirtharu',
			(int) 226 => 'Ravindra Tirtharu',
			(int) 227 => 'the Holy Brindavans',
			(int) 228 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 229 => 'H.H. Satya Dhanaru',
			(int) 230 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 231 => 'W/s',
			(int) 232 => 'Srinivasa',
			(int) 233 => 'Govinda',
			(int) 234 => 'Govinda Wodeyaru',
			(int) 235 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 236 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 237 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 238 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri',
			(int) 239 => 'Srinivasa',
			(int) 240 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 241 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 242 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 243 => 'Teertharu',
			(int) 244 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 245 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 246 => 'W.P. No.102614/2022',
			(int) 247 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
			(int) 248 => 'finality.-',
			(int) 249 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 250 => 'Madhva',
			(int) 251 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 252 => 'Madhva',
			(int) 253 => 'Kalaburagi',
			(int) 254 => 'State',
			(int) 255 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 256 => 'the National Award',
			(int) 257 => 'State',
			(int) 258 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 259 => 'State',
			(int) 260 => 'State',
			(int) 261 => 'State',
			(int) 262 => 'S.Rangaraj',
			(int) 263 => 'Nava - 52 - NC:2024',
			(int) 264 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 265 => 'Kalaburagi',
			(int) 266 => 'Madhva',
			(int) 267 => 'State',
			(int) 268 => 'the Mysore Gazetteer',
			(int) 269 => 'Bombay Gazetteer',
			(int) 270 => 'Karnataka Tourism Dept',
			(int) 271 => 'Gazetteers',
			(int) 272 => 'Peetadhipathi of Shri',
			(int) 273 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 274 => 'Kalaburagi',
			(int) 275 => 'Surjanarayan Das',
			(int) 276 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 277 => 'ABL International Ltd.',
			(int) 278 => 'Export Credit Guarantee Corpn',
			(int) 279 => 'India Ltd.3',
			(int) 280 => 'Court',
			(int) 281 => 'Court',
			(int) 282 => 'State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd.',
			(int) 283 => 'Court',
			(int) 284 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 285 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 286 => 'Court',
			(int) 287 => 'Court',
			(int) 288 => 'The High Court',
			(int) 289 => 'State',
			(int) 290 => 'The High Court',
			(int) 291 => 'The High Court',
			(int) 292 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 293 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 294 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 295 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 296 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 297 => 'The High Court',
			(int) 298 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 299 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 300 => 'Court',
			(int) 301 => 'Mfg. Co. Ltd.',
			(int) 302 => 'Ulhasnagar Municipal Council',
			(int) 303 => 'Court',
			(int) 304 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 305 => 'Court',
			(int) 306 => 'Court',
			(int) 307 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 308 => 'SCC769 this Court',
			(int) 309 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 310 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 311 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 312 => 'M.B.) & Collector4',
			(int) 313 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 314 => 'Civil Court',
			(int) 315 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 316 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 317 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 318 => 'Court',
			(int) 319 => 'Court',
			(int) 320 => 'Sales Tax Officer',
			(int) 321 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 322 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 323 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 324 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 325 => 'Nirupa',
			(int) 326 => 'Peetadhipathi',
			(int) 327 => 'Peetadhipathi',
			(int) 328 => 'Peetadhipati',
			(int) 329 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 330 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 331 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 332 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 333 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 334 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 335 => 'the Peetadhipathi of Shri',
			(int) 336 => 'Peetadhipathi',
			(int) 337 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 338 => 'the Karnataka Toursim Gazetteer',
			(int) 339 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 340 => 'Kalaburagi',
			(int) 341 => 'The Bombay Gazetteer',
			(int) 342 => 'The Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer',
			(int) 343 => 'the Gazetteer of India',
			(int) 344 => 'Karnataka State Gazetteer, Government of Karnataka',
			(int) 345 => 'Kalaburagi',
			(int) 346 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 347 => 'Malkhed,',
			(int) 348 => 'Kalaburagi',
			(int) 349 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 350 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 351 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 352 => 'Court',
			(int) 353 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 354 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 355 => 'Sodi Mutt, Udupi',
			(int) 356 => 'Nava brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 357 => 'History of Dvaita School of Vedanta',
			(int) 358 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 359 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 360 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 361 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 362 => 'Teertharu',
			(int) 363 => 'Teertharu',
			(int) 364 => 'Peetadhipathi of Shri',
			(int) 365 => 'Nava brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 366 => 'a Civil Court',
			(int) 367 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 368 => 'RSA No.100446/2015',
			(int) 369 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 370 => 'State of T.N.',
			(int) 371 => 'T.N.',
			(int) 372 => 'State of T.N.',
			(int) 373 => 'S.P. Mittal v. Union of India',
			(int) 374 => 'Church',
			(int) 375 => 'Church',
			(int) 376 => 'Mittal',
			(int) 377 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 378 => 'Church',
			(int) 379 => 'Explanation',
			(int) 380 => 'Digambari',
			(int) 381 => 'Jain',
			(int) 382 => 'Chakshus',
			(int) 383 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 384 => 'The Catholicate of the East',
			(int) 385 => 'Malankara Association',
			(int) 386 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 387 => 'the Appellate Court of',
			(int) 388 => 'the Royal Court',
			(int) 389 => 'Court',
			(int) 390 => 'the Syrian Orthodox Church',
			(int) 391 => 'Churches',
			(int) 392 => 'Catholicate at Malankara',
			(int) 393 => 'Evangelistic Association',
			(int) 394 => 'the Malankara Association',
			(int) 395 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 396 => 'Court',
			(int) 397 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 398 => 'the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act',
			(int) 399 => 'Satyadeo Prasad -v- Smt',
			(int) 400 => 'AIR1996PATNA110-',
			(int) 401 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 402 => 'Hardeo',
			(int) 403 => 'Ext.-',
			(int) 404 => 'C/W WP No.103994 of',
			(int) 405 => 'Kamta Prasad',
			(int) 406 => 'Hardeo',
			(int) 407 => 'Kamta',
			(int) 408 => 'Hardeo and Jagarnath',
			(int) 409 => 'Hardeo',
			(int) 410 => 'Navadagi',
			(int) 411 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 412 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 413 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 414 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 415 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 416 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 417 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 418 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 419 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 420 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde, Shri',
			(int) 421 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 422 => 'the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC',
			(int) 423 => 'Gangavathi',
			(int) 424 => 'Vyasaraja Mutt',
			(int) 425 => 'Reliefs',
			(int) 426 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 427 => 'Declare',
			(int) 428 => 'the Moola Brindavana of Sri',
			(int) 429 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi Anegundi Village',
			(int) 430 => 'Gangavathi Taluk',
			(int) 431 => 'Nava Brundavana Gaddi',
			(int) 432 => 'Gangavathi Taluk',
			(int) 433 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 434 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 435 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 436 => 'Court',
			(int) 437 => 'C/W WP No.103994'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2',
			(int) 1 => '6',
			(int) 2 => '7',
			(int) 3 => '12TH',
			(int) 4 => '12TH',
			(int) 5 => '1',
			(int) 6 => '11.RAM',
			(int) 7 => '12.VASUKI',
			(int) 8 => '13.RAGHUNTH',
			(int) 9 => '9TH',
			(int) 10 => '14.AMEETH',
			(int) 11 => '5TH',
			(int) 12 => '15.PRABHANJAN',
			(int) 13 => '1ST',
			(int) 14 => '1ST',
			(int) 15 => '51',
			(int) 16 => '5TH',
			(int) 17 => '5',
			(int) 18 => '2',
			(int) 19 => 'R4',
			(int) 20 => '24',
			(int) 21 => '27-06-2023',
			(int) 22 => '6',
			(int) 23 => 'No.4',
			(int) 24 => '27.06.2023',
			(int) 25 => '04.07.2023 to 10.07.2023',
			(int) 26 => 'No.4',
			(int) 27 => '1 to 4',
			(int) 28 => 'Mag:101:2023-24',
			(int) 29 => '27.06.2023',
			(int) 30 => '3',
			(int) 31 => '1.',
			(int) 32 => '3.2',
			(int) 33 => 'an - 8',
			(int) 34 => 'one',
			(int) 35 => '3.3',
			(int) 36 => '3.4',
			(int) 37 => '9',
			(int) 38 => '3.5',
			(int) 39 => '3.6',
			(int) 40 => '10',
			(int) 41 => '3.7',
			(int) 42 => '1/3rd',
			(int) 43 => '2/3rd',
			(int) 44 => '11',
			(int) 45 => '3.8',
			(int) 46 => '3.9',
			(int) 47 => '12',
			(int) 48 => '3.10',
			(int) 49 => '5.06.2023',
			(int) 50 => '227',
			(int) 51 => '2023',
			(int) 52 => '3.11',
			(int) 53 => '3.12',
			(int) 54 => '14',
			(int) 55 => '10.07.2023',
			(int) 56 => '3.13',
			(int) 57 => 'No.4',
			(int) 58 => '27.06.2023',
			(int) 59 => '1.',
			(int) 60 => 'No.3',
			(int) 61 => 'No.4',
			(int) 62 => '4.2',
			(int) 63 => '15',
			(int) 64 => '2023',
			(int) 65 => '4.3',
			(int) 66 => 'nine',
			(int) 67 => '16',
			(int) 68 => 'one',
			(int) 69 => '7',
			(int) 70 => '4.4',
			(int) 71 => 'three',
			(int) 72 => 'one',
			(int) 73 => '24.06.2024',
			(int) 74 => '17',
			(int) 75 => '4.6',
			(int) 76 => '26',
			(int) 77 => '18',
			(int) 78 => 'No.2',
			(int) 79 => '4:5',
			(int) 80 => '1',
			(int) 81 => 'No.2 to',
			(int) 82 => '4',
			(int) 83 => '15.07.2022',
			(int) 84 => '9',
			(int) 85 => 'two',
			(int) 86 => '19',
			(int) 87 => '2023',
			(int) 88 => 'only three',
			(int) 89 => 'three',
			(int) 90 => '227',
			(int) 91 => '20',
			(int) 92 => '30.05.2023',
			(int) 93 => '30.05.2023',
			(int) 94 => '30.05.2023',
			(int) 95 => '30.05.2023',
			(int) 96 => 'No.3',
			(int) 97 => 'No.3',
			(int) 98 => '21',
			(int) 99 => 'several thousands',
			(int) 100 => '5.3',
			(int) 101 => '27.06.2023',
			(int) 102 => '22',
			(int) 103 => '27.06.2023',
			(int) 104 => '2023',
			(int) 105 => '5.4',
			(int) 106 => '31.08.2023',
			(int) 107 => '31.08.2023',
			(int) 108 => '24',
			(int) 109 => '2023',
			(int) 110 => '25',
			(int) 111 => '4',
			(int) 112 => '26',
			(int) 113 => '8',
			(int) 114 => '6 to 15',
			(int) 115 => '6 to 15',
			(int) 116 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 117 => '9.1',
			(int) 118 => '27',
			(int) 119 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 120 => '9.3',
			(int) 121 => '9.4',
			(int) 122 => '28',
			(int) 123 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 124 => '9.6',
			(int) 125 => '6 to 15',
			(int) 126 => '9.7',
			(int) 127 => 'No.1',
			(int) 128 => '6',
			(int) 129 => 'No.8 to 10',
			(int) 130 => 'nine',
			(int) 131 => '2',
			(int) 132 => '3',
			(int) 133 => '4',
			(int) 134 => '5',
			(int) 135 => '29',
			(int) 136 => '7',
			(int) 137 => '8',
			(int) 138 => '9',
			(int) 139 => '9.8',
			(int) 140 => '9.9',
			(int) 141 => '30',
			(int) 142 => '31',
			(int) 143 => '10.1',
			(int) 144 => '10.2',
			(int) 145 => 'only one',
			(int) 146 => '32',
			(int) 147 => '5.7.2023',
			(int) 148 => '10.3',
			(int) 149 => '10.4',
			(int) 150 => '15.07.2022',
			(int) 151 => '30.05.2023',
			(int) 152 => 'No.3',
			(int) 153 => 'No.3',
			(int) 154 => 'several thousands',
			(int) 155 => '34',
			(int) 156 => '10.5',
			(int) 157 => '10.6',
			(int) 158 => '10.7',
			(int) 159 => '31.08.2023',
			(int) 160 => '35',
			(int) 161 => '10.8',
			(int) 162 => '36',
			(int) 163 => '10.9',
			(int) 164 => '12.03.1959',
			(int) 165 => '192',
			(int) 166 => 'ಸಂ',
			(int) 167 => '1',
			(int) 168 => '2',
			(int) 169 => '3',
			(int) 170 => '3ಂ(cid:10)Hಂದಲೂ 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
			(int) 171 => '37',
			(int) 172 => '3',
			(int) 173 => '5(cid:16)ೕ',
			(int) 174 => '2ೆಸU(cid:12)ೆ',
			(int) 175 => '192',
			(int) 176 => '17-00',
			(int) 177 => '10.10',
			(int) 178 => '10.11',
			(int) 179 => 'No.2',
			(int) 180 => 'No.3',
			(int) 181 => '4',
			(int) 182 => '7',
			(int) 183 => '39',
			(int) 184 => '2',
			(int) 185 => '10.12',
			(int) 186 => '10.13',
			(int) 187 => '1',
			(int) 188 => '2',
			(int) 189 => '9',
			(int) 190 => '40',
			(int) 191 => 'nine',
			(int) 192 => 'five',
			(int) 193 => '2',
			(int) 194 => 'three',
			(int) 195 => '1',
			(int) 196 => '2',
			(int) 197 => '1',
			(int) 198 => '2',
			(int) 199 => 'No.4',
			(int) 200 => '41',
			(int) 201 => '1',
			(int) 202 => '2',
			(int) 203 => '8',
			(int) 204 => '1',
			(int) 205 => '2',
			(int) 206 => '9',
			(int) 207 => '1',
			(int) 208 => '2',
			(int) 209 => '42',
			(int) 210 => '1',
			(int) 211 => '2.1',
			(int) 212 => '11.60',
			(int) 213 => '10.14',
			(int) 214 => 'nine',
			(int) 215 => '43',
			(int) 216 => '2023',
			(int) 217 => '10.15',
			(int) 218 => 'three',
			(int) 219 => 'three',
			(int) 220 => 'nine',
			(int) 221 => '11',
			(int) 222 => '12',
			(int) 223 => '13',
			(int) 224 => '14',
			(int) 225 => '15',
			(int) 226 => '17',
			(int) 227 => '18',
			(int) 228 => '44',
			(int) 229 => 'three',
			(int) 230 => '10.17',
			(int) 231 => '45',
			(int) 232 => '10.19',
			(int) 233 => '10.20',
			(int) 234 => '10.21',
			(int) 235 => '46',
			(int) 236 => 'one',
			(int) 237 => '10.22',
			(int) 238 => '10.23',
			(int) 239 => '47',
			(int) 240 => '10.24',
			(int) 241 => '48',
			(int) 242 => '10.26',
			(int) 243 => '49',
			(int) 244 => '50',
			(int) 245 => '10.29',
			(int) 246 => '51',
			(int) 247 => '51',
			(int) 248 => '2023',
			(int) 249 => '10.30',
			(int) 250 => '10.31',
			(int) 251 => '10.32',
			(int) 252 => '10.33',
			(int) 253 => '10.34',
			(int) 254 => '35',
			(int) 255 => '25',
			(int) 256 => '10.36',
			(int) 257 => '54',
			(int) 258 => '10.37',
			(int) 259 => '15 to 19',
			(int) 260 => '1 SCC216',
			(int) 261 => '218',
			(int) 262 => '7',
			(int) 263 => '3',
			(int) 264 => '55',
			(int) 265 => '3',
			(int) 266 => '774',
			(int) 267 => '14',
			(int) 268 => '14',
			(int) 269 => '56',
			(int) 270 => '2023',
			(int) 271 => '57',
			(int) 272 => '3',
			(int) 273 => '1',
			(int) 274 => '587',
			(int) 275 => '58',
			(int) 276 => '3',
			(int) 277 => '10.38',
			(int) 278 => '59',
			(int) 279 => '60',
			(int) 280 => '10',
			(int) 281 => '61',
			(int) 282 => '214',
			(int) 283 => '10.40',
			(int) 284 => '62',
			(int) 285 => '10.41',
			(int) 286 => '63',
			(int) 287 => '64',
			(int) 288 => '10.44',
			(int) 289 => '65',
			(int) 290 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 291 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 292 => '66',
			(int) 293 => '10.46',
			(int) 294 => '10.47',
			(int) 295 => '67',
			(int) 296 => '2023',
			(int) 297 => '2023',
			(int) 298 => 'two',
			(int) 299 => '11.1',
			(int) 300 => '69',
			(int) 301 => '11.2.',
			(int) 302 => '11.3',
			(int) 303 => 'one',
			(int) 304 => '70',
			(int) 305 => '11.5',
			(int) 306 => '11.6',
			(int) 307 => '11.7',
			(int) 308 => '71',
			(int) 309 => '11.8',
			(int) 310 => '11.9',
			(int) 311 => 'another - 72',
			(int) 312 => '11.10',
			(int) 313 => '11',
			(int) 314 => '37',
			(int) 315 => '89',
			(int) 316 => 'one',
			(int) 317 => '5',
			(int) 318 => '4',
			(int) 319 => '73',
			(int) 320 => '2',
			(int) 321 => '1',
			(int) 322 => '147',
			(int) 323 => '1',
			(int) 324 => '1',
			(int) 325 => '74',
			(int) 326 => '3',
			(int) 327 => '2',
			(int) 328 => '75',
			(int) 329 => 'are:1',
			(int) 330 => '26',
			(int) 331 => '76',
			(int) 332 => 'two',
			(int) 333 => '1934 Constitution',
			(int) 334 => '11.12',
			(int) 335 => '11.13',
			(int) 336 => '6',
			(int) 337 => 'one',
			(int) 338 => '78',
			(int) 339 => '2023',
			(int) 340 => '11.14',
			(int) 341 => '110',
			(int) 342 => '31',
			(int) 343 => 'two',
			(int) 344 => '79',
			(int) 345 => '2023',
			(int) 346 => '405',
			(int) 347 => '446',
			(int) 348 => 'No.2',
			(int) 349 => '80',
			(int) 350 => '11.15',
			(int) 351 => '11.16',
			(int) 352 => '81',
			(int) 353 => '2023',
			(int) 354 => '11.17',
			(int) 355 => '5.06.1985',
			(int) 356 => '82',
			(int) 357 => '11.18',
			(int) 358 => '83',
			(int) 359 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 360 => '12.1',
			(int) 361 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 362 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 363 => '84',
			(int) 364 => 'one',
			(int) 365 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 366 => '12.4',
			(int) 367 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 368 => '85',
			(int) 369 => '12.5',
			(int) 370 => '86',
			(int) 371 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 372 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 373 => '12.6',
			(int) 374 => '87',
			(int) 375 => '12.7',
			(int) 376 => '5',
			(int) 377 => '5.1',
			(int) 378 => '5.2',
			(int) 379 => '5.3',
			(int) 380 => '6',
			(int) 381 => '5.1',
			(int) 382 => '5.2'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '60',
			(int) 1 => '1/138A',
			(int) 2 => '3RD STAGE',
			(int) 3 => '5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
			(int) 4 => '5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'ST',
			(int) 1 => 'TQ.GANGAVATI',
			(int) 2 => 'J.M.',
			(int) 3 => 'W.P.No.103982/2023',
			(int) 4 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 5 => 'Ashtottara',
			(int) 6 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 7 => 'W.P.No.103994/2023',
			(int) 8 => 'Sedam',
			(int) 9 => 'Anegundi village',
			(int) 10 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 11 => 'Anegundi village',
			(int) 12 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 13 => 'India',
			(int) 14 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 15 => 'Aradhanas',
			(int) 16 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 17 => 'Cr',
			(int) 18 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 19 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 20 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 21 => 'No.103994/2023',
			(int) 22 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 23 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 24 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 25 => 'Ashtottara',
			(int) 26 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 27 => 'O.S.',
			(int) 28 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 29 => 'O.S.',
			(int) 30 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 31 => 'Cr',
			(int) 32 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 33 => 'W.A. No.100390/2023',
			(int) 34 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 35 => 'ಾಡುKಾ1&ೆ',
			(int) 36 => 'ಇ(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:31)ೆ3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ',
			(int) 37 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 38 => 'Anegundi village',
			(int) 39 => 'Pujas',
			(int) 40 => 'Aradhanas',
			(int) 41 => 'Holiness',
			(int) 42 => 'Holiness',
			(int) 43 => 'Kannada',
			(int) 44 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 45 => 'Anegundi village',
			(int) 46 => 'Malkhed',
			(int) 47 => 'Gulbarga',
			(int) 48 => 'Gazetteer',
			(int) 49 => 'India',
			(int) 50 => 'Karnataka State',
			(int) 51 => 'Karnataka',
			(int) 52 => 'O.S.',
			(int) 53 => 'Nava Brindavana - 53 - NC:2024',
			(int) 54 => 'Municipality',
			(int) 55 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 56 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 57 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 58 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 59 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 60 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 61 => 'Madhwa',
			(int) 62 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 63 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 64 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 65 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 66 => 'Shri.-',
			(int) 67 => 'Gulbarga Region',
			(int) 68 => 'Karnataka',
			(int) 69 => 'Gulbarga Region',
			(int) 70 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 71 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 72 => 'W.P.No.103982/2023',
			(int) 73 => 'Karnataka',
			(int) 74 => 'O.S.',
			(int) 75 => 'Ugamsingh',
			(int) 76 => 'Paroli',
			(int) 77 => 'Kalash',
			(int) 78 => 'worship.89',
			(int) 79 => 'India',
			(int) 80 => 'Act.3',
			(int) 81 => 'Malankara',
			(int) 82 => 'the Patriarch of Antioch',
			(int) 83 => 'Simhasana',
			(int) 84 => 'St. Mary',
			(int) 85 => 'Ramanand',
			(int) 86 => 'Ramanand',
			(int) 87 => 'Peetadhipati',
			(int) 88 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 89 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 90 => 'O.S.',
			(int) 91 => 'Karnataka'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'BANGALORE-560085',
			(int) 1 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
			(int) 2 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 3 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
			(int) 4 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 5 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 6 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 7 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 8 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 9 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 10 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 11 => 'Tungabhadra',
			(int) 12 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 13 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 14 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
			(int) 15 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 16 => 'Kaveendra Teertharu',
			(int) 17 => 'Malkhed',
			(int) 18 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 19 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 20 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 21 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 22 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
			(int) 23 => 'Holy Brindavans',
			(int) 24 => 'Nasim',
			(int) 25 => 'Nasim',
			(int) 26 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 27 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 28 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 29 => 'Shri Raghuvaryaya',
			(int) 30 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 31 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 32 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 33 => 'Swetamberi',
			(int) 34 => 'Catholicos',
			(int) 35 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 36 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'ISLAND',
			(int) 1 => 'Tungabhadra river',
			(int) 2 => 'W.P. No.103994/2023',
			(int) 3 => 'Shri Jaya Theertharu',
			(int) 4 => 'Single',
			(int) 5 => 'Single',
			(int) 6 => 'Single',
			(int) 7 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
			(int) 8 => 'Shri Jaya',
			(int) 9 => 'Shri Jaya',
			(int) 10 => 'Single',
			(int) 11 => 'Single',
			(int) 12 => 'Shri',
			(int) 13 => 'Malkhed',
			(int) 14 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
			(int) 15 => 'Malkhed',
			(int) 16 => 'Sanskrit',
			(int) 17 => 'Single',
			(int) 18 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
			(int) 19 => 'the Brindavana of Sri',
			(int) 20 => 'the Brindavana of Sri Jaya Teertharu'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Shri',
			(int) 1 => 'Shri',
			(int) 2 => 'Shri',
			(int) 3 => 'Shri Madhvacharya',
			(int) 4 => 'Articles 25',
			(int) 5 => 'Brindavanas',
			(int) 6 => 'Brindavanas',
			(int) 7 => 'Shri Madhwacharya',
			(int) 8 => 'Bench',
			(int) 9 => 'Vageesha Teertharu',
			(int) 10 => 'Shri Jaya',
			(int) 11 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 12 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 13 => 'Shri',
			(int) 14 => 'Shri Madhwacharya',
			(int) 15 => '1 ಮ2ಾಮ3ಮರ',
			(int) 16 => 'F',
			(int) 17 => 'Shri',
			(int) 18 => 'No.1 being Shri',
			(int) 19 => 'No.1',
			(int) 20 => 'Vageesha',
			(int) 21 => 'Shri',
			(int) 22 => 'Judgment',
			(int) 23 => 'Shri',
			(int) 24 => 'Shri',
			(int) 25 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
			(int) 26 => 'Shri',
			(int) 27 => 'M.P. Cases',
			(int) 28 => 'Shri',
			(int) 29 => 'Shri',
			(int) 30 => 'No.5-Shri',
			(int) 31 => 'Shri',
			(int) 32 => 'Shri',
			(int) 33 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 34 => 'Metropolitan',
			(int) 35 => 'Articles 25',
			(int) 36 => 'P.W. 24',
			(int) 37 => 'Shri',
			(int) 38 => 'Shri',
			(int) 39 => 'The Single Bench'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Holy Moola Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 1 => 'the Brindavana of Sri',
			(int) 2 => 'the Navabrindavan Gadde',
			(int) 3 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 4 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 5 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 6 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 7 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 8 => 'Koppal District',
			(int) 9 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 10 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 11 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 12 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 13 => 'the Nava Brindavan Gadde',
			(int) 14 => 'the Nava Brindavan Gadde',
			(int) 15 => 'the Nava Brindavan Gadde',
			(int) 16 => 'the Navabrindavana Gaddi',
			(int) 17 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde.',
			(int) 18 => 'the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 19 => 'the Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 20 => 'the Single Bench',
			(int) 21 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 22 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 23 => 'Sinappa Achar',
			(int) 24 => 'the Navabrindavana Gaddi',
			(int) 25 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde.',
			(int) 26 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 27 => 'Munsiff',
			(int) 28 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 29 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 30 => 'the Moola Brindavana of Shri Vyasaraja Matt, Shri',
			(int) 31 => 'the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu',
			(int) 32 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 33 => 'Nava Brindavana',
			(int) 34 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 35 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 36 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 37 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 38 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 39 => 'Nava Brindavana',
			(int) 40 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 41 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 42 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadi',
			(int) 43 => 'SCC831',
			(int) 44 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 45 => 'Koppal District',
			(int) 46 => 'Koppal District'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'second',
			(int) 1 => 'seventh',
			(int) 2 => 'seventh',
			(int) 3 => 'first',
			(int) 4 => 'first',
			(int) 5 => 'third',
			(int) 6 => '1st'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu',
			(int) 1 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 2 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 3 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy',
			(int) 4 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 5 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 6 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 7 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 8 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 9 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 10 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 11 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 12 => 'Shri Jayateertharu',
			(int) 13 => 'Teertharu or Shri Jayateertharu',
			(int) 14 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 15 => 'Shri Jayateertharu',
			(int) 16 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 17 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 18 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 19 => 'Shri Jayateertharu',
			(int) 20 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt and',
			(int) 21 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 22 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 23 => 'The Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 24 => 'The Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 25 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 26 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 27 => 'The Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 28 => 'another Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 29 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 30 => 'The Hudaya Canon',
			(int) 31 => 'Nirupa',
			(int) 32 => 'Peetadhipati',
			(int) 33 => 'the Poojas of Shri'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '14 acres',
			(int) 1 => '5(cid:16)ೕ ಮ6ಾ78ಾಯ(cid:27)ರ ಮುಖ(cid:20',
			(int) 2 => '4. ಸುBೕಂದ(cid:16',
			(int) 3 => '14 acres'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Peetadhipati of Shri'
		),
		'LANGUAGE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'English'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1232793',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'WP 103982/2023',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt Vs. The State Of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Karnataka Dharwad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2024-06-05',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'SURAJ GOVINDARAJ',
			'judgement' => '<p>- 1 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, R DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE5H DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION No.103982 OF2023(GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.103994 OF2023(GM-RES) IN W.P.NO.103982/2023 BETWEEN SHRI UTTARADI MUTT RPRESENTED BY ITS HOLY PONTIFF SHRI SHRI1008SHRI SATYATMA TIRTHA SWAMIJI THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER R/O SHRI UTTARADI MUTT BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU56002 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. SATISH S RAICHUR & SHRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI., ADVOCATES) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU56000 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DISTRICT KOPPAL3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - 2 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 KOPPAL, DISTRICT KOPPAL4 THE TAHASILDAR ANEGUNDI TALUKA GANGAVATHI DISTRICT KOPPAL5 SHRI NANJANGUDA RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT THROUGH ITS PONTIFF MANTRALAYHA KURNOOL DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH STATE -5 6. GOPAL KRISHNA S/O DR. H.K. RAM RAO AGED ABOUT55YEARS R/O11-110, WARD NO.1 PAMPANAGAR, GANGAVATI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583227 7. VENKATESH G.N. S/O NAGARAJ ACHAR G. AGED ABOUT53YEARS, R/O #60, 12TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN ROAD BEHIND RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT, SRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE SOUTH KARNATAKA-560050.</p><p>8. KISHAN RAO S/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO AGED ABOUT64YEARS R/O #1/138A, GHORKAL MANVI TQ. RAICHUR DIST-584203.</p><p>9. K MARUTHI GURUPRASAD S/O K. BHEEMASENA RAO AGED ABOUT50YEARS R/O FLAT102 SHIVA PRADISE, 1 APARTMENT, MUNISWAMY LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE, BEHIND SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION BANGALORE SOUTH, KARNATAKA-560061 - 3 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.D. NARASINGA RAO S/O D. KISHAN RAO AGED ABOUT64YEARS R/O ANUGRAHA NILAYA JAYANAGAR, 3RD STAGE NEAR ST. PAULS SCHOOL GANGAVATI-583227. 11.RAM KUMAR AGED ABOUT49YEARS S/O N. SUBRAMANYAM977A/9 13TH MAIN8H CROSS, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560050. 12.VASUKI PRASANNA DESAI W/O PRASANNA DESAI AGED ABOUT48YEARS R/O MR26NEXT SHANTINIKETAN SCHOOL BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560056. 13.RAGHUNTH BADRINATH SOSALE S/O BADRINATH S.P. AGED ABOUT55YEARS No.41, 9TH CROSS, KENDRIYA NAGAR BSK6H STAGE, SOMAPURA EXIT HOSAHALLI, THALAGHATTAPURA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560062. 14.AMEETH BHARADWAJ S/O SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT35YEARS No.1077, 5TH MAIN, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560050. 15.PRABHANJAN MUTTAGI S/O M.L. NARAYANACHAR AGED ABOUT47YEARS, R/O No.12 PAYONIDHI, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, MANJUNATH NAGAR, ITTAMADU, BANGALORE-560085. (R6 TO R15 ARE AMENDMENT - 4 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 CARRIED OUT AS PER </p>ORDER<p> DATED2102.2024) …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. GANGADHAR J.M. AAG A/W SHRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SHRI. C.V. NAGESH., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. H.R. DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE FOR R6-R15) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE </p>ORDER<p> PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED2706-2023, IN FILE NO.SAM/KAM/MAG.101.2023-24, IN SO FAR AS THE REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY SHRI. UTTARADI MUTT REQUESTING TO DEPUTE SUFFICIENT POLICE PERSONNEL DURING THE CELEBRATION OF SHRI RAGHUVARYA TEERTHARA MAHIMOTSAVA FROM0407- 2023 TO1007-2023 AT THE HOLY MOOLA BRINDAVANA OF SHRI RAGHUVARYA TEERTHA, SITUATED IN THE ISLAND NAMED NAVA BRINDAVANA GADDE, BEARING SY.NO.192 OF ANEGUNDI, TQ.GANGAVATI, DIST.KOPPAL, THE ORIGINAL </p>ORDER<p> BEARING AT ANNEXURE-A, AND ETC ***** IN W.P.NO.103994/2023 BETWEEN SHRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT REPRESENTED BY ITS HOLINESS SHRI SUBUDHENDRA THEERATHARU BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SHRI. R.K. VADEENDRA S/O R.KRISHNACHAR AGE. 51 YEARS SHRI. NANJANGUD RAGHAVENDRA SWAMYMUTT NO.524, 5TH BLOCK , 11TH MAIN45H CROSS, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. ARUN NEELOPANT. .,ADVOCATE) AND - 5 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF REVENUE REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VIDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. TAHSILDAR GANGAVATHI O/F PAMPA NAGAR, KOPPAL SH-130, KANAKAGIRI GANGAVATHI MUNIRABAD ROAD, TQ. GANGAVATHI DIST. KOPPA-583227 3. SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE BT PATIL NAGAR, ASHOK CIRCLE, KOPPAL-583231 4. SHRI. UTTARADI MUTT REP. BY ITS PEETADHIPATHI SHRI. SATYATMATEERTHSWAMIJI UTTARADI MUTT BASVANGUDI, NEAR NATIONAL COLLEGE BANGALORE-560085 …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG A/W SHRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SHRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. SATISH S. RAICHUR & SHRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI., ADVOCATES FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT BY QUASHING THE </p>ORDER<p> BEARING No.KOM.MAG.101.2023- 24 DATED. 27-06-2023 OF SECOND RESPONDENT WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR </p>ORDER<p>S AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR </p>ORDER<p>S ON2703.2024, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 </p>ORDER<p>S1 Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, the petitioner in W.P.No.103982/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs. a. Quash the order passed by the respondent No.4 dated 27.06.2023, in file No.SAM/KAM/MAG:101:2023-24, in so far as the rejection of the application filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt requesting to depute sufficient police personnel during the celebration of Shri. Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava from 04.07.2023 to 10.07.2023 at the Holy Moola Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertha, situated in the island named Nava Brindavana Gadde, bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal, the Original order being at Annexure-A and, b. Consequently, direct the respondent No.4 authority to allow the application filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt dated 08.06.2023, the copy of which is at Annexure-N, and b(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent nos. 1 to 4 to prevent Respondent no.5, including its followers , agents and office bearers and anybody claiming through or under Respondent No.5 from offering prayers or conducting any religious activity in any form including Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the name of Sri. Jayateertharu at the Brindavana of Sri. Raghuvarya Teertharu at the Navabrindavan Gadde situated on the island named ‘NavaBrindavana Gadde’, bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal; and c. Grant any other appropriate order, writ or direction as may be necessary in the facts and - 7 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.</p><p>2. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the petitioner in W.P.No.103994/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs. i. Issue appropriate writ by quashing the order bearing No.Kom.Mag:101:2023-24 dated 27.06.2023 of second respondent which is produced at Annexure-A; ii. Direct Respondent No.1 to 3 to provide police protection during Aradhana of Shri. Jayateertharu which is scheduled to take place on 6th July 2023, 7th July 2023 and 8th July 2023. iii. Grant such other relief’s as is deemed fit.</p><p>3. Facts in W.P.No.103982/2023 filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt:</p><p>3. 1. The Petitioner Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, claims to be the main pontifical Mutt in the lineage of the great saint Shri. Madhvacharya. 3.2. Shri Uttaradi Mutt claims to be the owner of the land in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi being an island situate in Tungabhadra river which is known as Nava Brindavana Gadde (Gadde meaning an - 8 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 island). It is contended that several previous pontiffs’ brindavana is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde, one of them being that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu who was the predecessor/Peetadhipati of Shri Uttaradi Mutt. 3.3. It is contended that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, taluka Sedam, District Kalaburagi which is acknowledged by the general public. It is contended that there is no dispute as regards the said brindavana but now the dispute has been raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as regards the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu by contending that it is not of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu but of Shri Jaya Teertharu. 3.4. Various averments have been made as regards the ownership of the said land which is not relevant for the purpose of this matter since ownership dispute is not being considered in - 9 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the present matter which is part of another proceeding. 3.5. It is contended that there has been an admission on part of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde, there was never any claim made that the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is situate in Nava Brindavana Gadde. Off late Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has been raising disputes and or coming in the way of Shri Uttaradi Mutt performing aradhana and pooja of its gurus which was never in question. 3.6. Historically it is contended that in the year 1959 Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt trying to assert title over the land in Sy.No.192 belonging to Shri Uttaradi Mutt on the basis of more number of brindavanas in the Nava Brindavana Gadde are that of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt.-. 10 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 However, in the very same representation made by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, it is clearly stated that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde which resulted in the said claim being challenged by Shri Uttaradi Mutt in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 which is decreed in favour of Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Reference is made to the written statement filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in said proceedings, as also the evidence led by earlier pontiff in the said proceedings. On that basis, it is contended that there is an admission made on the existence of the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 3.7. In terms of the decree, name of Shri Uttaradi Mutt which was already entered in respect of 1/3rd of the land, the entry made in the name of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in respect of the balance 2/3rd of the land was deleted, - 11 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 therefore recognising the sole ownership of the entire island to be that of Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Insofar as the claim of ownership of the land, there are certain other proceedings which are pending. 3.8. In the present matter what is in question is as regards the admitted facts and it is in that background it is contended that this court ought to come to the rescue of Shri Uttaradi Mutt so as to permit the peaceful celebration of aradhana and pooja of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, as regards which police protection was sought for on account of the disturbance on part of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 3.9. Shri Uttaradi Mutt having performed the aradhana, pooja, etc., of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu for centuries, Shri Uttaradi Mutt made a request to jurisdictional police authorities to provide police protection which - 12 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 came to be rejected by the impugned order. It is in that background that Shri Uttaradi Mutt is before this Court challenging the said order. 3.10. Once earlier this Court vide order dated 5.06.2023 in W.P. No.103449/2023 had permitted such aradhana and pooja to be performed. The Aradhana and poojas being required to be performed on a regular basis, this court ought to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and grant the relief sought for by directing the police to depute requisite number of police personnel at the brindavana so as to protect peace and tranquillity on account of the disturbance sought to be created by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt despite Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt having categorically admitted the existence of brindavana of Shri - 13 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 3.11. The dispute in the present matter relates to the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. The contention of Shri Uttaradi Mutt is that in terms of the accepted facts and history, the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated at Navabrindavana Gadde in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District. 3.12. The said Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu belonging to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, it is for Shri Uttaradi Mutt to carry out necessary ceremonies relating to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at the said brindavana, it is in pursuance thereof Shri Uttaradi Mutt had submitted an application to the concerned authorities to depute sufficient police personnel during the celebration of Shri Raghuvarya Thirtha Mahimotsava from - 14 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 4.07.2023 to 10.07.2023 at the holy moola Brindavan of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. 3.13. The said application came to be rejected by respondent No.4-Tahsildar vide its order dated 27.06.2023, it is challenging the same that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt had approached this Court.</p><p>4. Facts in W.P. No.103994/2023 filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt:</p><p>4. 1. This petition has been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt against the State of Karnataka -respondent No.1, Tahsildar- respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police- respondent No.3 and Shri Uttaradi Mutt- respondent No.4 seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4.2. It is stated that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed an application with the Tahsildar seeking for police protection for performing aradhana of Shri Jaya Theertharu at the - 15 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 brindavana located at Nava Brindavana Gadde on 6th, 7th and 8th July 2023. This application having been rejected, the present petition has been filed. 4.3. It is stated that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is a Moola Maha Samsthana established by Shri Madhvacharya amongst other Mutts established by him. It is contended that the Nava Brindavana Gadde is a tiny island formed in Tungabhadra river in Anegundi village. This is called so since there are nine brindavanas of saints of Shri Madhva Parampara located there. The disputes in respect of certain brindavanas of Shri Padmabha Teertharu, Shri Kavindra Teertharu and Shri Vageesha Teertharu is pending consideration in RSA No.100446/2015. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had also filed W.P. No.111125/2014 as regards the land claimed to be owned by Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Shri Uttaradi Mutt claiming to have purchased the - 16 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 same from one Vakeel Krishna Rao in the year *1916. The sale deed does not mention the total extent. The entire land had been forfeited by Nizams for non-payment of revenue. Shri Uttaradi Mutt made a request to the Raja of Anegundi to regrant 14 acres 7 guntas of land. Accordingly, the same was regranted on the condition that Shri Uttaradi Mutt would not prevent the other Mutts and devotees visiting the Nava Brindavana Gadde and performance of aradhana. 4.4. It is contended that apart from the aforesaid three brindavanas, one other brindavana is of Shri Jaya Teertharu which is wrongly claimed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt to be that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is claimed that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is performing aradhana of Shri Jaya Theetharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde and in this regard certain paper clippings are sought to be placed on *Corrected vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 17 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 record which are relating to the year 1988-89, 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2008-09 and 2009-10. 4.5. It is claimed that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers wanting to perform aradhana of Shri Jaya Theetharu, Shri Uttaradi Mutt with a malicious intent has sought to interfere with the same by falsely claiming that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. 4.6. The application filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt for police protection has been rejected on the ground that there is likelihood of breach of peace which is not permissible. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is entitled under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India to perform the aradhana of its pontiff Shri Jaya Theetharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde which cannot be denied by executive action.-. 18 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 5. OBJECTIONS BY RESPONDENTS No.2 to 4:</p><p>5. 1. Respondents No.2 to 4-State had filed its objections contending that there have been disputes from the year 2022 which have been raised by both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had sought for police protection for conducting aradhana and pooja in the month of July 2022 which came to be rejected by the police authorities, as regards which W.P. No.102614/2022 came to be filed which came to be disposed of on 15.07.2022 with the following observations: “9. Having heard the learned senior counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there is nothing on record which would show that earlier such Aradhana of Sri Jaya Theertharu was conducted or permitted to be conducted by the petitioner-Mutt at the Nava Brindavan Gadde. When it is an admitted fact that a dispute in respect of the Brindavanas are pending consideration at the hands of this Court in R.S.A. No.100446/2015 and several interim orders are passed by this Court to ensure that some arrangement is made permitting the two Mutts to conduct Aradhanas and more particularly in - 19 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 respect of only three Brindavanas, the petitioner Mutt could not have ventured to take a unilateral decision to conduct Aradhana without permission of this Court in R.S.A. No.100446/2015. The petitioner-Mutt was required to approach this Court by filing appropriate application seeking permission of the Court to conduct Aradhana at the Nava Brindavan Gadde. The question as to whether the dispute in R.S.A. No.100446/2015 is restricted only to three Brindavanas or it spreads across the entire island is something which cannot be gone into by this Court in this writ proceedings.</p><p>10. Moreover, in this writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 what is required to be considered is whether there is any impropriety in the impugned orders enforcing Section 144 in the Nava Brindavan Gadde during the days mentioned therein. The District administration is well within its powers to impose the sanction contained under Section 144 Cr.P.C. to ensure public peace and tranquility. When the authorities have found that conducting of the Ardahana in such a situation has all the potential of disturbing the public peace, the authorities are well within their powers to impose sanction under Section 144 of Cr.P.C.</p><p>11. For the reasons stated above, this Court is convinced that there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly.</p><p>5.2. Since the said petition had been dismissed, Shri Uttaradi Mutt continued to perform aradhana and pooja. In the year 2023 once again Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt made similar - 20 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 application. This time an application was made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt also seeking for police protection. The Asst. Commissioner called for a meeting on 30.05.2023 since no consensus were arrived at, the Asst. Commissioner by order dated 30.05.2023 issued an endorsement that both the Mutts should seek necessary orders from the Court. The said order dated 30.05.2023 came to be challenged before this Court in W.P. No.103449/2023 which came to be disposed of by order dated 5.06.2023 with the following directions: i)The writ petition is allowed in part. ii) Order dated 30.05.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 in File No.Kom/Devasthana/2023-24 is quashed to the extent of directing the petitioner to approach this Court to obtain order to perform the religious rituals. iii) The Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 shall provide suitable protection for maintenance of public peace and tranquility and would be at liberty to impose or pass an order for maintenance of public peace and tranquility including issuance of an order under section 144 of Cr.P.C. to permit the petitioner to conduct the rituals only with - 21 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 regard to conducting of Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, on fifth, sixth and seventh of June, 2023, at the Holy site of Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu in the island of Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy. No.192 of Anegundi. iv) It is however made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter including other issues in dispute other than conducting Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. v) This Court also does not express any opinion with regard to the question of rights of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu or rights of Shri Jayateertharu in the Navabrindavana Gaddi. This aspect would have to be decided in the pending proceedings between the parties to the lis, if any. vi) This Court further observes that in view of the fact that both the parties are claiming lineage of the great saint Shri Madhwacharya and adored by several thousands of people, this Court hopes that both the parties would maintain public peace and tranquility for the religious rituals of Aradhana and Shraddha being conducted in the said Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu of the Nava Brindavana Gadde. vii) All rights of the parties are kept open. 5.3. Subsequently, the Tahsildar made an order on 27.06.2023 stating that it was difficult to permit both the Mutts to perform aradhana and pooja which has been challenged before this court in - 22 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the above writ petitions. This Court vide common order dated 5.07.2023 passed the following order: </p>ORDER<p> (i) The writ petitions are allowed in part with following directions: (ii) The impugned order dated 27.06.2023 passed by the Tahashildar vide Annexure- is quashed. (iii) The petitioners in Writ Petition No.103982/2023 namely Shree Uttaradi Mutt shall be entitled to celebrate Shree Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava from 4th July to 7th July, 2023 (both days inclusive) at the Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Taluka- Gangavati, District-Koppal. (iv) The petitioners No.103994/2023 in Writ Petition namely Shree Raghavendraswamy Mutt shall be entitled to perform Aradhana of Shree Jayateertharu for a period from 8th July to 10th July 2023 (both days inclusive) at the Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Taluka- Gangavati, District-Koppal. (v) The respondent/State shall provide suitable Police assistance and protection for the purpose of maintaining public peace, morality, tranquility and would be at liberty to impose the suitable orders to maintain the public peace and tranquility or discipline încluding issuance of an order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C during the said period mentioned hereinabove. (vi) It is made clear that this Court has not touched upon the merits and demerits of the case, existence or otherwise of either Shree Raghuvarya - 23 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Teertharu or Shri Jayateertharu in Navabrindavana Gaddi which is being agitated before the RSA Court as disputed question of fact and law are involved. (vii) It is also made clear by virtue of this Court granting reliefs to both parties, this order would not in any way create a precedent for the litigations if any arise between the parties as the same will have to be adverted in the RSA proceedings, wherein the larger issue between the parties are pending consideration. (viii) The directions issued to the respondent/State shall be followed in stricto sensu, without any violation and breach. Proper protection shall be given to both parties devotees, followers for the relevant dates mentioned hereinabove, failing which, authorities will face serious repercussion from this Court. 5.4. The said order dated 5.07.2023 having been challenged in W.A. Nos.100390/2023 and 100391/2023, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.2023 has been set-aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. The order dated 31.08.2023 reads as under: </p>ORDER<p> i) Both the writ appeals in WA No.100390/2023 and WA No.100391/2023 are hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed in W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023 is hereby set- aside.-. 24 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 iii) The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant as well as respondent No.5 to produce additional documents in support of their respective claims including additional documents produced by the appellant along with I.A. No.5/2023. v) Liberty is also reserved to the parties to file objections, additional pleadings, counter affidavits etc., in support of their vi) respective claims. The parties are also at liberty to file interlocutory application(s) in the Writ Petition and seek suitable reliefs and also request the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal of the matter. vii) All rival contention between the parties on all aspects of the matter including the several contentions noted above are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.</p><p>5.5. The submission made is that since both the Mutts are seeking for permission to conduct aradhana and pooja on the very same date or same set of dates, it is difficult for the administration to provide necessary protection for the same day or set of dates and as such, the administration will abide by any orders passed by this Court.-. 25 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 6. A co-ordinate bench of this court having partly allowed the Writ Petitions filed by both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt permitting both the Mutts to perform their respective poojas at different dates. The said order was taken on appeal before the Division Bench by Shri Uttaradi Mutt, no appeal having been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the Division Bench had remanded the matter and hence, the petition is taken up for consideration afresh.</p><p>7. Post the remand, Shri Uttaradi Mutt filed an application seeking an amendment, which came to be allowed, and in terms of the amendment petition, the prayer sought is as follows: b1) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent nos.1 to 4 to prevent Respondent No 5, including its followers, agents and office bearers and anybody claiming through or under Respondent No.5 from offering prayers or conducting any religious activity in any form including Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the - 26 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 name of Shri Jayateertharu at the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at the Navabrindavana Gadde situated on the island named ‘NavaBrindavana Gadde”, bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal; 8. Subsequently, respondents Nos. 6 to 15 sought to be impleaded in the present matter. The application was rejected by the Single Bench. An appeal having been filed before the Division Bench, the Division Bench allowed the said application. Hence, an amendment was carried out, bringing on record respondents Nos. 6 to 15, who also filed their statement of objections and addressed their arguments opposing the petition.</p><p>9. Respondents No.6 to 15 have filed their objections contending that, 9.1. The writ petitions have become infructuous since the prayer sought for originally do not survive for consideration and the amended relief at prayer B(i) is not tenable or sustainable; - 27 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 9.2. That relief sought for can only be granted by the Civil Court in a properly instituted suit, respondents No.6 to 15 have filed a suit in O.S. No.35/2024 before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati, who would consider the issue. 9.3. There is a civil dispute between the parties on account of the filing of the suit. There being a dispute as regards the identity of the brindavana, evidence has to be led and adjudication has to be made. They reiterate the contentions of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu and not Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. 9.4. The so-called admission made by previous pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is a rebuttable one. The entire gazetteers have not been produced, hence they cannot be relied upon. There is discrepancy in the date of death of Shri Jaya Teertharu, therefore the contents cannot be believed.-. 28 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 9.5. Any order which is passed in the present proceedings would affect respondents No.6 to 15 who have filed the suit and rights of private parties are required to be adjudicated in a civil proceedings and not a public remedy like a writ petition. 9.6. A suit in O.S. No.35/2024 is filed by Respondents 6 to 15 before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati. 9.7. In the said plaint, it is contended that the plaintiffs No.1 to 6 are the disciples of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, plaintiff No.7 is the disciple of Shri Uttaradi Mutt, plaintiff No.8 to 10 are disciples of Shri Vyasaraya Mutt. They contend that in the Nava Brindavana Gadde there are nine brindavanas as under:</p><p>1. Shri Padmanabha Teertharu (1324) 2. Shri Jaya Teertharu (1388) 3. Shri Kaveendra Teertharu (1398) 4. Shri Vageesha Teertharu (1406) 5. Shri Govinda Odeyar (1534) - 29 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 6. Shri Vysararaj Teertharu (1539) 7. Shri Srinivas Teertharu (1564) 8. Shri Rama Teertharu (1584) 9. Shri Sudheendra Teertharu (1683) 9.8. Based on the above, it is contended that there is no brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and that brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 9.9. It is contended that the dispute as regards the brindavana of Shri Padmanabha Teertharu, Kaveendra Teertharu and Vageesha Teertharu in a separate proceeding. They deny that Shri Uttaradi Mutt is carrying on uninterrupted parampara of Shri Madhwacharyaru. References are made as regards the dates on which aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu are to be conducted. There are certain averments made and references made to certain books to lay a claim that the brindavana is that of Shri Jaya Teertharu.-. 30 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 9.10. That the brindavanas located in Malkhed are though of Shri Akshobhya Teertharu and Shri Jaya Teertharu, they are Mrutika brindavanas. They admit that the claim was made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt for permitting to worship at the said brindavanas and the said application came to be rejected on account of the same being under the control of Smt.Bhageerathi Bai, Sinappa Achar and Raghappa Achar, however subsequently in the year 1958 the same was granted to Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Insofar as the cause of action is concerned, it was contended cause of action arose in the year 2022 when Shri Uttaradi Mutt tried to prevent the aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu by the plaintiffs and it was contended by Shri Uttaradi Mutt that the Mahimotsava of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu would be conducted therein and it is in that background seek the reliefs as sought for.-. 31 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10. Shri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Shri Uttaradi Mutt in WP No.103982/2023 would submit that; 10.1. Respondent No.5- Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has sought to prevent Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, from carrying out the celebration of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Mahimotsava as also carrying out aradhana puja, offering prayers, etc., to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu requiring Shri Uttaradi Mutt to approach the jurisdictional authorities for police protection, which application having been rejected Shri Uttaradi Mutt is before this Court. 10.2. This is more so for the reason that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had indicated that they would conduct the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at the same brindavana as that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. There being only one person who could occupy the brindavana. Shri Uttaradi Mutt claiming that brindavana is - 32 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu which is so from time immemorial and all the poojas being conducted as regards the said brindavana on the basis that brindavana was of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu had filed an application with the revenue officials for grant of necessary police protection for carrying out aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu from 5.7.2023 to 7.07.2023. 10.3. There is an earlier round of litigation between the parties in as much as Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed W.P. No.102614/2022 and Shri Uttaradi Mutt had filed W.P. No.103449/2023. 10.4. He submits that vide order dated 15.07.2022 and 5.06.2023, respectively, both the above writ petitions came to be disposed of. In W.P. No.103449/2023, the following directions were issued: Order - 33 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 i) The writ petition is allowed in part. ii) Order dated 30.05.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 in File No.Kom/Devasthana/2023-24 is quashed to the extent of directing Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to approach this Court to obtain order to perform the religious rituals. iii) The Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 shall provide suitable protection for maintenance of public peace and tranquility and would be at liberty to impose or pass an order for maintenance of public peace and tranquility including issuance of an order under section 144 of Cr.P.C. to permit Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to conduct the rituals only with regard to conducting of Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, on fifth, sixth and seventh of June, 2023, at the Holy site of Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu in the island of Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi. iv) It is however made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter including other issues in dispute other than conducting Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. v) This Court also does not express any opinion with regard to the question of rights of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu or rights of Shri Jayateertharu in the Navabrindavana Gaddi. This aspect would have to be decided in the pending proceedings between the parties to the lis, if any. vi) This Court further observes that in view of the fact that both the parties are claiming lineage of the great saint Shri Madhwacharya and adored by several thousands of people, this Court hopes that both the parties would maintain public peace and tranquility for the religious rituals of Aradhana and Shraddha being conducted in the said - 34 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu of the Nava Brindavana Gadde. vii) All rights of the parties are kept open. 10.5. In furtherance of the above orders, Shri Uttaradi Mutt performed the poojas for Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 10.6. It is thereafter that once again the present issue has arisen which resulted in both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt filing the present Petitions. These Petitions were earlier disposed by a co-ordinate bench on 5.07.2023 passed the order which is extracted hereinabove. 10.7. Writ appeals being filed in W.A. No.100390/2023 and 100391/2023, the Division Bench vide its order 31.08.2023 disposed of both the writ appeals as under: </p>ORDER<p> i. Both the writ appeals in WA No.100390/2023 and WA No.100391/2023 are hereby allowed.-. 35 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 ii. The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed in W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023 is hereby set-aside. iii. The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. iv. Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant as well as respondent No.5 to produce additional documents in support of their respective claims including additional documents produced by the appellant along with I.A. No.5/2023. v. Liberty is also reserved to the parties to file objections, additional pleadings, counter affidavits etc., in support of their respective claims. vi. The parties are also at liberty to file interlocutory application(s) in the Writ Petition and seek suitable reliefs and also request the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal of the matter. vii. All rival contention between the parties on all aspects of the matter including the several contentions noted above are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. 10.8. It is in the above background that the Amendment was sought by Shri Uttaradi Mutt to include prayer b(1); Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has not filed any application for - 36 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 amendment or otherwise as permitted by the Hon’ble division bench. 10.9. Tracing the history of the dispute he submits that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed an application before the Munsiff, Gangavati on 12.03.1959 categorically stating as under: (cid:1)ಷಯ:- ಆ(cid:5)ೆಗುಂ(cid:10)ಯ ತುಂ(cid:12)ಾಭದ(cid:16) ನ(cid:10)ಯ ಮಧ(cid:20)ದ(cid:21)ರ(cid:22) ುವ ಸ(cid:26)ೆ(cid:27) ನಂಬ(cid:29) 192 ನವ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನ ಗ ಯನು! "ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄUÀrØ" ಎಂದು ¥ÀmÁÖ $ಾಡುವ (cid:1)ಷಯದ(cid:21).(cid:22) $ಾನ(cid:20)&ೇ ಆ(cid:5)ೆಗುಂ(cid:10)ಯ ತುಂ(cid:12)ಾಭದ(cid:16) ಪ(cid:16)(cid:26)ಾಹದ ಮಧ(cid:20)ದ(cid:21) (cid:22) ಸ(cid:26)ೆ(cid:27) ನಂಬ(cid:29)192 AiÀÄ ಕ&ೆ 14-7ರ(cid:21)((cid:22) ನವ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನ ಗ ಯ(cid:21)(cid:22)) ªÀiÁzsÀé ಸಂಪ(cid:16)(cid:31)ಾಯದ ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄಗಳ ,ೕ-ಾ(cid:10)ಪ.ಗಳ/ ಒಂಬತು 1 ಮ2ಾಮ3ಮರ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಗಳ/ ಇ(cid:26)ೆ. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಮ6ಾ78ಾಯ(cid:27)ರ ಮುಖ(cid:20) ಸಂ:ಾ;ನ(cid:26)ಾದ ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) ¸Áé«ÄUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ¦ÃoÁ¢ü¥ÀwUÀ¼ÁwzÀÄÝ 1. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಪದ?.(cid:5)ಾಭ .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 2. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಕ(cid:1)ೕಂದ(cid:16) .ೕಥ(cid:27) 3. 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:12)ೇA .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 2ಾಗು 4. ಸುBೕಂದ(cid:16) .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ (cid:5)ಾಲುD ಜನ ಮ2ಾಮ3ಮರು ಇ(cid:21) (cid:22) ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಸ;&ಾE(cid:31)ಾF&ೆ ಈ (cid:5)ಾಲುD AiÀÄwUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ಆ&ಾಧ(cid:5)ೆ 2ಾಗು ಈ ತರ ವ(cid:20)ವ:ೆ;ಗಳನು! 3ಂ(cid:10)Hಂದಲೂ 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ ,ೕ-ಾBಪ.ಗJೇ $ಾಡುKಾ1&ೆ. :ೋಸLೆ5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜ ಮ-ಾBೕಶ&ಾEದ F (cid:1)ಜಯನಗರದ ರತ!Nಂ2ಾಸ(cid:5)ಾBೕಶ&ಾEಕೃಷO(cid:31)ೇವ&ಾಯನ ಕುಲ ಗುರುಗJಾEದF1 - 37 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 5(cid:16)ೕ(cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರು 2. 5(cid:16)ೕ 5(cid:16)ೕH(cid:26)ಾಸ .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 2ಾಗು 3. 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಮಚಂದ(cid:16) .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ ಮೂರು ಜನ ಮ2ಾನುQಾವರು ಇ(cid:21) (cid:22) ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಸ;&ಾE(cid:31)ಾF&ೆ ಇ(cid:21)(cid:22)ಯ Rಾವತು1 ವ(cid:20)ವ:ೆ; 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಯರ ಮಠTೆD :ೇU(cid:31)ಾFE(cid:31)ೆ. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಉತ1&ಾ(cid:10) ಮಠದ 5(cid:16)ೕ ರಘW .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನವX ಇ(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:31)ೆ3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ ಮಠ ಮತು1 :ೋಸLೆ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರ ಮಠದ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಗJೇ ಇ(cid:21) (cid:22) 2ೆಚುY ಇದು ಅ(cid:5)ಾ(cid:10)Tಾಲ(cid:10)ಂದಲೂ ಈ ಸ;ಳವX5cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ 2ಾಗು 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರ ಮಠTೆD :ೇU(cid:31)ಾFE(cid:31)ೆ ಅ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:20)ಗು ಈಗ ಇದನು! ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄUÀrØ ಎಂದು ¥ÀmÁÖ $ಾ N ಮೂರು ಮಠಗಳ :ಾ7Iತ(cid:20)ದ(cid:21)(cid:22)ಡಲು ಇ[YಸುKೆ1ೕ(cid:26)ೆ. ಅದTಾDE ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ ಮಠ :ೋಸLೆ 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರ ಮಠ 2ಾಗು 5(cid:16)ೕ ಉತ1&ಾ(cid:10) ಮಠ 3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ ಮೂರು ಮಠಗಳ 2ೆಸU(cid:12)ೆ ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄUÀrØ ಎಂದು ಸ(cid:26)ೆ(cid:27) ನಂಬ(cid:29) 192 AiÀÄಕ&ೆ 14-7 ರೂ\ಾ]. 17-00 ಆTಾರªÀżÀî ನವ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನ ಗ ಯನು! ¥ÀmÁÖ $ಾಡ^ೇTೆಂದು ^ೇ Tೆ. ಗಂ(cid:12)ಾವ. ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳ/ ಮಠದ ಪರ(cid:26)ಾE ಸ3 ಜಯ&ಾಂ ಸರ _ೋ‘ 10.10. He submits that even in this representation there is no claim made by Shri Raghavendra - 38 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Swamy Mutt that the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at the Nava Brindavana Gadde, more importantly he submits that there is an admission that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvara Teertharu is at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 10.11. It is in view of the above representation that the Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was constrained to file a suit in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 against defendant No.1 being Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, defendant No.2 being Shri. Vyasarayaru Mutt of Sosale, defendants No.3 and 4 being the representatives of the above Mutts. In the said suit, Shri Uttaradi Mutt had prayed for declaration to the effect that the Shri Uttaradi Mutt is the sole owner of the land in S.No.192 (Old S.No.239) measuring 14 acres 7 guntas, situated at Anegundi village and to enter the plaintiff-Shri Uttaradi Mutt’s name in the - 39 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 mutation register, revenue records by deleting the name of the defendants No.1 and 2. 10.12. His submission is that as per the representation made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt before the Munsiff, Gangavathi, it is clear that even as per Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s brindavana, is located in Sy.No.192, Anegundi. 10.13. In the said suit, a written statement came to be filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which reads as under: Copy of the Additional Written Statement In the Court of Munciff at Gangavathi in O.S.No.65/1 of 1959-60 H.S. Stya Pramooda Teertharu……… Pltf vs H.H. Suyanendra Tirtharu & others.... Defts. In the above case the defendants 1 and 2 submit their additional written statement as follows:- Under Order VIII R. 9 of CPC: - 40 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 1.- It is specifically denied that the plaintiff holiness has inherited the suit land through succession as he is put to strict proof of the same and further it is denied that he is the owner and possessor of the suit land.</p><p>2. That there are nine (9) holy Brindavanas among them the Moola Brindavana of Shri Vyasaraja Matt, Shri. Vyasarayaru is situated. Including Moola Brindavana there are five Brindavanas of Shri Vyasaraya Mutt i.e, Vyasarayaru, Srinivas Tirtharu Rama Thirtharu, Govinda Tirtharu (Govinda Vadiyaru) and Padmanabha Tirtharu (Padmanabharu comes to the common i.e, D.1 and and 2). There are three Holi brindavanas belonging to Deft. No.1's Mutt they are Ravindra Tirtharu, Vageesha Tirtharu and Sudhendra Tirtharu. The plaintiff with mala fide intention has preferred to mention in the rejoinder para No.7 that the Holy Brindavans are not in the possession of the defendants 1 and 2. On the contrary the plaintiff. has never been in possession of the same. Since time immemorial the defendants 1 and 2 are in possession of the Holy Brindavans by performing Pujas and Aradhanas as owners and possessors till to this day.</p><p>3. That the plaintiff ought to have submitted the records at the time of filing the suit. But the late production of the documents at the time of rejoinder and further no proper reasons are shown for their late production, hence they are liable to be rejected.</p><p>4. That the orders passed by the Nasim samsthan Anegundi in the year 1351 F. is conclusive and the same is in consonance with the law and procedure, which not be deemed to be set aside under law. The subsequent orders. of Nasim as allege in para No.4 of rejoinder passed in the year 1355 F. to which these defendants deny is without jurisdiction - 41 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 as the said order had been passed ignoring the law of limitation and procedure prevailent then.. Further the order of Rajasab and restoration of patta as alleged do not stand in the eye of law, and hence denied specifically.</p><p>5. That these defendants 1 and 2 specifically deny the right and title of the plaintiff over the suit land and the plaintiff bound to prove all the allegations made in para 8 of the rejoinder. That the factum of purchase by H.H. Satya Dhanaru is false and hence denied. The plaintiff is not entitled to lead secondary evidence. The peshkar Krishn Rao as alleged in the sale deed was not a owner and possessor of the suit land and hence denied.</p><p>6. That the rejoinder has not been signed either by the plaintiff's holiness or by his authorised agent hence the same is liable to be rejected.</p><p>7. That the defendants 1 and 2 have appointed D. 3 and D.4 as their respective agents as such they are entitled to appear and allegation in para 9 rejoinder is vague. Hence it is prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs. Defendants 1 and 2..</p><p>1. His Holiness Suyamendra Thirtharu through Agent Jayaramachar Sir Joshi Sd/- in Hindi.</p><p>2. His Holiness Vidya Prasanna Theertharu through: Agent Hanumanthacharya Sir joshi. Sd/- in Kannada.-. 42 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 It is to certify on oath this day that the contents of additional W/s are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. Defendants 1 and 2.</p><p>1. His Holiness Suyamendra Thirtharu through agent Jayaramachar Sir Joshi Sd/- in Hindi.</p><p>2. His Holiness Vidya Prasanna Teertharu through Agent Hanmanthacharya Sir joshi. Sd/- in Kannada. Dt:</p><p>29. 11.60. Through: Sd/-Pleader. 10.14. Even in the written statement, it is clearly admitted by both Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Vyasaraya Mutt that there are nine holy brindavanas at Anegundi, the moola brindavana of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is situate there. Apart from moola brindavana of Shri. Srinivasa, Shri. Rama, Shri. Govinda (Govinda Wodeyaru) and Shri. Padmanabha Teertharu, as also Shri. Raveendra, Shri. Vageesha and Shri. Sudheendra Teertharu are situated - 43 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 therein. At no place in the written statement, a claim is made as regards the existence of the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 10.15. In the said suit, evidence of Shri. Sujayendra Teertharu, the Peetadhipati of Raghavendra Swamy Mutt was led on 24.12.1967. In his deposition, he stated that the island is the property of all three Mutts, and there are brindavanas in all three Mutts situated therein. The nine brindavanas are as follows:</p><p>10. Shri Padmanabha Teertharu 11. Shri Kavindra Teertharu 12. Shri Vagisha Teertharu 13. Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu 14. Shri Sudhindra Teertharu 15. Shri Vyasarayaru (Vysararaj Teertharu) 16. Shri Srinivas Teertharu 17. Shri Rama Teertharu 18. Shri Govindawadiyaru.-. 44 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.16. Out of the said brindavanas, Shri Padmanabha Teertharu is common to all the three Mutts, Shri Kaveendra and Shri Vageesha Teertharu are common to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is solely that of Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Sudheendra Teertharu is that of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Govinda Wodeyaru, Shri. Srinivasa and Shri. Rama Teertharu are exclusively that of Shri. Vyasaraya Mutt. 10.17. By relying on the above, Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande submits that even as per the Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in his deposition tendered on 24.12.1967 the moola brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu was located in Anegundi. Furthermore there is no claim made that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde.-. 45 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.18. The suit that was filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was decreed and Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was declared to be the sole and absolute owner of Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village vide Judgment and decree dated 13.03.1968. 10.19. Thus, his contention is that the entire property belongs to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, of course he submits that poojas could be performed by other Mutts of their respective predecessor Gurus. 10.20. An appeal having been filed against the decree, the appeal also came to be dismissed on 2.02.1972; thereafter, no challenge was made, and as such, it attained finality. 10.21. In the year 1991, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt sought to interfere with Shri. Uttaradi Mutt performing pooja and aradhana at Anegundi; hence, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was constrained to - 46 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 file one more suit seeking a permanent injunction against Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt from interfering with the aradhana of Shri. Padmanabha, Shri. Kaveendra and Shri. Vageesha Teertharu, which was defended by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt by filing written statement contending that they also have the right to perform aradhana of the said Teertharu. 10.22. His submission is that there is no mention made of Shri Jaya Teertharu in the written statement, nor is any claim made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that there is a brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu as regards whom they have to perform pooja and aradhana. 10.23. His submission is that in none of the above proceedings the dispute centered around the identity of the brindavana and never was there - 47 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 any assertion made that it belongs to Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 10.24. It is only now that a departure is sought to be made contending that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde, by wrongly contending that the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is that of Shri Jaya Teertharu which cannot be so made. It was always understood that the brindavana was that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is only now that an assertion is made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Therefore, it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish that brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu which it has failed to do so and until they do so, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt ought to be permitted to perform pooja and aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at his brindavana.-. 48 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.25. In the year 2022, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt filed W.P. No.102614/2022, and for the first time in a court proceeding, it was claimed that there is a brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu in Sy. No.192 of Anegundi, which is known as Nava Brindavana Gadde. This court, vide its order dated 15.07.1952, held that there is nothing to show on record that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had conducted aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde, which order has attained finality. 10.26. Shri. Uttaradi Mutt had filed W.P. No.103449/2023 wherein this court permitted Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to conduct aradhana of Shri Raghuvaryaya Teertharu which order has attained finality.-. 49 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.27. He submits that offerings of prayers to former gurus is an essential religious custom of Madhva community, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and its followers are bound to offer prayers to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu as regards whom they have been offering prayers for centuries. Merely because now Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is making a new claim without the establishment of such a claim, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt cannot be deprived of performing pooja which they have been doing for centuries. What Shri. Uttaradi Mutt have sought for in the present petition is only for police help to carry out the poojas as required and as done in the past and now due to the obstruction held out by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt necessary police help is sought for. If not for the said obstruction, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt would not have approached the authorities and on their refusal this court.-. 50 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.28. The brindavana being the final resting place of a saint belonging to Madhva community, there is only one saint who could be said to be in the said Brindavana and as per Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, it is Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s brindavana. The Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is near Malkhed, Kalaburagi where prayers are offered in his name. 10.29. He relies upon a Judgment in S.Rangaraj –v- P.Jagjeeva1 more particularly, para 51 thereof to contend that the State is required to protect fundamental rights. Para 51 thereof is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>51. We are amused yet troubled by the stand taken by the State Government with regard to the film which has received the National Award. We want to put the anguished question, what good is the protection of freedom of expression if the State does not take care to protect it?. If the film, is unobjectionable and cannot constitutionally be restricted under Article 19(2), freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of 1 1989(2) SCC574- 51 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 violence. That would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation. It is the duty of the State to protect the freedom of expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the State. The State cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to prevent it and protect the freedom of expression. 10.30. By relying on S.Rangaraj’s case, his submission is that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has a right to offer prayers at the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu. This right would be negated if the obstruction held out by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not dealt with in a proper and required manner by the jurisdictional police by offering necessary protection to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt. The right of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt will be frustrated if the authorities, including the police authorities, do not assist Shri. Uttaradi Mutt in asserting such a right. 10.31. In order to further establish that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is not at Nava - 52 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana Gadde, he submits that judicial notice could be taken under Section 56 of the Evidence Act that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, Kalaburagi which is recorded not only in the commentaries of Madhva faith but also in various gazetteers which have been published by the State. 10.32. In this regard he relies upon the Mysore Gazetteer, 1966, Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka Gazeteer, Dharwad District, publication of Karnataka Tourism Dept., Gulbarga district and Gazetteer of India, Karnataka State published by government of Karnataka. 10.33. These publications in the Gazetteers along with deposition of Peetadhipathi of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60, he submits is a conclusive proof that Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s brindavana is located in Nava Brindavana - 53 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Gadde, Anegundi and that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is located in Malkhed, Kalaburagi. 10.34. He relies upon the following decisions:</p><p>10. 35. In Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das v. Surjanarayan Das2, more particularly para 25 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>25. It is urged for the appellant that what is stated in the Gazetter cannot be treated as evidence. These statements in the Gazetter are not relied on as evidence of title but as providing historical material and the practice followed by the math and its head. The Gazetteer can be consulted on matters of public history. 10.36. Relying on the decision in Surjanarayan Das case, submission is that though what is stated in a gazetteer cannot be considered evidence but the statement made in the Gazetteer can be regarded as historical material and of public history. These aspects if taken into consideration, and judicial notice is taken under 2 1966 Supp SCR436- 54 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Section 56 of the Evidence Act, the Gazetteer would establish that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and not of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and any assertion made contrary thereto would have to be established by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 10.37. In ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.3, particularly paras 15 to 19 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>15. The learned counsel then contending that this Court will not entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC216 wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 218, para</p><p>7) “7. In our view, it is apparent that the order passed by the High Court is, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. It is true that many matters could be decided after referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be a ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of alleged breach of contract. Whether the alleged non- 3 (2004) 3 SCC553- 55 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 supply of road permits by the appellants would justify breach of contract by the respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and is not required to be decided or dealt with in a writ petition. Such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuing writs.</p><p>16. A perusal of this judgment though shows that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of facts which requires consideration of evidence which is not on record, will not normally be entertained by a court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This decision again, in our opinion, does not lay down an absolute rule that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact the parties should be relegated to a civil suit. In this view of ours, we are supported by a judgment of this Court in the case of Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda [(1969) 3 SCC769 where dealing with such a situation of disputed questions of fact in a writ petition this Court held: (SCC p. 774, paras 14-16) “14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit-in- reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to - 56 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.</p><p>15. From the averments made in the petition filed by the appellants it is clear that in proof of a large number of allegations the appellants relied upon documentary evidence and the only matter in respect of which conflict of facts may possibly arise related to the due publication of the notification under Section 4 by the Collector.</p><p>16. In the present case, in our judgment, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that it will not determine disputed question of fact. The High Court has jurisdiction to - 57 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 determine questions of fact, even if they are in dispute and the present, in our judgment, is a case in which in the interests of both the parties the High Court should have entertained the petition and called for an affidavit-in-reply from the respondents, and should have proceeded to try the petition instead of relegating the appellants to a separate suit.</p><p>17. The above judgment of Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC769 finds support from another judgment of this Court in the case of Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council [(1970) 1 SCC582 wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 587, para</p><p>13) “Merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit against a public body. The questions of fact raised by the petition in this case are elementary.</p><p>18. This observation of the Court was made while negating a contention advanced on behalf of the respondent Municipality which contended that the petition filed by the appellant Company therein apparently raised questions of fact which argument of the Municipality was accepted by the High Court holding that such disputed questions of fact cannot be tried in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But this Court held otherwise.</p><p>19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In the above case of - 58 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC769 this Court even went to the extent of holding that in a writ petition, if the facts require, even oral evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the writ court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact. 10.38. By relying on the decision in ABL International’s case, he submits that it is not in all cases where there are disputed questions of fact, would the writ court refuse to exercise jurisdiction. It is only disputed question of fact that require a trial to be held that the court could refuse to entertain jurisdiction. In the present matter, it is undisputed that Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu’s brindavana is at Anegundi which is admitted by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, it is only in the year 1985 that the former pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt on his deathbed had - 59 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 indicated that he was mistaken to believe the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu to be that of Shri. Raghuvara Teetharu, and as such, he had instructed his disciples to perform the aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. His submission is that until the year 1985 there was no dispute and even the pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and the Mutt by itself had accepted and asserted that the said Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu. If that be so, for the first time an assertion being made in the year 1985 to the contrary it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish the assertion in a suit to be filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, it cannot therefore be contended that it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file such a suit.-. 60 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.39. In Tejraj-President, Jain Sangh v. State (M.B.) & Collector4, particularly para 10 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>19. The Supreme Court then, after indicating the question involved in the case, said that all those questions should be decided in a properly constituted suit in a Civil Court rather than in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is thus clear that the power under Article 226 ought not to be exercised if the right which the Petitioner is seeking to enforce depends on facts which are complex and disputed and which have to be established. The dispute as to the facts persuading the High Court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution must, however, be real and substantial. It must be with regard to perception of facts as distinguished from their evaluation. The rule that the High Court should not in an application under Article 226 embark on an investigation into the disputed facts and materials for determining whether the Petitioner Mutt has the right which he is seeking to enforce, cannot apply where the doubt or dispute is as to the construction of a document or a judicial order or as to the effect and meaning of a record. Again, the mere statement of the opponent in a petition under Article 226 challenging the correctness of the facts averred by the suppliant and saying that he is in possession of documents and materials to contradict the statements made by the Petitioner is not sufficient for holding that the case is of the type in which facts have to be established. If such a statement is accepted as sufficient to decline to exercise power under 4 1957 SCC OnLine MP81- 61 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Article 226 then the opponent in a petition under Article 226 and not the Court would be the arbiter of the question whether the case is of a type where questions of facts have to be established. The opponent is under an obligation to produce sufficient material to satisfy the Court that there does exist a real and serious dispute as to the facts on which the Petitioner concerned bases his rights sought to be enforced. As will be shown presently, in this case there is no such dispute as to the material facts. When the right sought to be enforced is clear and undisputable and is a fundamental right, the Petitioner cannot be directed to avail himself of the remedy of a suit (see Himmatlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR1954SC403]. and Mahabir Prasad v. B.S. Gupta, Sales Tax Officer, Indore [1957 M.P. Cases 214.]. 10.40. By relying on Jain Sangh’s case, he submits that a dispute has been raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt subsequently, and the dispute is not on account of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt. Accepted facts which were admitted by the pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt was that the brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu. It is only after 1985 that the said aspect has been disputed and recently that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has - 62 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 obstructed Shri. Uttaradi Mutt offering pooja, aradhana, etc. for Shri. Raghuvarya Rayaru contending that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 10.41. On the basis of the above, he submits that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt itself has admitted at an undisputed point of time that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has now only with the intention of creating problems and obstacles in Shri. Uttaradi Mutt performing required poojas is contending that the brindavana is that of Shri Jaya Teertharu requiring Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to approach Courts of law for protection being a law abiding entity. If not for the obstructions held out by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt would not have approached this court.-. 63 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.42. The Brindavana where aradhana and puja was being performed for the last several centuries is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and it is only now that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has sought to contend that the said Brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. It is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish the same by cogent evidence and it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to seek for a declaration in a properly instituted suit that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. The status-quo as prevalent now is that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and as such, it does not now lie for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to contend that it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to establish the Brindavana to be of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu.-. 64 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.43. His submission is that it is only in the Nirupa issued by the Peetadhipathi that the Peetadhipathi has stated that he was under mistaken belief that the Brindavana is that of the Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu when in actuality it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. This alleged mistaken belief having been acted upon for at last four hundred and more years and the aradhana being performed as that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is only in the year 1985 that the Nirupa was issued just prior to the death of the Peetadhipati. This cannot be a ground for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to contend that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 10.44. For centuries, these prayers being offered at the Brindavana to Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and their followers who have impleaded themselves - 65 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 as respondents No.6 to 15 to establish it, to the contrary. The suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, until a decision is rendered in the said suit, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt ought to be permitted to offer prayers for Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu in Navabrindavana Gadde. 10.45. The offering of prayers to the former gurus and saints is a fundamental religious practice of the Madhwa community, as such, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt whose saint is Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is the bounden duty of all followers of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to offer prayers to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu during the important events of his lifetime, and if such poojas are not offered, it would amount to disrespect to that saint, which is not in the interest of the Mutt and/or the followers of the Mutt. The poojas having been offered for centuries to Shri.-. 66 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghuvarya Teertharu, the followers of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt having followed and implemented, the belief that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is also a bounden duty on the part of the said followers to see to it that the said Brindavana is not treated as that of anyone else and that only pooja of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is offered in the said Brindavana. 10.46. The Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu, being situated in Navabrindavana Gadde, is established by the evidence of the Peetadhipathi of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in O.S.No.65/1/1959-60 wherein the name of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu has been mentioned by the said Peetadhipathi. 10.47. Even in O.S.No.193/1992, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, in its evidence, has categorically stated that the Brindavana is that of Shri.-. 67 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghuvarya Teertharu. This aspect is reflected in the Karnataka Toursim Gazetteer, Gulbarga Region (Anegundi). Similarly, it is also established by the very same documents that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is not at Navabrindavana Gadde. The Mysore State Gazetteer published in the year 1966 indicates and establishes that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, Kalaburagi. The Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka, Dharwad District also speaks of the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu being situated in Malkhed. The Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga Region as also the Gazetteer of India, Karnataka State Gazetteer, Government of Karnataka indicates that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s Brindavana is at Malkhed, Kalaburagi. The Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu being at Nava Brindavana Gadde cannot be disputed. Once it is established that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s - 68 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana is situated at Malkhed, Kalaburagi, there cannot be another Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Navabrindavana Gadde. Furthermore, it cannot be contended by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu since there cannot be two saints who occupy the same Brindavana. On the basis of the above, the submission of Sri.Amit Kumar Deshpande is that the writ petition filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt has to be allowed and the writ petition filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has to be dismissed.</p><p>11. Shri. Prabhuling Navadgi, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.5-Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would submit that, 11.1. It is only the amended prayer B(i) in W.P.No.103982/2023 which is required to be considered by this Court. Other prayers having - 69 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 been rendered infructuous due to the passage of time, he submits that interim prayer and final prayer, being one and the same, cannot be granted. 11.2. He denies that there is any admission made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as regards the existence of the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Navabrindavana Gadde and submits that there is a lot of research which has happened which would indicate otherwise. 11.3. Shri. Vadirajaru, a pontiff of Sodi Mutt, Udupi, had written a book indicating the existence of the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava brindavana Gadde, one Shri. BNK Sharma, scholar in his treatise History of Dvaita School of Vedanta and his literature, also recognised that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde.-. 70 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 11.4. Another researcher M.R.Anantha Padmanabha Rao also recognizes that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 11.5. Shri. Sannur Bheema Bhat has translated the Sanskrit work of Shri. Vadirajaru mentioned earlier into Kannada which records the existence of Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s Brindavana at Navabrindavana Gadde. 11.6. It is further claimed that Shri. T.K.Venugopala Dasaru who has done research on Dasa Parampara has also written a booklet on Srimad Jaya Theerta Moola Brindavana which is stated to be situate at Navabrindavana Gadde. 11.7. The government of Karnataka while celebrating Anegundi Utsava had also published a souvenir authored by Sharana Basappa Kolkar that Shri.-. 71 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana is at Nava Brindavana Gadde, hence, his submission is that in the light of these scholars having written and having published works indicating Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana being located at Nava Brindavana Gadi, the so-called admission on part of the then Peetadhipathi of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt cannot be the basis for the claim of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt. 11.8. His submission is that there being a dispute as regards whose brindavana is located at Nava brindavana Gadde, it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file a suit in relation thereto and only on a determination of the matter by a Civil Court, could the matter be laid to rest and a claim made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt be considered. 11.9. The aspect of whether Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is the owner of Sy.No.192; he submits that another - 72 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 matter is pending consideration before this court, in RSA No.100446/2015, which would have to decide on that aspect. He submits that the suit in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60 has no relevance for this case. 11.10. He relies upon the following decisions:</p><p>11. 11. In Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma5, particularly paragraphs 37 and 89 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>37. It was vehemently urged that declaration of the character of a church, viz., whether it was autocephalous was solely dependent upon the canonical laws and it necessarily involved an adjudication of what was the applicable canon, what was its interpretation and what are the religious beliefs, practices, customs and usage in the church which pertained to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the civil courts could not embark on such an enquiry. This is the farthest or the highest stand that could be taken by the appellant. The answer is twofold, one Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and other Article 25 of the Constitution. The latter guarantees constitutionally freedom of conscience and the right freely to 5 1995 Supp (4) SCC286- 73 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 profess, practise and propagate religion to every person. Its reach has been explained in various decisions. In His Holiness Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami v. State of T.N. [Seshammal v. State of T.N., (1972) 2 SCC11sub nom His Holiness Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami v. State of T.N., AIR1972SC1586 it was held that this article guarantees freedom to practise rituals and ceremonies which are integral parts of a religion. In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P. [(1977) 1 SCC677:</p><p>1977. SCC (Cri) 147 : AIR1977SC908 it was held that right to practise and propagate not only matters of faith or belief but all those rituals and practices which are regarded as integral parts of a religion by the followers of a doctrine. In S.P. Mittal v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC51: AIR1983SC1 it was held that freedom or right involving the conscience must naturally receive a wide interpretation. The suit filed was thus maintainable. The injunction and prohibition sought from interfering in administration of Church are certainly matters which pertain to the religious office. Even the declaration that the Church is episcopal is covered in the expansive expression of religion as explained in Mittal case [(1983) 1 SCC51: AIR1983SC1 . The word ‘episcopal’ means “of or pertaining to bishops, having a government vested in bishop”. A suit for declaration of such a right would be maintainable under Section 9. Not only because it is claim to an office but also because there is no other forum where such dispute can be resolved. If a dispute arises whether a particular religious shrine has ceased to be so due to its anti-religion activities then the followers of that religion or belief and faith cannot be denied the right to approach the court. Explanation I is not restrictive of the right or matters pertaining to religion. It only removes the doubt to enable the courts to entertain suits where dispute about religious office is involved. The right - 74 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 to religion having become fundamental right, it would include the right to seek declaration that the Church was episcopal. But the court may refrain from adjudicating upon purely religious matters as it may be handicapped to enter into the hazardous hemisphere of religion. Maintainability of the suit should not be confused with exercise of jurisdiction. Nor is there any merit in the submission that Explanation I could not save suits where the right to property or to an office was not contested or where the said right depended on decisions of questions as to religious faith, belief, doctrine or creed. The emphasis on the expression “is contested” used in Explanation I is not of any consequence. It widens the ambit of the Explanation and includes in its fold any right which is contested to be a right of civil nature even though such right may depend on decisions of questions relating to religious rights or ceremonies. But from that it cannot be inferred that where the right to office or property is not contested it would cease to be a suit cognizable under Section 9. The argument is not available on facts but that shall be adverted to later. Suffice it to mention that in Ugamsingh [(1970) 3 SCC831: (1971) 2 SCR836 the plaintiff's claim was that they were entitled to worship without interference of the idol of Adeshwarji in the temple named after him at Paroli according to tenets observed by the Digambari sect of the Jain religion. It was held that from the pleadings and the controversy between the parties it was clear that the issue was not one which was confined merely to rites and rituals but one which effected the rights of worship. If the Digambaris have a right to worship at the temple, the attempt of the Swetamberis to put Chakshus or to place Dhwajadand or Kalash in accordance with their tenets and to claim that the idol is a Swetamberi idol was to preclude the Digambaris from exercising their right to worship at the temple, with respect to - 75 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 which a civil suit is maintainable under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The scope of the section was thus expanded to include even right to worship.</p><p>89. The conclusions thus reached are:</p><p>1. (a) The civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and suits. (b) The expression ‘civil nature’ used in Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is wider than even civil proceedings, and thus extends to such religious matters which have civil consequence. (c) Section 9 is very wide. In absence of any ecclesiastical courts any religious dispute is cognizable, except in very rare cases where the declaration sought may be what constitutes religious rite.</p><p>2. Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not debar those cases where declaration is sought for a period prior to the Act came into force or for enforcement of right which was recognised before coming into force of the Act.</p><p>3. The following findings in Moran Mar Basselios (supra) have become final and operate as res judicata: (a) The Catholicate of the East was created in Malankara in 1912. (b) The Constitution framed in 1934 by Malankara Association is valid. (c) The Catholicos were not heretics nor they had established separate church.-. 76 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 (d) The meeting held by Patriarch group in 1935 was invalid.</p><p>4. (a) The effect of the two judgments rendered by the Appellate Court of the Royal Court and in Moran Mar Basselios (supra) by this Court is that both Catholicos and Patriarch groups continue to be members of the Syrian Orthodox Church. (b) The Patriarch of Antioch has no temporal powers over the Churches. (c) Effect of the creation of Catholicate at Malankara and 1934 Constitution is that the Patriarch can exercise spiritual powers subject to the Constitution. (d) The spiritual powers of the Patriarch of Antioch can be exercised by the Catholico in accordance with the Constitution.</p><p>5. (a) The Hudaya Canon produced by the Patriarch is not the authentic version. (b) There is no power in the Hudaya Canon to excommunicate Catholicos.</p><p>6. The excommunication of the Catholicos by the Patriarch was invalid.</p><p>7. All churches, except those which are of Evangelistic Association or Simhasana or St. Mary are under spiritual and temporal control of the Malankara Association in accordance with 1934 Constitution. 11.12. By relying on Moran Mar Marthoma’s case, he submits that it is only a civil court which can - 77 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 entertain jurisdiction in the matter and not this court since there are disputed questions of facts which have to be adjudicated. This court ought not to embark to see such a finding on disputed questions of fact in a writ proceeding when it could only be done so by a trial Court. Any right, even under Article 25 of the Constitution, could be pressed into service by filing a suit and not by filing a writ petition is the submission. 11.13. In Basant Singh -v- Janki Singh AIR1967SC341 particularly para 6 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>6. The explanation of Janki Singh and Kailashpati Singh that the plaint was drafted by their lawyer Ramanand Singh at the instance of the panchas including one Ramanand and they signed and verified the plaint without understanding its contents cannot be accepted. There is positive evidence on the record that the plaint was drafted at the instance of Janki Singh and was filed under his instructions. The plaint was signed not only by Janki Singh and Kailashpati Singh but also by their lawyer, Ramanand Singh. Neither Ramanand Singh nor the panch Ramanand was called as a - 78 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 witness. Even in this litigation, Ramanand Singh was acting as a lawyer on behalf of some of the defendants. Kailashpati Singh is a Homeopathic medical practitioner and knows English. The plaint was read over to Janki Singh. Both Janki Singh and Kailashpati Singh signed the plaint after understanding its contents and verified all the statements made in it as true to their knowledge. They then well knew that Ramyad Singh had died in 1939 after the passing of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act. It is not shown that the admission in the plaint as to the date of death of Ramyad Singh is not true or that it was made under some error or misapprehension. This admission must be regarded as a strong piece of evidence in this suit with regard to the date of death of Ramyad Singh. 11.14. In the case of Satyadeo Prasad -v- Smt.Chanderjoti Debi and others6 AIR1996Patna 110, particularly para 31 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>31. Section 21 of the Evidence Act states that admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the persons who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in certain cases with which we are not concerned for the present. Section 31 lays down that admissions “are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained”. On a reading of the two 6 AIR1996PATNA110- 79 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 sections together, the law on the point appears to be clear that an admission of a person is admissible in evidence as against him and though, under certain circumstances, it operates as estoppel against him, it is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted and it can be explained away by the maker thereof or the person against whom it is sought to be proved. For example, a person against whom it is sought to be used may prove that it was made without his knowledge or in ignorance of facts admitted, or under such other circumstances; but there is no doubt about its admissibility in evidence against the maker thereof. The above view gains support from a Single Judge decision of this court in Jairam Mahaton v. Lokenath Mahaton, AIR1930Pat 405, wherein it was held that, in a title suit the proceedings in a previous title suit between the present defendants and a third person were relevant under S. 19 and the pleadings of the defendants were admissible as admission of the defendants under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. In S.T. Chendikamba v. K.I. Viswanathamayya, AIR1939Mad 446; it was pointed out that what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so, but the party making the admission may give evidence to rebut this presumption, and unless and until that is satisfactorily done the fact admitted must be taken to be established. It was further pointed out that the same principle will apply to an admission in a signed pleading, and that, so far as Indian Law is concerned, there can be no doubt that under the provisions of the Evidence Act, an admission contained in a plaint or written statement or an affidavit or any sworn deposition given by a party in a prior litigation will be regarded as an admission in a subsequent action, though it is capable of rebuttal. The statement of Hardeo (defendant No.2) in his written statement in the previous partition suit (Ext.-. 80 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023</p><p>6) is, therefore, admissible in evidence, and unless any evidence in rebuttal has been given by him, that will be a very valuable piece of evidence against his contention in the present suit. Unfortunately, no explanation has been given by him with regard to the statements made in the above written statement, and all that he has said in his evidence is that he did not know the contents of that written statement, as it had been drafted at the instructions of Kamta Prasad. Kamta Prasad, who has been examined as P.W. 24, has, no doubt, admitted in his examination-in-chief that he had also come when Hardeo filed the written statement in that suit. But the stand taken by the defendants in cross- examining this witness is to the effect that the written statement was not written in his (Kamta's) presence. A suggestion had been put to him that the written statement was not written in his presence, and he stated that it is not a fact that the written statements of Hardeo and Jagarnath were not written in his presence. Thus, the explanation offered by Hardeo is not convincing and cannot be accepted. That being so, the admissions made in the above written statement are admissible against him. 11.15. Though several other judgments have been annexed to the memo, he does not refer to or rely on any of those judgments. 11.16. The submission of Shri. Prabhuling Navadagi, learned Senior counsel is that the dispute being - 81 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 civil in nature, the civil court would have to decide the dispute. The deposition of Peetadhipati is not relevant since subsequently, the said Peetadhipati had issued a Nirupa wherein he had categorically stated that he was under a misapprehension that the brindavana located in Navabrindavana Gadde was that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. After having read various treatises, he has now come to a conclusion that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and has called upon his disciples to treat the said brindavana as that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and go ahead with the prayers to him therein. 11.17. On enquiry as to when this Nirupa was issued, he submits that the Nirupa was recorded by the disciples of the erstwhile Peetadhipati on 5.06.1985. On enquiry as to whether any pooja or aradhana has been performed after - 82 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 5.06.1985 of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and if any document could be placed in support thereof, though he submits that the pooja and aradhana has been carried out, there is no particular document that is placed on record in relation to the Aradhana having been performed but some pamphlets relating to the announcement of the aradhana are placed on record. 11.18. Based on the above, he submits that from the time Nirupa was issued, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has been performing aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde and as such, the application filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt for protection ought not to have been rejected. Based on the above, he submits that the writ petition filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt is required to be dismissed and that filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt be allowed.-. 83 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12. Shri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 15 who are impleaded, subsequently submits that; 12.1. The respondents No.6 to 15 are followers and devotees of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, their rights would be affected by any orders that may be passed in the present matter in as much as it is respondents No.6 to 15 who are going to be performing the pooja and any order against Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would affect them adversely. 12.2. At the outset Shri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel submits that he would be adopting the submissions made by and on behalf of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt by Shri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi learned senior counsel.-. 84 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.3. In addition, he submits not only in support of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt but as also on behalf of the devotees that the dispute in the present matter is as regard the identity of one Brindavana in Navabrindavana Gadde, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt claiming it to be that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and the very same Brindavana is claimed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and respondents No.6 to 15 as that Shri Jaya Teertharu. 12.4. Subsequent to the impleading application filed in the present matter, respondents No.6 to 15 have also filed a representative suit in OS No.35/2024 before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Gangavathi seeking for declarative and injunctive relief against Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Vyasaraja Mutt. The Reliefs as sought for are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: - 85 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 i. To Declare that the Moola Brindavana of Sri. Jaya Teertharu is at Navabrindavana Gaddi Anegundi Village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District and further to declare the claim of the 1st defendant that it is the Brindavana of Sri. Raghuvaryaru is untenable and illegal. ii. Injunct the 1st defendant and their henchmen, workers and their followers or any one claiming under them not to worship by conducting daily pujas and aradhana or Mahimotsava to the Brindavana of Sri Jaya Teertharu as that of Sri. Raghavaryaru at Nava Brundavana Gaddi, Anegundi Village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District. iii. Grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble court deems fit grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 12.5. The Single Bench, having rejected the impleading application on an appeal filed in Writ Appeal No.100023/2024, the Division Bench has categorically concluded that any order passed in the writ petition would affect or would have a bearing on the suit that the impleading applicants have filed and, as such they cannot be said not to have any interest, in the subject matter of the writ petition. Whether the claim - 86 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 or independent right is claimed through Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is proper or not is to be decided in the suit where both Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt are parties. Respondents No.6 to 15 cannot be considered to be ordinary devotees since they have initiated a suit in O.S. No.35/2024. Though they are not necessary parties, they would be proper parties. Thus, he submits that any order passed in the present matter would have a direct bearing on respondents No.6 to 15. 12.6. As regards the maintainability of the writ petition, he submits that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is seeking a direction to the authorities to prevent Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt from performing the Poojas of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Navabrindavana Gadde. There has been no determination of this aspect by any court of law - 87 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 till now. Without declaration of the civil right, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt cannot seek such a direction to be issued against respondent-State as regards undeclared civil rights. 12.7. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri. Althaf Ahamed v. State of Karnataka and others7 more particularly paras 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference.</p><p>5. The weighty aspect which dissuades the court from exercising the writ jurisdiction is that the dispute between the parties is essentially in relation to validity of the gift deed. This dispute involves civil rights. In the ultimate analysis, what is to be adjudicated is whether respondent Nos.5 and 6 have got valid title over the property or not and whether the Will referred to by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and alleged to have been executed fraudulently and by misrepresentation is valid or not. 5.1 It is in light of these aspects that the assertion of the appellant that he is the absolute owner of the property will have to be examined. Decision on all issues would require leading of evidence and determination of civil rights amongst the parties. It involves adjudication into titular rights of the parties. It is a trite principle that the 7 WA No.713/2023 dated 11.3.2024 - 88 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 dispute regarding property rights cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction. The parties have to take recourse to civil court. 5.2 The contested property rights cannot be dealt with in writ jurisdiction. The writ court can at the best take notice of the property rights of the parties which are already established rights. When a party is claiming under the disputed Will, the writ court would not be able to adjudicate it, for, it is a matter of leading evidence. In the same way when the gift deed is the derivative document, whereunder the parties claim their respective title rights and dispute one another’s claims, the adjudication has to be done by the civil court. The remedy before the civil court would be proper remedy in such circumstances. 5.3 This is reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sohan Lal vs. Union of India and Another (AIR1957SC529 observing thus, “We do not propose to enquire into the merits of the rival claims of title to the property in dispute set up by the appellant and Jagan Nath. If we were to do so, we would be entering into a field of investigation which is more appropriate for a Civil Court in a properly constituted suit to do rather than for a Court exercising the prerogative of issuing writs. These are questions of fact and law which are in dispute requiring determination before the respective claims of the parties to this appeal can be decided. Before the property in dispute can be restored to Jagan Nath it will be necessary to declare that he had title in that property and was entitled to recover possession of it. This would in effect amount to passing a decree in his favour. In the circumstances to be mentioned hereafter, it is a matter for serious consideration whether in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution such a declaration ought to be made and restoration of the property to Jagan Nath be ordered.” (para</p><p>5) - 89 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.8. Relying on the aforesaid paragraphs in Althaf Ahamed’s case, he submits that when the alleged admissions in the Gazetteer are seriously disputed by respondents, the writ Court cannot adjudicate the undeclared rights. Whenever parties claim their own respective title and dispute the others’ claims, adjudication has to be done by a Civil Court and not by a writ petition. The injunctory relief which Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is seeking for against Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt cannot be so granted in a writ proceeding; such a relief cannot be dehors the ordinary civil remedies which are available under the general law of land before a Civil Court. Respondents No.6 to 15 have filed a comprehensive suit before the civil Court, which would decide the matter. Till then, this Court ought not to intercede in the matter or grant the orders sought by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt.-. 90 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.9. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T.8 more particularly para 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 14. These questions, in our view, were pure questions of fact and could be answered one way or the other only by the civil court in a properly constituted civil suit and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court.</p><p>15. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria [Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC61 and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal 8 AIR2019SC659- 91 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 [Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC230 .) 16. In our view, the writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) in the civil court.</p><p>17. We cannot, therefore, concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court when it unnecessarily went into all the questions of fact arising in the case on the basis of factual pleadings in detail (43 pages) and recorded a factual finding that it was Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) who was in possession of the flat and, therefore, he be restored with his possession of the flat by the appellant.</p><p>18. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, while so directing exceeded its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. Indeed, the High Court in granting such relief, had virtually converted the writ petition into a civil suit and itself to a civil court. In our view, it was not permissible. 12.10. By relying on Roshina’s case, he submits that disputes relating to rights and liabilities of the private individuals must be adjudicated by the civil Courts and not in a writ jurisdiction. The private law dispute cannot be adjudicated in a public law remedy of writ petition, a private law dispute can only be adjudicated in a civil suit.-. 92 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.11. He relies upon the decision of the hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes9 more particularly a portion of para 7 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>7. …….. the jurisdiction of the High Court was bypassed, the appellants moved the High Court challenging the competence of the Provincial Legislature to extend the concept of sale, and invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and sought to reopen the decision of the Taxing Authorities on question of fact. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary : it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self- imposed limitations. Resort that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by 9 AIR1964SC1419- 93 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. 12.12. By relying on Thansingh Nathmal’s case, he submits that when Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has an alternative efficacious remedy the writ court ought not to entertain a writ petition under Article 266. It is open to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to move Civil court or tribunal, this court should direct Shri Uttaradi Mutt to move such court or a tribunal and not entertain a claim made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt before this Court. 12.13. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal10 more particularly a portion of para 36 thereof, which is reproduced here under for easy reference; 10 AIR2003SC2686- 94 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 36. ……. The High Court derives its jurisdiction in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if an occasion arises therefor, to make judicial review of the order passed by a statutory authority. It is beyond any cavil that no writ can be issued if the disputes involve private law character. The writ court has also no jurisdiction to determine an issue on private dispute over a property or right under a partnership. ……. 12.14. By relying on Dwarka Prasad Agarwal’s case he submits that no writ can be issued when the dispute involves private law, a writ court can only deal with public law. 12.15. As regards the admission of the deponent in OS No.65/1/1959-60 he submits that the said admission can only bind Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and the person succeeding to the office of the said deponent it cannot be binding on respondent no.6 to 15 who have an independent right. This independent right has been recognized by the Division Bench while allowing writ appeal filed by respondents No.6 to 15 as regards the rejection of the impleading - 95 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 application by the single judge. Thus, this right having been upheld as regards respondents No.6 to 15 which is independent of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the statement of the deponent in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60 will not be binding on respondent no.6-15, nor are they claiming under Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 12.16. He submits that the suit in OS No.65/1/1959-60 was filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt seeking for relief of declaration that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is the owner of 14 acres 7 guntas and for deletion of the entry made in the name of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. There was no issue in the said suit as regards the existence or otherwise of the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvara Teertharu or Shri Jaya Teertharu. Therefore, the admission made in a suit where the existence or otherwise of the Brindavana was - 96 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 not in question will not be binding on anybody in so far as the present dispute is concerned. 12.17. He relies upon the decision of the hon'ble Apex court in the case of Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil11 more particularly para 13 thereof which is reproduced here under for easy reference; 13. The first infirmity in regard to this admission is that whatever was said by the respondent in regard to Survey No.201/2 is irrelevant and inadmissible in the deposition of the respondent in that case. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act states that “An admission is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned”. In regard to dispute between the appellant and the respondent arising out of Surveys Nos. 194/15 and 200/29, Survey No.s Nos. 201/2 and 194/13 were neither issues in fact nor relevant fact. 12.18. By relying on the Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case he submits that admission, if any made in such a suit can only be read in regard to and in reference to a dispute in the said suit and not 11 AIR1977SCC1712- 97 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 beyond the dispute in the said suit. Therefore, admission cannot apply in the present case. There is no issue raised in the said suit as regards the existence or not of the Brindavana. Therefore, the alleged admission would not be binding on respondents No.6 to 15. 12.19. He again relies on para 16 of Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case (supra) which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>16. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent even though not confronted with the admission would be bound by his admissions and the appellant would be entitled to rely on the admissions as admissible. There is the observation in the very next sentence in the aforesaid decision of this Court that “the purpose of contradicting the witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act is very much different from the purpose of proving the admission”. It, therefore, follows that admission is relevant and it has to be proved before it becomes evidence. 12.20. Relying on the above, he submits that an opportunity has to be given to put the admission across to the person who has made - 98 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the admission, permitting him to tender his explanation, merely because admission is made cannot be held against him. 12.21. He reiterates that an admission is not conclusive proof; admission can be explained, in this regard he relies upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Basant Singh vs. Janki Singh and other12 more particularly a portion of para 5 thereof which is reproduced here under for easy reference:</p><p>5. ….Under the Indian law, an admission made by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him in other suits. In other suits, this admission cannot be regarded as conclusive, and it is open to the party to show that it is not true…… 12.22. He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal13 more particularly para 30 12 AIR1967SC34113 AIR1979(4) SCC790- 99 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 thereof, which is reproduced here under for easy reference:</p><p>30. In the face of this evidence reinforced by the oral evidence on the record, the learned Judge of the High Court concluded that the Math and the temple in this case are a public religious Trust and not the personal property of the defendant. We do not find any reason to take a different view. 12.23. By relying on Avadh Kishore Das’s case he submits that the present Peetadhipati can also in the civil suit filed by respondents No.6-15 depose that the statement of the earlier Peetadhipati to be incorrect or not on the basis of cogent evidence which is also available in terms of various books and documents which have been produced. 12.24. The deponent in OS No.65/1/1959-60 also issued a Nirupa in which he who was the earlier Peetadhipati has stated that he had consulted various scholars, writers, researchers, etc., and - 100 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 thereafter concluded that the earlier statement made by him was not correct; therefore, the said explanation would have to be considered by this Court. 12.25. In so far as Gazetteers are concerned, he submits that the same lacks credence since there is a statement made in the Bombay Gazetteer that Shri. Jaya Teertharu expired in 1269 AD and the Gulbarga Gazetteer it is stated that he expired in 1389 AD. There being a gap of more than 100 years it cannot be accepted that the location of the Brindavana as stated therein to be genuine, the discrepancy going to the root of the matter. 12.26. He relies upon the decision in Triyambak Shivarudra vs. State of Bombay14 more particularly para 8 thereof which is reproduced here under for easy reference:</p><p>14. 1950 Crl.LJ1372- 101 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 8. Section 81, Evidence Act, provides that Courts shall presume the genuineness of every document referred to therein. Official Gazettes are amongst the documents included in that section. It is therefore dear that we must raise an initial presumption that 0.</p><p>0. 8 which is published in the Gazette of India dated 26th January I960 is a genuine document. The presumption enacted by Section 81 is, however, a rebuttable one. That is a clear from the definition of the words "shall presume" which is a given in Section 4, Evidence Act. According to that section: Whenever it is directed by this Act that, the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved. 12.27. Relying on Triyambak Shivarudra’s case, he submits that the Gazetteers by themselves are not conclusive evidence but are rebuttable pieces of evidence which can be rebutted before the civil court. On the basis of the wrong statement or mistake in the statements made in the Gazetteer, the same already stands rebutted even before this Court and, as such, cannot be relied upon. 12.28. He relies upon the decision of Calcutta high court in the decision of Kali Prosanna vs.-. 102 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Nagendra Nath 44 (CWN) Calcutta weekly notes which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; “Reports and gazetteers ae not strictly evidence of the truth of all the statements contained in them, although they may be read for what they are worth.</p><p>12.29. Relying on Kali Prosanna’s case, he submits that reports and Gazetteer are not strictly evidence of truth. In that background, he submits that even the Gazetteers relied upon by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt cannot be accepted by this court. All these aspects would have to be decided in the suit filed by respondents Nos. 6 to 15, and on that basis, he submits that the above writ petition is required to be dismissed.</p><p>13. Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior counsel in reply would submit as under: - 103 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 13.1. Insofar as the reliance placed by both Shri. Prabhuling Navadgi and Shri. C.V. Nagesh learned Senior Counsels on the work of one Dr B.N.K.Sharma published in 1986; he submits that this, though it is a scholarly work, would not have the same value as a gazetteer, which is recognised under Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act. It can only be a scholarly work, which will have to be established in the course of trial before the trial Court in the suit filed by respondents No.6 to 15, and the same cannot be a basis for claiming the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu to be that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu in the present writ petition. 13.2. As regards the judgments relied upon in Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case, Basant Singh’s case and Nagindar Ramdas’s case [referred to supra]., by the respondents to contend that admissions are not conclusive on account of the - 104 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 possibility of they being proved wrong, he submits that the said proposition would not apply to the present facts. The admission has never been established to be wrong. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt itself has been of a consistent opinion of the identity of nine Brindavanas in Nava Brindavana Gadde for centuries. Evidence in this regard was led in the suit filed in the year 1959 as also in the year 1992. There is nothing on record to show that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has conducted or was permitted to conduct the Aaradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at the Navabrindavana Gadde as observed in the judgment dated 15.07.2022 in WP No.102614/2022. 13.3. Neither Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt nor Respondents 6 to 15 have been able to explain the admissions pertaining to the identity of the Brindavana in Navabrindavana Gadde except to - 105 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 lay a claim on the Nirupa issued by the former Peetadhipati (which in a manner amounts to resiling from the earlier admission) and the publication made by Dr.B.N.K.Sharma as also by the Pontiff of Sosale Mutt. These are all aspects which have come into being in recent times and cannot upset the facts which have been accepted by all concerned for centuries. 13.4. Insofar as the contention of the respondents that the writ court cannot decide the disputed question of fact, he submits that this Court can assess the veracity of facts which can be so ascertained on the basis of the documents produced. The dispute having been raised as regards established facts of over centuries only recently in the year 1985, the established facts prior to the dispute being that the Brindavana belonged to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, this aspect would have to be taken into - 106 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 consideration by this Court and there would be no disputed question which this Court would be addressing itself to. 13.5. By relying on ABL International Ltd’s case (referred to supra), he contends that the adjudication in the instant case does not require detailed evidence or trial to be conducted. The entire evidence in the form of documents which are uncontroverted and are reliable are already on record, which this Court can take cognisance of. Since Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Respondents 6 to 15 have now sought to deny and/or controvert the established facts; it is for them to establish the same in the suit filed. Admittedly, no suit has been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt but has been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, who were, according to him, acting at the behest of Shri Raghavendra - 107 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Swamy Mutt to only try and derail these proceedings. 13.6. He submits that the brindavana where aradhanas and poojas were being performed for the last several centuries is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and it is only now that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has sought to contend that the said brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. It is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish the same by cogent evidence and it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to seek a declaration in a properly instituted suit that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. The status quo as prevalent now is that the brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu, and as such, it does not now lie for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt or respondents No.6 to 15 to contend that it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to establish the - 108 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. His submission is that it is only in the Nirupa issued by the Peetadhipati that the Peetadhipati has stated that he was under a mistaken belief that brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu when in actuality it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Assuming the contentions of shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Respondents 6 to 15 to be true, this alleged mistaken belief having been acted upon for last 400 and more years and the aradhana being performed as that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is only in the year 1985 that Nirupa was issued just prior to the death of Peetadhipati, this cannot be a ground for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to contend that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 13.7. For centuries, prayers have been offered at the brindavana to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is - 109 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers who have impleaded themselves as respondents No.6 to 15 to establish to the contrary. The suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, until a decision is rendered in the suit, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt ought to be permitted to offer prayers for Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu in the Nava brindavana Gadde, without any interference from Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt or its followers. 13.8. The offering of prayers to the former gurus and saints is a fundamental religious practice of the Madhva community; as such, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, whose saint is Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, has a bounden duty as also all followers of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt have a bounden duty to offer prayers to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu during the important events of his life, and if poojas are not offered, it will amount - 110 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 to disrespect to the saint, which is not in the interest of Shri Uttaradi Mutt and the followers of the Shri Uttaradi Mutt. 13.9. The poojas having been offered for centuries to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, the followers of Shri Uttaradi Mutt having followed and implemented the belief that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is also a bounden duty of the said followers to see to it that the said brindavana is not treated as that of anyone else and that only poojas of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is offered in the said brindavana. 13.10. The brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, being situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde, is established by the evidence of Peetadhipati of Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60, wherein the name of Shri.-. 111 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu has been mentioned by the said Peetadhipati. Even in O.S. No.193/1995, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, in its evidence, has categorically stated that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. This aspect is also reflected in the Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga region (Anegundi). 13.11. Similarly, it is also established by the very same document that brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is not at Nava Brindavana Gadde. The Mysore State Gazetteer, published in the year 1966, indicates and establishes that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is at Malked, Gulbarga. The Bombay Gazetteer Karnataka, Dharwad district also speaks of brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu to be situated at Malkhed. The Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga region, as also the Gazetteer of India Karnataka - 112 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 State Gazetteer, Government of Karnataka, indicate that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana is at Malked, Kalburagi. The brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being at Nava brindavana Gadde cannot be disputed. Once it is established that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana is situated at Malked, Kalaburagi; there cannot be another brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava brindavana Gadde. Furthermore, it cannot be contended by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu since there cannot be two saints who occupy the same brindavana. 13.12. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, not having chosen to file any suit to establish its claim, merely because respondents No.6 to 15 have filed a suit, would not make the fact a disputed fact.-. 113 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 13.13. By relying on Jain Sangh’s case, he reiterates that the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has categorically held that objections as to disputed question of fact raised, when raised for the sake of raising will not deviate from the established facts. 13.14. As regards the decision in Triyambak Shivarudra’s case relied upon by respondents he submits that there is no material which has been placed on record showing that any fact recorded therein is wrongly recorded in the gazetteer and as such, the said judgment would not apply in the present case and in the above background, he submits that the writ petition filed by Uttaradi Mutt is required to be allowed.</p><p>14. Shri Gangadhar J.M, Learned Additional Advocate General, would submit that it is only on account of a possible law and order issue that could be created - 114 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that the requests made by both the Mutts have been rejected. The state would adhere to any direction issued by this court.</p><p>15. Heard Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Satish S Raichur and Sri. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, learned counsel for Petitioner and Sri. Gangadhar J.M. learned AAG a/w Sri. Praveen Uppar, AGA for Respondents No.1 to 4, Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadagi, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Arun L. Neelopant for Respondent No.5, Sri. C.V. Nagesh Senior Counsel for Sri. H.R. Deshpande for Respondents No.6 to 15 in W.P.No.103982/2023, Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadagi, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Arun Neelopant for Petitioner and Sri. Gangadhar J.M. AAG a/w Sri. Praveen Uppar, for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Satish S. Raichur and Sri. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, learned - 115 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 counsel for Respondents No.4 in W.P.No.103994/2023. Perused papers.</p><p>16. Based on the above arguments the points that arise for determination in this matter are:</p><p>1. Whether this court cannot entertain the present petition and pass orders thereon on account of the contentions raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, on the one hand, and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as also its followers Respondents 6 to 15 on the other being disputed?.</p><p>2. Whether the contention raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as well as its followers Respondents 6 to 15, can, in fact, be said to be disputed questions of fact.</p><p>3. Despite a suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, is the present petition maintainable?.</p><p>4. Would the admission made by former Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt be binding on Shri. Raghavendra - 116 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Swamy Mutt and its followers Respondents 6 to 15?.</p><p>5. Whether the Gazetteers produced by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, now at this stage, can be relied upon by this Court?.</p><p>6. Whether at this juncture, it can be said that the Brindavana at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu or Shri. Raghuvara Rayaru?.</p><p>7. What order?.</p><p>17. I answer the above points as under:</p><p>18. Insofar as the history of litigation as regards the present matter is concerned, originally, both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed petitions in W.P. No.103994/2023 and 102614/2022 respectively. Shri Uttaradi Mutt wanted to perform the Mahimotsava of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at his Brindavana in Nava - 117 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana Gaddi from 4.07.2023 to 10.07.2023. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt also wanted to perform Aradhana of Jaya Teertharu at his Brindavana in Nava Brindavana Gaddi, from 5.07.2023 to 7.07.2023.</p><p>19. It is clear that for the first time, both the Mutts wanting to celebrate the Aradhana of their respective Gurus during the same period of time. Apprehending interference, both the mutts filed applications before the tahsildar for police protection, but both applications were rejected. In view thereof, the above writ petitions are filed.</p><p>20. A coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petitions by permitting both the Mutts to perform the Aradhana on different sets of dates. Aggrieved by the same, Shri Uttaradi Mutt filed a Writ Appeal, but Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt did not.-. 118 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 21. In the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench allowed the same by setting aside the orders of the coordinate Bench and remanded the same for adjudication by taking on record the additional documents filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt. The Division Bench afforded an opportunity to both the Mutts to file amended petitions and additional documents and seek additional reliefs.</p><p>22. An amendment was filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt, but no amendment has been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt; only objections have been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. Thus, it is clear that insofar as the writ petition by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as regards the dates mentioned in the said writ petition and the prayers, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt does not intend to press or prosecute the said petitions since the dates mentioned have already passed and the said writ petition therefore - 119 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 rendered infructuous. It is also clear that only Shri Uttaradi Mutt, has been prosecuting the matter, agitating its legal rights.</p><p>23. In the above background history of the matter, I would have to consider the points raised.</p><p>24. ANSWER TO POINTS NO.1, 2 AND3 1. Whether this court cannot entertain the present petition and pass orders thereon on account of the contentions raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, on the one hand, and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as also its followers Respondents 6 to 15 on the other being disputed?.</p><p>2. Whether the contention raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as well as its followers Respondents 6 to 15, can, in fact, be said to be disputed questions of fact.</p><p>3. Despite a suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, is the present petition maintainable?. - 120 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.1. Points 1,2 and 3 being related to each other are considered together. 24.2. The submission of Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi., learned senior counsel appearing for Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and that of Shri. C.V. Nagesh., learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023 is that the writ petition filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt is not maintainable since the questions which have arisen out of said writ petition are disputed questions of fact which this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot decide. 24.3. The additional submission of Shri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel is that respondents No.6 to 15, having filed a suit for declaration until the determination of the dispute raised in the - 121 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 said suit, this Court ought not to pass any orders and, as a necessary corollary ought to leave it to the civil Court to determine the disputed question of facts. 24.4. Shri. C.V. Nagesh., learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Roshina’s case, Thansingh Nathmal’s case, Dwarka Prasad Agarwal’s case, Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case, Avadh Kishore Dass’ case, Triyambak Shivarudra’s case and Kali Prosanna’s case for the same purpose. 24.5. The submission of Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande., learned senior counsel appearing for Shri Uttaradi Mutt is that there is no disputed question of fact which requires trial, in so far as Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt’s dispute. Respondents No.6 to 15 having filed a suit, the same would be defended. Shri - 122 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has not filed any suit; the claim made by its followers is on the basis of the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, which has created confusion. The Nirupa having been issued in the year 1985, there is no dispute prior to 1985 of the aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being performed at the Nava Brindavana Gadde and no aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu was performed there. Even during the lifetime of the earlier pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the said pontiff, in the evidence led in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60, has categorically admitted that it is the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu which is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde. Neither in the written statement nor the evidence has the earlier pontiff ever claimed that the Brindavana of - 123 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Shri. Jaya Teertharu was located in Nava Brindavana Gadde. 24.6. For over 400 years the aradhana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu having been performed at Nava Brindavana Gadde, it cannot be now contended that there is a dispute of fact requiring trial in so far as the existence of the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu in Nava Brindavana Gadde. His further submission is that the aradhana and other ceremonies in so far as Shri. Jaya Teertharu has been performed for last few centuries at Malkhed, Kalaburagi district and continue to be performed there even today. Thus, the contention of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and/or respondents No.6 to 15 that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde subsequent to the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt will - 124 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 not make it a disputed question of facts requiring trial. 24.7. In this regard, he relies upon the decision in ABL International Ltd. Case and submits that the writ court would also have jurisdiction to try issues both fact and law even if they are in dispute, when the same does not require a detailed trial this Court can determine the issues and pass necessary judgment on the basis of the documents available on record. 24.8. The dispute having been raised by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers post 1985, it is the assertion now made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which is required to be established in a Court of law and not that of Shri Uttaradi Mutt who has been performing the aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde for over a century.-. 125 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.9. He also relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Tejraj- President Jain Sangh's case. In view thereof submission is made that this Court can and would have to decide the above issue. 24.10. It is therefore in the background of the above submissions that this court would have to decide the above issues. 24.11. It is trite law that this Court exercising writ jurisdiction would ordinarily not cause an enquiry into disputed question of facts and would normally relegate the parties to a civil suit. It is also trite law that this Court would not countenance any contention on the part of the respondents that there are disputed questions of fact when there are in fact no such disputed questions of fact and/or that the respondents - 126 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 have raised the disputed question of fact and/or brought into dispute certain admitted facts to try and prevent orders being passed in the Writ Petition, which in my considered opinion would also amount to abuse of the process of court. 24.12. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Moran Mar Marthoma case’s and principles laid down therein cannot be disputed; the said decision dealt with and was rendered in respect of the jurisdiction of a civil Court to decide a claim under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. In the said judgment, there is no reference, nor is any issue dealt with as regards a writ Court not having jurisdiction. Thus, the said decision will not be a touchstone to decide on whether this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction in the present case or not. 24.13. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Roshina’s case was one relating to a claim of - 127 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 property rights which were disputed and it is in that background that the Hon’ble Apex Court came to a conclusion that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to convert a writ petition into a civil suit. The said decision also would not apply to the present case since there are no property rights which are required to be decided upon or adjudicated by this Court. The dispute, essentially in Roshina’s case, was a property dispute which was inter se the parties, and as such, the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the opinion that those disputes would have to be adjudicated by the Civil Court and not by a writ court. Since this is a private law dispute which cannot be decided in a public law remedy. 24.14. Again the decision in Thansingh Nathmal’s case was one relating to the exercise of - 128 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 jurisdiction by the High Court where an alternative remedy was available and where the Court came to a conclusion that there was an elaborate examination of evidence required in order to establish or enforce a right as regard which a writ was filed and it is in that background that the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the opinion that an elaborate examination of evidence cannot be made by a writ Court. These judgments in my considered opinion would not help the cause of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and/or respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023. 24.15. Per contra the decision relied upon by Shri. Ameet Kumar Kumar Deshpande., learned counsel appearing for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt in ABL International Ltd. Case would be of relevance since the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the High Court could - 129 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 exercise jurisdiction to determine the question of fact even if they are in dispute and those could be determined on the basis of the affidavits and reply rather than relegate the parties to a separate suit. This jurisdiction needs to be exercised at the discretion of the Court. 24.16. Thus, it is clear that there is no specific bar for a writ Court to exercise jurisdiction merely because respondents were to contend that the facts are disputed, it is left to the discretion of the Court. 24.17. It is not in dispute that the aradhana and other functions in so far as Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is concerned has been performed at Nava Brindavana Gadde for more than four centuries, it is only after a Nirupa was issued by the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati in the year 1985 - 130 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that the existence of the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu has been brought into question. 24.18. In the year 1959, Shri Uttaradi Mutt had filed a suit in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 claiming proprietary rights over the land in Sy.No.192 (old Sy.No.239) situate at Anegundi Village in which the Nava Brindavana Gadde is situated. 24.19. In the written statement filed more so at para 2 Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt contended that the Brindavana’s of the Gurus of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Vyasaraya Mutt are situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 24.20. It was contended that five Brindavana’s belonging to Shri Vyasaraja Mutt are situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde namely that of; 1. Shri Vyasarayaru (Vysararaj Teertharu) - 131 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 2. Shri Sinivas Teertharu 3. Shri Rama Teertharu 4. Shri Govinda Teertharu (Govindawadiyaru) 5. Shri Padmanabha Teertharu 24.21. It was contended that three Brindavana’s belonging to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt are situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde namely that of:</p><p>1. Shri Ravindra Teertharu, 2. Shri Vageesh Teertharu and 3. Shri Sudhendra Teertharu. 24.22. Though the details of the ninth Brindavana is not mentioned in the written statement what is required to be appreciated by this Court is that even among the eight out of nine names mentioned the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Theertharu who is claimed to belong to Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not mentioned in the written statement.-. 132 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.23. In the evidence led by the earlier pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt namely his holiness Shri. *Sujeendra Teertharu, it has been stated that nine Brindavana’s are that of; 1. Padmanabha Tirtha 2. Kavindra Tirtha 3. Vagisha Tirtha 4. Raghuvarya Tirtha 5. Sudhindra Tirtha 6. Vyasarayaru (Vysararaj Tirtha) 7. Sinivas Tirtha 8. Rama Tirtha 9. Govindawadiyaru. 24.24. Thus, Shri *Sujeendra Teertharu who was the earlier Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in his evidence has categorically admitted that the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde. In the said evidence led by him, there is no mention made of Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Theertharu. *Corrected vide Court Order dated 24.06.2024 - 133 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.25. In the evidence it is further stated that the aforesaid Brindavana’s belong to all three Mutt namely, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri Sosale Vyasarayaru Mutt. 24.26. Shri. Kavindra Theertharu and Shri Vagisha Theertharu being common to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being solely belonging to Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri. Sudhendra Teertharu being solely belonging to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Govindawadiyaru, Shri Sinivas Teertharu and Shri. Rama Teertharu exclusively belonging to Shri. Sosale Vyasarayaru Mutt. 24.27. Thus, from the evidence led it is clear that Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Brindavana is categorically admitted to be located at Nava - 134 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana Gadde and the same solely belongs to Shri Uttaradi Mutt. 24.28. Though all three Mutts follow Shri. Madhavcharya’s philosophy it appears that there are some disputes between these three Mutts which ought not to have occurred and the earlier pontiff having accepted that Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Brindavana solely belongs to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and situate in Nava Brindavana Gadde, now it is sought to be contended that such Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is not situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde and that the said Brindavana belongs to that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Though it is admitted that Shri Raghuvara Teertharu was a Guru of the Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, and there is denial made of the existence of his brindavana at Nava Brindavana Gadde, there is - 135 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 no assertion made as to where his Brindavana is, if not at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 24.29. This assertion which has been made is only post the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff in the year 1985, there being no such claim or assertion made prior to 1985. Thus, merely post 1985 such an assertion having been made would not make the practice followed for four centuries earlier of offering pooja and aradhana to the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde a disputed one. Thus, on the face of it, by sheer extent of time it cannot at this stage be said that there are disputed questions of facts requiring this Court not to exercise jurisdiction. 24.30. Furthermore, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt also has filed WP No.103994/2023 seeking similar reliefs as that sought for by Shri - 136 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Uttaradi Mutt in WP No.103982/2023. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt itself having approached this Court seeking for the more or less identical reliefs as that sought for by Shri Uttaradi Mutt and not filing a suit in that regards till date, also indicates the double standards adopted. Though the prayer sought for by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt have been rendered infructuous, the fact remains that even according to Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt this Court could exercise jurisdiction to decide the matters in issue and it is for that reason that this court has been approached vide a writ petition by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, if not then it would amount to the said Mutt abusing the process of court since the writ petition is filed knowing fully well that this court would not have jurisdiction. Even for this reason I am therefore - 137 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 unable to agree with the submissions made that this court has no jurisdiction. 24.31. It is trite law that jurisdiction to a Court cannot be conferred by consent, thus, it is not only on the basis of the writ petition filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that I come to the conclusion that this Court has jurisdiction but also on the grounds aforesaid i.e., there is no disputed question of fact which can be said to come in the way of this Court exercising its jurisdiction. 24.32. A suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023 and no suit having been filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in that regard even if it is assumed that respondents No.6 to 15 are acting at the instance of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the assertion now made by respondents No.6 to 15 - 138 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 would have to be determined by that Court, such suit pending determination by the Civil Court would not come in the way of this Court exercising jurisdiction. Of course, the determination by the Court would be binding on the parties. Merely, because of the said subsequent suit being pending it is not required for this Court not to decide the present matter. It would also be open for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to seek for such reliefs that they are entitled to in the said suit. 24.33. As regards the performance of the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde, certain documents are sought to be relied upon, viz., paper publications/Pamphlets from the year 1989 onwards. The same would not amount to evidence of the Poojas and Aradhanas being performed at Nava Brindavana - 139 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Gadde for Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Be that as it may there is nothing on record prior to 1989 indicating that the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu was performed at the Nava Brindavana Gadde, in fact, in an earlier Writ Petition in W.P. No.102614/2022 filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, this court vide its order dated 15.07.2022 while dismissing the said writ petition has categorically come to a conclusion that there was nothing on record to show that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had conducted or was permitted to conduct the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. The said observation and judgment have not been challenged, attaining finality and the said observation is binding on this Court. 24.34. In W.P. No.102614/2022 relating to the performance of Aradhana in the year 2022, - 140 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 again in the year 2023, another dispute arose when the performance of aradhana by Shri Uttaradi Mutt of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu was resisted by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt constraining Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file writ petition in W.P. No.103499/2023. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the coordinate Bench of this Court permitting Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to carry out the Aradhana in furtherance of which Aradhana was in fact carried out, no challenge being made to the said order of the coordinate Bench, thus attaining finality. 24.35. Therefore, evidence and records available indicate that Shri. Uttarathus attainingied out pooja, Aradhana and other ceremonies concerning its Guru Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu for more than 400 years, as also in the recent past at Nava Brindavana Gadde.-. 141 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.36. There is no believable document placed on record by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as regards the conduct of pooja, aradhana and other ceremonies relating to Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde, either in the past or present. 24.37. One of the writ petitions filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has been dismissed with an observation that there is nothing on record to indicate such performance of pooja or aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. In that background, it cannot be said that the contention now taken by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is one which gives rise to disputed questions of fact requiring the trial court to decide the matter in a properly constituted suit. It is only in the recent past that the disputes have arisen, more particularly in the last three years.-. 142 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.38. Though the contention of Shri C.V.Nagesh learned Senior Counsel is that there is no determination or adjudication of the claim of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, I’am of the considered opinion that when the dispute has been raised by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and it is asserted and claimed that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu, when in fact all records indicate otherwise, it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to file necessary proceedings for declaration of the assertion and claim, now made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. It would not be for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file any such suit or proceedings. Merely because a party were to make a claim, the party against whom such claim is made need not be driven to court, it is for the party making a claim to approach the jurisdictional and - 143 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 competent court, seeking for adjudication of its claim. 24.39. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that this Court can entertain the writ petition in WP No.103982 of 2023 and pass orders thereon, despite the contentions raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and respondents 6 to 15 contending that there are alleged disputed question of fact, when in fact there are none. 24.40. I answer point No.2 by holding that the contention raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and respondents 6 to 15 cannot in fact be said to be disputed questions of fact considering that Shri Uttaradi Mutt has been offering poojas and performing aradhana’s of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu for over 400 years at Nava Brindavana Gadde and there are admissions made in this regard by Shri.Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. The aspect of admission has also been separately considered hereinbelow.-. 144 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.41. I answer point No.3 by holding that the suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023 no suit having been filed by the Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt , respondents No.6 to 15 being disciples and or followers of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt who claim that Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde and claim of respondents No.6 to 15 being yet to be adjudicated, the same shall not come in way of this Court exercising jurisdiction. Since I have come to the conclusion that as on today the undisputed fact is that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu.</p><p>25. Answer to point No.4: Would the admission made by former Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt be binding on Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers Respondents 6 to 15?. 25.1. As referred to in answer to points No.1 to 3 the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had in the written statement in - 145 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 O.S. No.65/1/59-60 as also in the evidence categorically stated that Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Brindavana is located in Nava Brindavana Gadde. There was no mention made in either the written statement or in evidence that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu was located in Nava Brindavana Gadde. 25.2. The contention of Sri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel for respondents No.6 to 15 is that such an admission made by the earlier pontiff does not bind respondents No.6 to 15. They have an independent right, they can always negate any admission made by the earlier pontiff. In this regard, he relies upon the decision in Dwarka Prasad Agarwal’s case as also Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case his submission is that in the suit in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 there was no dispute as regards the existence or otherwise of the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and Shri. Jaya - 146 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Teertharu in the absence of such a dispute the admission made by the earlier pontiff cannot be binding. If an admission has to be relied upon, the admission should be put across to the person against whom the admission is sought to be relied upon for him to offer an explanation. 25.3. By relying on Basant Singh’s case his contention is that the admissions made in another suit cannot be regarded as conclusive its open to a party to the other suit to prove otherwise. By relying on Avadh Kishore Das’s case his submission is that, in the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati, the said pontiff/Peetadhipati has explained the admissions by stating that he was under a mistaken belief, now it having been brought to his notice various Articles, Research, Publications that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s - 147 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde, a Nirupa has been issued by the earlier pontiff, this Nirupa would negate the so-called admission made in the aforesaid suit. 25.4. The submission that an opportunity would have to be granted to a person who has made an admission to explain the same, in my considered opinion, cannot be so done in the present case since the earlier pontiff has expired long ago in the year 1985 and therefore the admission made by him cannot be put across to him. In this regard the submission made by Sri.C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel is that the successor to the earlier pontiff, i.e., the present pontiff, can explain the admission in the view of the Nirupa. 25.5. The Nirupa as issued is extracted hereinbelow for easy reference - 148 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 “²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ªÉƺÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà UÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgÀ ªÉƺÀj£À°è” ²æà gÁªÉÆ ¨sÁw¸ÀªÁå¸À ²æà ªÀÄzsÁé¸ÁÜ£À ¸ÀA¹ÜvÉÊB²æà gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÀzÀéA±ÉÊB ¨sÀĪÀ£ÉÃAzÉæ’ÊB ²æà AiÀiÁaðvÀ JAzÀÄ EzÉ. ¸Àé¹Ü²æà «dAiÀƨsÀÄåzÀAiÀÄUÀvÀ ±Á°ÃªÁºÀ£À ±ÀPÀ 1907 £Éà ²æà PÉÆæÃzsÀ£ÁªÀÄ ¸ÀAªÀvÀìgÀ eÉåõÀ× §ºÀļÀ ¨sÁ£ÀĪÁgÀzÀ®Æè 5-6-1905 ²æà ªÀÄvÀàgÀªÀĺÀA¸À ¥ÀjªÁædPÁZÁAiÀÄð ¥ÀzÀªÁPÀå ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÁgÁªÁgÀ ¥ÁgÀAUÀvÀ ¸ÀªÀðvÀAvÀæ ¸ÀévÀAvÀæ ²æà ªÀÄzÉé’ʵÀÚªÀ¹zÁÞAvÀ ¥ÀæwµÁ×¥À£ÁZÁAiÀÄð ²æà ªÀÄ£ÀÆð®gÀWÀÄ¥Àw ªÉÃzÀ’ªÁå¸ÀzÉêÀ ¢ªÀå ²æà ¥ÁzÀ¥ÀzÁägÁzÀPÀgÁzÀ dUÀzÀÄÎgÀÄ ²æà ªÀÄ£ÀäzÁéZÁAiÀÄðgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀA¸ÁÜ£Á¢üñÀégÀgÁzÀ £ÀAd£ÀUÀÆqÀÄ ²æà ªÀÄzÁæWÀªÉAzÀæ ¸Áé«ÄUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄoÀzÀ ªÉÃzÁAvÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁædå ¢VédAiÀÄ «zÁå¹AºÁ¸À£Á¢üñÀégÀgÁzÀ ²æà ªÀÄvï ¸ÀĪÀæwÃAzÀæ wÃxÀð ²æÃ¥ÁzÀAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ PÀgÀPÀªÀÄ® ¸ÀAeÁvÀgÁzÀ ²æà ²æà ªÀÄvÀÄìAiÀÄ«ÄÃAzÀæwÃxÀð ²æà ¥ÁzÀAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀPÀgÁzÀ ²²²²ææææÃÃÃà ªªªªÀÀÀÀÄÄÄÄvvvvÀÀÀÀÄÄÄÄììììdddd¬¬¬¬ÄÄÄÄÃÃÃÃAAAAzzzzÀÀÀÀææææ wwwwÃÃÃÃxxxxÀÀÀÀðððð ²²²²ææææÃÃÃà ¥¥¥¥ÁÁÁÁzzzzÀÀÀÀAAAAUUUUÀÀÀÀ¼¼¼¼ÀÀÀÀªªªªÀÀÀÀggggÀÀÀÀÄÄÄÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¦æAiÀÄ ²µÀåjUÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸ÀägÀuÉ. £ÁªÀÅ ²æà UÀÄgÀÄzÉêÀvÁ£ÀÄUÀæºÀ§®¢AzÀ ¸ÁߣÀ, d¥À, vÀ¥À, zÉêÀvÁ ¥ÀÇeÁ, ¥ÁoÀ¥ÀæªÀZÀ£À, ¹zÁÝAvÀ ¸ÁÜ¥À£Á¢ ¸ÁévÀªÉÆÃavÀ PÁAiÀiÁð£ÀĵÀÛ¤gÀvÀgÁV ¤ªÀÄUÉ ±ÉæÃAiÉÆéüªÀÈzsÀxÀðªÁV ²æà ªÀÄ£ÀÆä®gÀWÀÄ¥Àw ªÉÃzÀªÁå¸ÀzÉêÀgÀ ¥ÁæxÀð£À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ ªÀÄAvÁæ®AiÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄzÀ°èzÉÝêÉ. ¤ªÀÄä AiÉÆÃUÀPÉëêÀĪÀ£ÀÄß *Retyped and Replaced vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 149 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 §gɹ PÀ½¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. vÀgÀĪÁAiÀÄ F »AzÉ £ÁªÀÅ G¥À£Áå¸ÀUÀ¼À°è, £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄUÀ¼À°è, £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°è ²æà gÀWÀĪÀAiÀÄðwÃxÀðgÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÉݪÀÅ. E°èAiÀÄ vÀ£ÀPÀ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁVzÀÝ F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ²æêÀÄoÀzÀ D¸ÁÜ£À«zÁéA¸ÀgÀÄ, »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀPÀgÀÆ, ¯ÉÃRPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆ DzÀ ªÀiÁUÀr gÀAUÀ£ÁxÁZÁAiÀÄðgÀÆ, BNK ±ÀªÀÄð ªÉÆzÀ¯ÁzÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀ£Á, ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¸ÀAUÀæºÀ «ªÀıÀð ¯ÉÃR£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DªÀÄƯÁUÀæªÁV £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉÆøÀ¯É ªÁå¸ÀgÁd ªÀÄoÀzÀ ¦ÃoÁ¢ü¥ÀwUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æà «zÁå¥ÀAiÉÆä¢ü wÃxÀðgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ²æà gÀWÀĪÀAiÀÄðwÃxÀðgÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀgÀA¥ÀgÉAiÀÄ ²æà dAiÀÄwÃxÀðgÀ ªÀÄÆ® §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ RavÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ EzÉà ªÀµÀð £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°è £ÀqÉzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ²æà ¸ÀÄ¢üÃAzÀæwÃxÀðgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ²æà ªÁå¸ÀgÁdgÀ DgÁzsÀ£Á ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¥Á¯ÉÆÎAqÀ £Á«ÃªÀðgÀÆ ²æà dAiÀÄwÃxÀðgÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀPÉÌ £ÉqÀ¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¥ÀÇeÁgÁzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹gÀÄvÉÛêÉ. F PÁgÀt¢AzÀ £ÁªÀÅ F »AzÉ G¥À£Áå¸À ªÉÆzÀ¯ÁzÀªÀÅUÀ¼À°è ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖAvÉ £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÀÅ ²æà gÀWÀĪÀAiÀÄðgÀzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛêÉ. PÁgÀt ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ²µÀågÀÄ F DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ²æà dAiÀÄwÃxÀðgÀ ªÀÄÆ® §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÀÅ £ÀªÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà EzÉ JAzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀªÁV ¤±ÀéӬĹPÉÆAqÀÄ CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥ÀÇeÉ, DgÁzsÀ£É, G¥Á¸À£É, EvÁå¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÉÝAzÀÄ ªÀÄAvÁæ®AiÀÄ PÉëÃvÀæ¢AzÀ §gɹzÀ ¤gÀÆ¥À gÁAiÀĸÀ. *Retyped and Replaced vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 150 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Ew £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸ÀägÀuÉUÀ¼ÀÄ «zÁå ªÀÄoÀ PÀÄA¨sÀPÉÆÃt JA§ ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ aPÀÌ ªÉƺÀgÀÄ</p><p>25.6. The examination of the Nirupa would indicate that even according to the earlier pontiff, it was believed that the disputed Brindavana situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde is that belonging to Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. The said belief is now sought to be termed as mistaken belief in the Nirupa and a direction has been issued by the earlier pontiff to his disciples to conduct the pooja and aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at the said Brindavana, by indicating or contending that the said Brindavana is not of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu but it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. *Retyped and Replaced vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 151 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 25.7. Thus, even in the admitted Nirupa there is an admission made by the earlier pontiff that there was a belief of the Brindavana to be belonging to Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and that belief is now sought to be changed at the time of issuance of Nirupa in the year 1985 to contended that the Brindavana is not of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu but that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 25.8. Thus, the admission made in the suit is not denied in the Nirupa but is sought to be resiled from, this in my considered opinion cannot take away the admission made, the resiling from the admission made and a new claim being set up under the Nirupa it is required for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish this new claim. An explanation to an admission cannot be by way of resiling from the admission, a new - 152 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 case or claim being set up under the Nirupa, the same would have to be established in a court of law by anyone claiming the contents of the Nirupa to be true by filing a properly constituted suit before the Jurisdictional and Competent Court, which would also be the situation in respect of the Successor Pontiffs. 25.9. The said admission is made in a proceeding between the same party i.e., Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was the plaintiff therein, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt was the Defendant No.1 and Shri. Sosale Vyasarayaru Mutt was the defendant No.2, the dispute in the said suit was as regards the ownership of the property where the Nava Brindavana Gadde is situated. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the said proceedings and the present proceedings cannot be so different to contend that the admission made in the earlier proceedings - 153 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 would not be binding in the present proceedings. 25.10. Since Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has specifically pleaded and led evidence as regards the Brindavanas located in the Nava Brindavana Gadde. Hence, the decision in Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case would not be appliable. In so far as Basant Singh’s case is concerned wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that an admission can be explained by the concerned party, here the person who has made the said admission having expired his successor to office relying on the Nirupa issued by the person making the admission and the said Nirupa also clearly stating that there was an alleged mistaken belief that the Brindavana was of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu when it is in fact of Shri. Jaya Teertharu, I am of the considered opinion that these aspects would - 154 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 have to be independently established by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in a proceedings initiated in that regard by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 25.11. The admission has not been explained but is sought to be resiled from, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the admission made in O.S. No.65/1/59-60. 25.12. Hence, I answer point No.4 by holding that the admission made by former Peetadhipati of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would be binding on Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers.</p><p>26. ANSWER TO POINT NO.5: Whether the Gazetteers produced by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, now at this stage, can be relied upon by this Court?. 26.1. Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has produced several Gazetteers based on which the submission - 155 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 made by Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande is that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is recognized to be that in Nava Brindavana Gadde and that of Shri Jaya Teertharu is in Malkhed, Kalaburagi. Reliance is placed on the Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga Region (Anegundi) to contend that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is at Anegundi viz., Nava Brindavana Gadde. By relying on the very same document/publication, it is contended that the brindavana of Shri *Jaya Teertharu is not at Nava Brindavana Gadde since his name is not mentioned. 26.2. By relying on the Mysore State Gazetteer published in the year 1966, it is contended that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, Gulbarga, now Kalaburagi. By relying on Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka, Dharwad district, it is again contended that the *Corrected vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 156 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed. 26.3. The submission made by Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande is that in terms of Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is a presumption as to the contents of the Gazetteer and this Court would have to take the same into account to be genuine and accept the contents thereof. It is further contended that cognizance of the contents thereof could be taken in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act. 26.4. The submission of Sri. C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsel for respondents No.6 to 15 is that the Gazetteer cannot be taken to be or considered to be the gospel truth, the contents of the Gazetteer would have to be independently assessed on the available evidence, this Court cannot look into the same due to the contents of the Gazetteer being disputed, it would be better to let the Court - 157 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 seized of the suit now filed by respondents No.6 to 15 to decide on the same. 26.5. His submission is that in terms of Bombay Gazetteer Shri Jaya Teertharu is stated to have expired in the year 1269 and in terms of the Gulbarga Gazetteer, he is stated to have expired in the year 1389 there being difference of 100 years amongst these two Gazetteers. The year of expiry being wrongly mentioned, the contents of the Gazetteers cannot be considered to be true. In this regard reliance has been placed on Thriamak Shivarudra’s case to contend that the Gazetteers themselves are not conclusive evidence but are rebuttable pieces of evidence. Reliance is also placed on Kali Prasanna’s case to contend that Gazetteers are strictly not evidence of the truth of the matter.-. 158 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 26.6. Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act is extracted hereinbelow for easy reference:</p><p>81. Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of Parliament and other documents. The Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the London Gazette or [any official Gazette, or the Government Gazette]. [Substituted by A.O. 1937, for "the Gazette of India, or the Government Gazette of any L.G., or".]. of any colony, dependency or possession of the British Crown, or to be a newspaper or journal, or to be a copy of a private Act of Parliament [of the United Kingdom]. [Inserted by A.O. 1950.]. printed by the Queen's Printer and of every document purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such document is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody. 26.7. A perusal of Section 81 of Indian Evidence Act, extracted hereinabove, would indicate that the Court shall presume the genuineness of every document, be it official gazette or government gazette printed by the Queens printer, which - 159 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 would now have to be read as Government Press, thus, the Gazetteers having been produced there would be a presumption drawn by this Court. 26.8. The said presumption as contended by Sri.C.V.Nagesh is rebuttable except for pointing out the divergence in the year of death of Shri. Jaya Teertharu, nothing has been placed on record to disbelieve the Gazetteers, nor is any defect pointed out in the Gazetteers. Merely because the year of death of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is mentioned wrongly would not take away the assertion made in the Gazetteers that the brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde nor does it take away the fact that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated at Malkhed, Kalaburagi.-. 160 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 26.9. All the counsels having specifically asserted that a brindavana can relate to only one pontiff or Guru and that two pontiffs or two Gurus cannot be in the same brindavana. It cannot therefore be contended that the same brindavana is of a different pontiff than that of the pontiff which has been believed for the last several centuries. 26.10. The denial by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is based on one single contradiction. The existence of the Gazetteers and the publication thereof is not disputed. 26.11. The submission of Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsel in this regard is that in the Suit, the truth of the Gazetteers would come out. The fact remains that respondents No.6 to 15 are seeking to deny the veracity of the contents of the Gazetteers, as regards which, as of today, there is only a denial. The Gazetteers speak for themselves and have been published, - 161 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 admitted to be so published, the existence being admitted. At this stage, the said gazetteers would have to be considered by this Court. The request for non-consideration by respondents No.6 to 15 on the basis of their dispute, as regards the veracity, is yet to be established in the suit. 26.12. The veracity and authenticity of the gazetteers being established, I’am of the considered opinion that in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act, this court can take cognizance of, as also take judicial notice of the contents of the said gazetteers which give a history of people and places, which includes that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and Shri. Jaya Teertharu and their respective Brindavanas including location thereof. 26.13. Insofar as the books and treatises relied upon by Sri.C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior counsel, - 162 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 these books and treatises are private publications which are not ones which are recognized or be recognised under Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act. Without commenting on the veracity and or the authenticity of the said books, it can only be said that the contents of the said books and the statements made therein are the opinion of the authors concerned. If at all, they are required to be established during the trial in the suit filed by respondents No.6 to 15, the authors would have to be examined in the said suit. 26.14. Merely because there is a publication that would not bind this court. It is a trite law that newspaper publications or the like are not ones which can be taken to be established evidence without them being established in the manner known to law.-. 163 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 26.15. Merely because the said suit is pending and a claim is made contra to the existing state of affairs, it cannot be said that the said dispute will override the existing state of affairs, requiring the contents of the Gazetteers to be disbelieved. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the contents of the Gazetteers would have to be taken into consideration by this Court in terms of Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, as also in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act. 26.16. Thus, I answer Point No.5 by holding that the Gazetteers relied upon by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt can and/or to be believed by this Court for the purpose of ascertaining and passing necessary orders there being no rebuttable evidence placed on record contrary to the contents of the Gazetteers - 164 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 except the divergence pointed out in the year of death of Shri Jaya Teertharu.</p><p>27. ANSWER TO POINT NO.6: Whether at this juncture, it can be said that the Brindavana at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu or Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu?. 27.1. In view of my answer to points No.1 to 5 above, it is clear that until the year 1985 even Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its pontiffs believed that the brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde to be that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is only post the Nirupa which had been issued by earlier pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt based on certain publications that it is now sought to be asserted that the brindavana is of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and not of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. 27.2. As held above, there is nothing on record which would indicate that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy - 165 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Mutt is performing any pooja or aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde prior to 1985 and even after 1985 except for the pamphlets which have been produced there is nothing placed on record and coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 15.07.2022 in WP No.102614/2022 has come to a conclusion that there is nothing which is on record to establish that Shri.Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has conducted any aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 27.3. In the suit which had been filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, written statement having been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as also evidence having been led by the earlier pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, firstly there is no mention of the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu being existent at Nava Brindavana Gadde in the written statement.-. 166 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 27.4. In the evidence led by the pontiff, firstly it is categorically asserted that the brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde and secondly, nowhere it has been claimed that brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 27.5. It is also clear from the records that in the year 1985 when Nirupa was issued by earlier pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, for the first time it is contended that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde. In fact, the pontiff has categorically stated that he was under a mistaken belief that the brindavana was that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. This would indicate and categorically establish that even until 1985 both the pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt were of the opinion - 167 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that the brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and not Shri Jaya Teertharu. 27.6. Even thereafter there are no issues which arose until 2021-22 when the ceremony, pooja, aradhana sought to be performed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt was obstructed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which resulted in writ petition being filed for that year followed by subsequent years. The Nirupa having been issued on the basis of certain publication made by Sosale Vysaraya Mutt and now sought to be substantiated by relying on the publication by certain other researchers viz., Shri. M.R.Anantha Padmanabha, Shri. Sanur Bheema Bhat, Shri. T.K.Venugopala Dasaru, which are all private publications which would need to be established by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt by cogent evidence being led. These being - 168 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 private publications by individuals cannot be accepted to be the gospel truth or Veda Vakya, on the face of it. The authors would have to be examined and cross-examined, their assertions being contrary to the admission even made by the pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt cannot be a ground for this Court to disbelieve that the brindavana located at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu requiring this court to take judicial notice of the same in terms of Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act. 27.7. Be that as it may, these are all documents which have come into being post the admission made in the Suit on which basis the Nirupa has been issued and as such, the Nirupa being a assertion of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would have to be established by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt.-. 169 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 27.8. At this stage when Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has not sought for any further relief than that originally sought for in W.P. No.103994/2023, it is Shri Uttaradi Mutt who has persisted in prosecuting its writ petition by filing amendment and addressing arguments. This would give rise to unmistakable conclusion that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not interested in prosecuting W.P. No.103994/2023. 27.9. The arguments of Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi and Shri. C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsels has always been with an intent to find lacuna in the claim of Shri Uttaradi Mutt rather than establishing the claim of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not merely a Respondent in WP No.103982 of 2023 but is also a Petitioner in WP No.103994 of 2023. The only assertion made as regards - 170 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 establishing the claim of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt being reference to aforesaid publications and the Nirupa. 27.10. A suit has also been filed by respondents No.6 to 15 wherein petitioners No.1 to 6 claims to be the devotees and followers of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which has been filed after the filing of the present writ petition and those persons have also been impleaded in the present matter. The manner in which the said suit has been filed subsequent to filing of the writ petition, impleading application being filed and asserted that respondents No.6 to 15 will be affected if any order is passed and there being no suit which has been filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, I am of the considered opinion that the intention behind filing of the said suit is also suspect. Be that as it may the arguments of respondents 6 to 15 - 171 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 were heard in detail and all the submissions made on their behalf by Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel have been dealt with in the present order. 27.11. For all the above-mentioned reasons, I answer point No.6 by holding that at this juncture, I am of the considered opinion that the brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and not that of Shri Jaya Teertharu.</p><p>28. ANSWER TO POINT No.7: What order?. 28.1. I am of the considered opinion that it does not behoove the Mutts of the stature of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and/or Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to have such disputes in a court of law, they ought to have resolved the same among themselves they being guiding Mutts as regards - 172 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the Shri. Madhva philosophy which the common citizens look upto. 28.2. The mutts and their Peetadhipatis, being knowledgeable of worldly and other worldly affairs, are looked upon to offer solace to a common man. It is never advisable for such guiding Mutts, who are friends, philosophers and guides to the general public, to have such disputes. It is, in fact, for such Mutts to guide the general public, their devotees and followers in such a manner that there is no scope for any disputes to arise, if despite the same if any worldly or other worldly disputes were to arise to guide them in such a manner that they are resolved amicably. If the same are not so resolved, the Courts are always available to decide on the dispute raised. 28.3. It is there required for the Peetadhipatis of both the Mutts to resolve these disputes at the - 173 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 earliest, lest the followers and devotees would be dragged into the same, as can be seen by Respondents No.6 to 15 having been dragged in. 28.4. Considering that these disputes have recently arisen for the last three to four years leading to litigation before this Court, and this litigation arises every year when Aradhana is required to be performed, I am of the opinion that waiting for the Civil Court to decide the alleged dispute now raised which may take many years, would not be in the interest of both the Mutts and/or the followers of the Mutt. 28.5. This court would have to take into consideration the circumstances as existing and as also established as being followed to arrive at a conclusion rather than to wait for a decision of a Civil Court as regards the dispute raised only now based on the Nirupa issued by the former - 174 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, which Nirupa is also contrary to the statements made by the very same pontiff in a litigation before Courts of law. 28.6. In view of the above findings and observations, I pass the following: </p>ORDER<p> i. The Writ Petition in W.P. No.103994/2023 filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is dismissed. ii. The writ petition in W.P. No.103982/2023 filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is allowed. iii. A mandamus is issued directing official respondents No.1 to 4 to provide adequate protection, if and when necessary, for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to offer prayers, conducting pooja Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the name Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu at his Brindavana situated on the island named ‘Nava Brindavana Gadde”, - 175 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Gangavati Taluk, Koppal District; and iv. Respondents No.1 to 4 are also directed to ensure that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and/or its followers do not offer any prayers, conducting pooja Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc, in the name of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at any brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde. v. The above order shall, however, be subject to the Judgement and decree, if any, passed in OS No.35/2024, now pending before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Gangavathi. I place on record my appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Sri.Vinay Kudri, Law Clerk- cum-Research Assistant. Sd/- JUDGE LN, List No.:</p><p>19. Sl No.: 1</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State Of Karnataka',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1232793'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt Vs. The State Of Karnataka Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 1 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 2 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 144',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 144',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 144',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 144',
		(int) 7 => 'Amendment',
		(int) 8 => 'Article 19(2',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 56',
		(int) 10 => 'the Evidence Act',
		(int) 11 => 'the Evidence Act',
		(int) 12 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
		(int) 13 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 14 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 15 => 'Article 226 the High Court',
		(int) 16 => 'Section 4',
		(int) 17 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
		(int) 18 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
		(int) 19 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
		(int) 20 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 21 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
		(int) 22 => 'Article 226 embark',
		(int) 23 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 24 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 25 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 26 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 27 => 'Section 9',
		(int) 28 => 'Article 25 of the Constitution',
		(int) 29 => 'Section 9',
		(int) 30 => 'Section 9',
		(int) 31 => 'Section 9',
		(int) 32 => 'Section 9',
		(int) 33 => 'Section 9',
		(int) 34 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 35 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 36 => 'Article 25 of the Constitution',
		(int) 37 => 'Section 21 of the Evidence Act',
		(int) 38 => 'Section 31',
		(int) 39 => 'Section 21',
		(int) 40 => 'the Evidence Act',
		(int) 41 => 'the Evidence Act'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 1 => 'DESHPANDE.',
		(int) 2 => 'BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI',
		(int) 3 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 4 => 'KOPPAL5 SHRI NANJANGUDA RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT',
		(int) 5 => 'H.K. RAM RAO AGED ABOUT55YEARS R/O11-110',
		(int) 6 => 'KISHAN RAO S/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO AGED',
		(int) 7 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 8 => 'BTM LAYOUT',
		(int) 9 => 'BANGALORE-560056',
		(int) 10 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 11 => 'ARUN L. NEELOPANT',
		(int) 12 => 'H.R. DESHPANDE.',
		(int) 13 => 'RAGHUVARYA TEERTHA',
		(int) 14 => 'DIST.KOPPAL',
		(int) 15 => 'R.K. VADEENDRA S/O R.KRISHNACHAR AGE',
		(int) 16 => 'JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041',
		(int) 17 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 18 => 'KANAKAGIRI GANGAVATHI',
		(int) 19 => 'DESHPANDE',
		(int) 20 => 'BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI',
		(int) 21 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 22 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 23 => 'a. Quash',
		(int) 24 => 'Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava',
		(int) 25 => 'Raghuvarya Teertha',
		(int) 26 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 27 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 28 => 'Mahimotsava',
		(int) 29 => 'Sri',
		(int) 30 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 31 => 'c. Grant',
		(int) 32 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 33 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 34 => 'Shri',
		(int) 35 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 36 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 37 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 38 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 39 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 40 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 41 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 42 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 43 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 44 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 45 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 46 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 47 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 48 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 49 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 50 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 51 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 52 => 'Shri',
		(int) 53 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 54 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy',
		(int) 55 => 'Shri Uttaradi',
		(int) 56 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 57 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 58 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 59 => 'Shri Madhva Parampara',
		(int) 60 => 'Shri Kavindra Teertharu',
		(int) 61 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 62 => 'Krishna Rao',
		(int) 63 => 'Nizams',
		(int) 64 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 65 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 66 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 67 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 68 => 'Shri Jaya',
		(int) 69 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 70 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 71 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 72 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 73 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 74 => 'Ardahana',
		(int) 75 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 76 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 77 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 78 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 79 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 80 => 'Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 81 => 'Tahsildar',
		(int) 82 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 83 => 'Tahashildar',
		(int) 84 => 'Shree Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 85 => 'Shree Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava',
		(int) 86 => 'Shree Raghuvarya - 23 - NC:2024',
		(int) 87 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 88 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 89 => 'vii',
		(int) 90 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 91 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 92 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 93 => 'Mahimotsava',
		(int) 94 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 95 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 96 => 'Nos',
		(int) 97 => 'Nos',
		(int) 98 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 99 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 100 => 'No.7',
		(int) 101 => 'Govinda Odeyar',
		(int) 102 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 103 => 'Shri Vysararaj Teertharu',
		(int) 104 => 'Shri Srinivas Teertharu',
		(int) 105 => 'Shri Sudheendra Teertharu',
		(int) 106 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 107 => 'Shri Akshobhya Teertharu',
		(int) 108 => 'Bhageerathi Bai',
		(int) 109 => 'Raghappa Achar',
		(int) 110 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 111 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 112 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 113 => 'Kumar Deshpande',
		(int) 114 => 'Respondent No.5- Shri',
		(int) 115 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 116 => 'Shri',
		(int) 117 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 118 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 119 => 'Shri',
		(int) 120 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 121 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 122 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 123 => 'Shri',
		(int) 124 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 125 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 126 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 127 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 128 => 'v. Liberty',
		(int) 129 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 130 => 'b(1',
		(int) 131 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 132 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 133 => '¦ÃoÁ¢ü¥ÀwUÀ¼ÁwzÀÄÝ',
		(int) 134 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 135 => 'ಇ(cid:21',
		(int) 136 => 'ೇU(cid:31)ಾFE(cid:31)ೆ ಅ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:20)ಗು',
		(int) 137 => 'ÀmÁÖ',
		(int) 138 => 'ಾಡ^ೇTೆಂದು',
		(int) 139 => 'Shri Raghavendra - 38 - NC:2024',
		(int) 140 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 141 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 142 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 143 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 144 => 'Shri',
		(int) 145 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 146 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 147 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 148 => 'Shri',
		(int) 149 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 150 => 'H.S. Stya Pramooda',
		(int) 151 => 'Defts',
		(int) 152 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 153 => 'Brindavanas',
		(int) 154 => 'Moola Brindavana',
		(int) 155 => 'Srinivas Tirtharu Rama Thirtharu',
		(int) 156 => 'Holi',
		(int) 157 => 'Deft',
		(int) 158 => 'Vageesha Tirtharu',
		(int) 159 => 'Sudhendra Tirtharu',
		(int) 160 => 'para No.7',
		(int) 161 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 162 => 'Rajasab',
		(int) 163 => 'Krishn Rao',
		(int) 164 => 'Suyamendra Thirtharu',
		(int) 165 => 'Jayaramachar',
		(int) 166 => 'Joshi Sd/-',
		(int) 167 => 'Prasanna Theertharu',
		(int) 168 => 'Hanumanthacharya',
		(int) 169 => 'joshi',
		(int) 170 => 'Sd/-',
		(int) 171 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 172 => 'Suyamendra Thirtharu',
		(int) 173 => 'Jayaramachar',
		(int) 174 => 'Joshi Sd/-',
		(int) 175 => 'Prasanna Teertharu',
		(int) 176 => 'Hanmanthacharya',
		(int) 177 => 'joshi',
		(int) 178 => 'Sd/-',
		(int) 179 => 'Shri',
		(int) 180 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri',
		(int) 181 => 'Vyasaraya Mutt',
		(int) 182 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 183 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 184 => 'Shri',
		(int) 185 => 'Shri',
		(int) 186 => 'Padmanabha Teertharu',
		(int) 187 => 'Shri',
		(int) 188 => 'Raveendra',
		(int) 189 => 'Shri',
		(int) 190 => 'Sudheendra Teertharu',
		(int) 191 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 192 => 'Shri',
		(int) 193 => 'Sujayendra Teertharu',
		(int) 194 => 'Shri Kavindra',
		(int) 195 => 'Vysararaj Teertharu',
		(int) 196 => 'Shri Srinivas',
		(int) 197 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 198 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 199 => 'Shri Sudheendra Teertharu',
		(int) 200 => 'Shri',
		(int) 201 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri',
		(int) 202 => 'Govinda Wodeyaru',
		(int) 203 => 'Shri',
		(int) 204 => 'Shri',
		(int) 205 => 'Shri',
		(int) 206 => 'Vyasaraya Mutt',
		(int) 207 => 'Shri',
		(int) 208 => 'Kumar Deshpande',
		(int) 209 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 210 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 211 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 212 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 213 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 214 => 'Gurus',
		(int) 215 => 'Shri',
		(int) 216 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 217 => 'Shri',
		(int) 218 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 219 => 'Shri',
		(int) 220 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 221 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 222 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 223 => 'Shri',
		(int) 224 => 'Kaveendra',
		(int) 225 => 'Vageesha Teertharu',
		(int) 226 => 'Shri',
		(int) 227 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 228 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 229 => 'Shri',
		(int) 230 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 231 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 232 => 'Shri',
		(int) 233 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 234 => 'Shri',
		(int) 235 => 'Shri',
		(int) 236 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 237 => 'Shri',
		(int) 238 => 'Shri',
		(int) 239 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 240 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 241 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 242 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 243 => 'Shri',
		(int) 244 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 245 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 246 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 247 => 'Shri',
		(int) 248 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 249 => 'Shri',
		(int) 250 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 251 => 'Shri',
		(int) 252 => 'Shri',
		(int) 253 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 254 => 'Shri',
		(int) 255 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 256 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 257 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 258 => 'Para 51',
		(int) 259 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 260 => 'Shri',
		(int) 261 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 262 => 'Shri',
		(int) 263 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 264 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 265 => 'Karnataka Gazeteer',
		(int) 266 => 'Dharwad District',
		(int) 267 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 268 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 269 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 270 => 'Shri',
		(int) 271 => 'Srinivas Ramanuj Das v.',
		(int) 272 => 'Surjanarayan Das2',
		(int) 273 => 'Gazetteer',
		(int) 274 => 'Gazetteer',
		(int) 275 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 276 => 'Gazetteer',
		(int) 277 => 'Shri',
		(int) 278 => 'Shri',
		(int) 279 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 280 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 281 => 'Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee',
		(int) 282 => 'Bhatinda',
		(int) 283 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 284 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 285 => 'Gunwant Kaur',
		(int) 286 => 'Century Spg',
		(int) 287 => 'para13',
		(int) 288 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 289 => 'Shri',
		(int) 290 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 291 => 'Shri',
		(int) 292 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 293 => 'Shri',
		(int) 294 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 295 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 296 => 'Shri',
		(int) 297 => 'Raghuvara Teetharu',
		(int) 298 => 'Shri',
		(int) 299 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 300 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 301 => 'Shri',
		(int) 302 => 'Shri',
		(int) 303 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 304 => 'Shri',
		(int) 305 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 306 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 307 => 'Jain Sangh v. State',
		(int) 308 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 309 => 'Himmatlal',
		(int) 310 => 'Mahabir Prasad',
		(int) 311 => 'B.S. Gupta',
		(int) 312 => 'Jain Sangh’s',
		(int) 313 => 'Shri',
		(int) 314 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 315 => 'Shri',
		(int) 316 => 'Shri',
		(int) 317 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 318 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 319 => 'Raghuvarya Rayaru',
		(int) 320 => 'Shri',
		(int) 321 => 'Shri',
		(int) 322 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 323 => 'Shri',
		(int) 324 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 325 => 'Shri',
		(int) 326 => 'Shri',
		(int) 327 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri',
		(int) 328 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 329 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 330 => 'Shri',
		(int) 331 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 332 => 'Shri',
		(int) 333 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 334 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 335 => 'Shri',
		(int) 336 => 'Shri',
		(int) 337 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 338 => 'Shri',
		(int) 339 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 340 => 'Shri',
		(int) 341 => 'Shri',
		(int) 342 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 343 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 344 => 'Shri',
		(int) 345 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 346 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 347 => 'Shri',
		(int) 348 => 'Shri',
		(int) 349 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 350 => 'Nirupa',
		(int) 351 => 'Shri',
		(int) 352 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 353 => 'Shri',
		(int) 354 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 355 => 'Shri',
		(int) 356 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 357 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 358 => 'Shri',
		(int) 359 => 'Shri',
		(int) 360 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 361 => 'Shri',
		(int) 362 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 363 => 'Shri',
		(int) 364 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 365 => 'Shri',
		(int) 366 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 367 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 368 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 369 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 370 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 371 => 'O.S.No.193/1992',
		(int) 372 => 'Shri',
		(int) 373 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 374 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 375 => 'Dharwad District',
		(int) 376 => 'Shri',
		(int) 377 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 378 => 'Shri',
		(int) 379 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 380 => 'Shri',
		(int) 381 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 382 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 383 => 'Shri',
		(int) 384 => 'Sri',
		(int) 385 => 'Kumar Deshpande',
		(int) 386 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 387 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 388 => 'Shri',
		(int) 389 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 390 => 'BNK Sharma',
		(int) 391 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 392 => 'M.R.Anantha Padmanabha Rao',
		(int) 393 => 'Sannur Bheema Bhat',
		(int) 394 => 'Shri',
		(int) 395 => 'Kannada',
		(int) 396 => 'Shri',
		(int) 397 => 'Shri',
		(int) 398 => 'T.K.Venugopala Dasaru',
		(int) 399 => 'Dasa Parampara',
		(int) 400 => 'Srimad Jaya',
		(int) 401 => 'Anegundi Utsava',
		(int) 402 => 'Sharana Basappa Kolkar',
		(int) 403 => 'Shri.-',
		(int) 404 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 405 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 406 => 'Shri',
		(int) 407 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 408 => 'Shri',
		(int) 409 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 410 => 'Moran Mar',
		(int) 411 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 412 => 'Srimad Perarulala',
		(int) 413 => 'Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami',
		(int) 414 => 'Srimad Perarulala',
		(int) 415 => 'Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami',
		(int) 416 => 'Stainislaus v. State of M.P.',
		(int) 417 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 418 => 'Adeshwarji',
		(int) 419 => 'Swetamberis',
		(int) 420 => 'Dhwajadand',
		(int) 421 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 422 => 'Moran Mar Basselios',
		(int) 423 => 'Catholicos',
		(int) 424 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 425 => 'Moran Mar Basselios',
		(int) 426 => 'Catholicos',
		(int) 427 => 'Moran Mar Marthoma’s',
		(int) 428 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 429 => 'Basant Singh -v- Janki Singh',
		(int) 430 => 'Janki Singh',
		(int) 431 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
		(int) 432 => 'Ramanand Singh',
		(int) 433 => 'Janki Singh',
		(int) 434 => 'Janki Singh',
		(int) 435 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
		(int) 436 => 'Ramanand Singh',
		(int) 437 => 'Ramanand Singh',
		(int) 438 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 439 => 'Ramanand Singh',
		(int) 440 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
		(int) 441 => 'Homeopathic',
		(int) 442 => 'Janki Singh',
		(int) 443 => 'Janki Singh',
		(int) 444 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
		(int) 445 => 'Ramyad Singh',
		(int) 446 => 'Ramyad Singh',
		(int) 447 => 'Ramyad Singh',
		(int) 448 => 'Chanderjoti Debi',
		(int) 449 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 450 => 'Jairam Mahaton',
		(int) 451 => 'Lokenath Mahaton',
		(int) 452 => 'S.T. Chendikamba v. K.I. Viswanathamayya',
		(int) 453 => 'Indian Law',
		(int) 454 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 455 => 'Kamta Prasad',
		(int) 456 => 'Shri',
		(int) 457 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 458 => 'Peetadhipati',
		(int) 459 => 'Shri',
		(int) 460 => 'Shri',
		(int) 461 => 'Nirupa',
		(int) 462 => 'Nirupa',
		(int) 463 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 464 => 'Nirupa',
		(int) 465 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 466 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 467 => 'Shri',
		(int) 468 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 469 => 'Shri',
		(int) 470 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 471 => 'Shri',
		(int) 472 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 473 => 'Prabhuling K. Navadgi',
		(int) 474 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 475 => 'Shri',
		(int) 476 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 477 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 478 => 'Uttaradi Mutt, Shri',
		(int) 479 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri',
		(int) 480 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 481 => 'Mahimotsava',
		(int) 482 => 'Sri',
		(int) 483 => 'Anegundi Village',
		(int) 484 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 485 => 'Shri',
		(int) 486 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 487 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 488 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 489 => 'Shri',
		(int) 490 => 'Shri',
		(int) 491 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 492 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 493 => 'Shri',
		(int) 494 => 'Shri',
		(int) 495 => 'Althaf Ahamed v. State',
		(int) 496 => 'Will',
		(int) 497 => 'Shri',
		(int) 498 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 499 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2023',
		(int) 1 => '2023',
		(int) 2 => '2024',
		(int) 3 => '2023',
		(int) 4 => '2023',
		(int) 5 => '2023',
		(int) 6 => '2023',
		(int) 7 => '2023',
		(int) 8 => '2023',
		(int) 9 => 'R6-R15',
		(int) 10 => '2023',
		(int) 11 => 'TO1007-2023',
		(int) 12 => '11TH MAIN45H',
		(int) 13 => '2023',
		(int) 14 => '2023 1',
		(int) 15 => 'THIS DAY',
		(int) 16 => '2023',
		(int) 17 => '2023',
		(int) 18 => '2023',
		(int) 19 => '2023',
		(int) 20 => '6th July 2023, 7th July 2023',
		(int) 21 => '8th July 2023',
		(int) 22 => '2023',
		(int) 23 => '2023',
		(int) 24 => '2023',
		(int) 25 => '2023',
		(int) 26 => 'the year 1959',
		(int) 27 => '2023',
		(int) 28 => '2023',
		(int) 29 => '2023',
		(int) 30 => '2023',
		(int) 31 => 'centuries',
		(int) 32 => '2023',
		(int) 33 => '2023',
		(int) 34 => '2023',
		(int) 35 => '2023',
		(int) 36 => '2023',
		(int) 37 => '2023',
		(int) 38 => '6th, 7th and',
		(int) 39 => '8th July 2023',
		(int) 40 => '2023',
		(int) 41 => '2023',
		(int) 42 => 'the year *1916',
		(int) 43 => '2023',
		(int) 44 => '2023',
		(int) 45 => 'the year 1988-89',
		(int) 46 => '2001-02',
		(int) 47 => '2003-04',
		(int) 48 => '2004-05',
		(int) 49 => '2008-09',
		(int) 50 => '2009-10',
		(int) 51 => '2023',
		(int) 52 => '2023 5',
		(int) 53 => 'the year 2022',
		(int) 54 => 'the month of July 2022',
		(int) 55 => '2023',
		(int) 56 => 'days',
		(int) 57 => 'the year 2023',
		(int) 58 => '2023',
		(int) 59 => '2023',
		(int) 60 => '2023',
		(int) 61 => '2023',
		(int) 62 => 'fifth, sixth',
		(int) 63 => 'June, 2023',
		(int) 64 => '2023',
		(int) 65 => '2023',
		(int) 66 => '4th July to 7th July, 2023',
		(int) 67 => 'both days',
		(int) 68 => '8th July to 10th July 2023',
		(int) 69 => 'both days',
		(int) 70 => '2023',
		(int) 71 => '100391/2023',
		(int) 72 => '2023',
		(int) 73 => 'the same day',
		(int) 74 => '2023',
		(int) 75 => '2023 6',
		(int) 76 => '2023',
		(int) 77 => '2023',
		(int) 78 => '2023',
		(int) 79 => '2023',
		(int) 80 => '2023',
		(int) 81 => '2023 9.5',
		(int) 82 => '1324',
		(int) 83 => '1388',
		(int) 84 => '1398',
		(int) 85 => '1406',
		(int) 86 => '1534',
		(int) 87 => '2023',
		(int) 88 => '2023 6',
		(int) 89 => '1539',
		(int) 90 => '1564',
		(int) 91 => '1584',
		(int) 92 => '1683',
		(int) 93 => '2023',
		(int) 94 => '2023 9.10',
		(int) 95 => 'the year 1958',
		(int) 96 => 'the year 2022',
		(int) 97 => '2023',
		(int) 98 => '2023 10',
		(int) 99 => '2023',
		(int) 100 => '2023',
		(int) 101 => '2023',
		(int) 102 => '2023',
		(int) 103 => 'fifth, sixth',
		(int) 104 => 'June, 2023',
		(int) 105 => '2023',
		(int) 106 => '2023',
		(int) 107 => '100391/2023',
		(int) 108 => '2023',
		(int) 109 => '2023 ii',
		(int) 110 => '2023',
		(int) 111 => '2023',
		(int) 112 => '14-7ರ(cid:21)((cid:22',
		(int) 113 => '2023',
		(int) 114 => '2023 5(cid:16)ೕ(cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರು 2',
		(int) 115 => '2023',
		(int) 116 => '2023',
		(int) 117 => '2023',
		(int) 118 => '2023',
		(int) 119 => '1959-60',
		(int) 120 => '2023',
		(int) 121 => '2023 1.-',
		(int) 122 => 'the year 1351',
		(int) 123 => 'the year 1355 F.',
		(int) 124 => '2023',
		(int) 125 => '2023',
		(int) 126 => '2023',
		(int) 127 => '2023',
		(int) 128 => 'this day',
		(int) 129 => '2023',
		(int) 130 => '24.12.1967',
		(int) 131 => '16',
		(int) 132 => '2023',
		(int) 133 => '2023 10.16',
		(int) 134 => '2023',
		(int) 135 => '2023 10.18',
		(int) 136 => '13.03.1968',
		(int) 137 => 'the year 1991',
		(int) 138 => '2023',
		(int) 139 => '2023',
		(int) 140 => '2023',
		(int) 141 => '2023',
		(int) 142 => '2023',
		(int) 143 => '2023 10.25',
		(int) 144 => 'the year 2022, Shri',
		(int) 145 => '15.07.1952',
		(int) 146 => '2023',
		(int) 147 => '2023 10.27',
		(int) 148 => 'centuries',
		(int) 149 => 'centuries',
		(int) 150 => '2023',
		(int) 151 => '2023 10.28',
		(int) 152 => '1 1989(2',
		(int) 153 => '2023',
		(int) 154 => '2023',
		(int) 155 => '2023',
		(int) 156 => '1966',
		(int) 157 => '2023',
		(int) 158 => '2023',
		(int) 159 => 'under 2 1966',
		(int) 160 => '2023',
		(int) 161 => '2023 Section 56',
		(int) 162 => '2002',
		(int) 163 => '3 (2004',
		(int) 164 => '2023',
		(int) 165 => '2023',
		(int) 166 => '1969',
		(int) 167 => '2023',
		(int) 168 => '2023',
		(int) 169 => '2023',
		(int) 170 => '1969',
		(int) 171 => '1970',
		(int) 172 => '2023',
		(int) 173 => '2023',
		(int) 174 => '1969',
		(int) 175 => 'the year 1985',
		(int) 176 => '2023',
		(int) 177 => '2023',
		(int) 178 => 'the year 1985',
		(int) 179 => 'the year 1985',
		(int) 180 => '2023',
		(int) 181 => '2023 10.39',
		(int) 182 => '2023',
		(int) 183 => '2023',
		(int) 184 => '1957',
		(int) 185 => '1985',
		(int) 186 => '2023',
		(int) 187 => '2023',
		(int) 188 => '2023',
		(int) 189 => '2023 10.42',
		(int) 190 => 'the last several centuries',
		(int) 191 => '2023',
		(int) 192 => '2023 10.43',
		(int) 193 => 'the year 1985',
		(int) 194 => 'centuries',
		(int) 195 => '2023',
		(int) 196 => '2023',
		(int) 197 => '10.45',
		(int) 198 => 'centuries',
		(int) 199 => '2023',
		(int) 200 => '2023',
		(int) 201 => '2023',
		(int) 202 => 'the year 1966',
		(int) 203 => '2023',
		(int) 204 => '2023',
		(int) 205 => '2023',
		(int) 206 => '2023',
		(int) 207 => '2023 11.4',
		(int) 208 => '2023',
		(int) 209 => '2023',
		(int) 210 => '2023',
		(int) 211 => '2023',
		(int) 212 => '1995',
		(int) 213 => '2023',
		(int) 214 => '2023',
		(int) 215 => '1972',
		(int) 216 => '1977',
		(int) 217 => '1983',
		(int) 218 => '1983',
		(int) 219 => '2023',
		(int) 220 => '2023',
		(int) 221 => '1970',
		(int) 222 => '1971',
		(int) 223 => '2023',
		(int) 224 => '2023',
		(int) 225 => '1991',
		(int) 226 => '1912',
		(int) 227 => '1934',
		(int) 228 => '2023',
		(int) 229 => '2023',
		(int) 230 => '1935',
		(int) 231 => '2023',
		(int) 232 => '2023',
		(int) 233 => '2023',
		(int) 234 => '1939',
		(int) 235 => '2023',
		(int) 236 => '2023',
		(int) 237 => '20236',
		(int) 238 => '2023',
		(int) 239 => '2023',
		(int) 240 => '2023 5.06.1985',
		(int) 241 => '2023',
		(int) 242 => '2023 12',
		(int) 243 => '2023',
		(int) 244 => '2023 12.3',
		(int) 245 => '2023',
		(int) 246 => '2023',
		(int) 247 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 248 => 'daily',
		(int) 249 => '2023',
		(int) 250 => '2023',
		(int) 251 => '2023',
		(int) 252 => '2023',
		(int) 253 => '11.3.2024 - 88 - NC:2024',
		(int) 254 => '2023',
		(int) 255 => '2023'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 1 => 'KARNATAKA',
		(int) 2 => 'C/W WRIT PETITION No.103994 OF2023(GM-RES',
		(int) 3 => 'SR',
		(int) 4 => 'SATISH S RAICHUR & SHRI',
		(int) 5 => 'ADVOCATES',
		(int) 6 => 'PRINCIPAL',
		(int) 7 => 'DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA',
		(int) 8 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 9 => 'GOPAL KRISHNA S/O DR',
		(int) 10 => 'CROSS',
		(int) 11 => 'MAIN',
		(int) 12 => 'SRINAGAR',
		(int) 13 => 'BANASHANKARI',
		(int) 14 => 'BANGALORE SOUTH KARNATAKA-560050.8',
		(int) 15 => 'K MARUTHI GURUPRASAD S/O K. BHEEMASENA RAO AGED ABOUT50YEARS R/',
		(int) 16 => 'UTTARAHALLI',
		(int) 17 => 'BANGALORE',
		(int) 18 => 'KARNATAKA-560061',
		(int) 19 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 20 => 'NARASINGA RAO S/O D. KISHAN RAO AGED ABOUT64YEARS R/O ANUGRAHA NILAYA JAYANAGAR',
		(int) 21 => 'SRINAGAR',
		(int) 22 => 'PRASANNA DESAI W/O PRASANNA DESAI AGED',
		(int) 23 => 'CROSS',
		(int) 24 => 'THALAGHATTAPURA',
		(int) 25 => 'BENGALURU',
		(int) 26 => 'KARNATAKA-560062',
		(int) 27 => 'No.1077',
		(int) 28 => 'MAIN',
		(int) 29 => 'SRINAGAR',
		(int) 30 => 'MUTTAGI S/O M.L. NARAYANACHAR AGED ABOUT47YEARS',
		(int) 31 => 'MAIN',
		(int) 32 => 'ITTAMADU',
		(int) 33 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 34 => 'J.M. AAG',
		(int) 35 => 'AGA',
		(int) 36 => 'SR',
		(int) 37 => 'C.V. NAGESH',
		(int) 38 => 'SR',
		(int) 39 => 'FILE NO.SAM/KAM',
		(int) 40 => 'NO.524',
		(int) 41 => 'SR',
		(int) 42 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 43 => 'KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF REVENUE REP',
		(int) 44 => 'PRINCIPAL',
		(int) 45 => 'AAG A/W SHRI',
		(int) 46 => 'AGA',
		(int) 47 => 'SR',
		(int) 48 => 'S. RAICHUR & SHRI',
		(int) 49 => 'DATED',
		(int) 50 => 'ETC',
		(int) 51 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 52 => 'Court',
		(int) 53 => 'Original',
		(int) 54 => 'Annexure-N',
		(int) 55 => 'Respondent no.5',
		(int) 56 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 57 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 58 => 'Court',
		(int) 59 => 'i. Issue',
		(int) 60 => 'Aradhana of Shri',
		(int) 61 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 62 => 'District Kalaburagi',
		(int) 63 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 64 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 65 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 66 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 67 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 68 => 'O.S. No.65/1/59-60',
		(int) 69 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 70 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 71 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 72 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 73 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 74 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 75 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 76 => 'Court',
		(int) 77 => 'Court',
		(int) 78 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
		(int) 79 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 80 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 81 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 82 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde in Sy',
		(int) 83 => 'Gangavathi Taluk',
		(int) 84 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 85 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 86 => 'the State of Karnataka -respondent No.1',
		(int) 87 => 'Tahsildar',
		(int) 88 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 89 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 90 => 'RSA No.100446/2015',
		(int) 91 => 'W.P. No.111125/2014',
		(int) 92 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 93 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 94 => 'the Raja of Anegundi',
		(int) 95 => 'Shri Jaya Theetharu',
		(int) 96 => 'Court',
		(int) 97 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 98 => 'Shri Jaya Theetharu',
		(int) 99 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 100 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 101 => 'W.P. No.102614/2022',
		(int) 102 => 'Court',
		(int) 103 => 'Court',
		(int) 104 => 'Court',
		(int) 105 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 106 => 'Brindavanas',
		(int) 107 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 108 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 109 => 'Court',
		(int) 110 => 'Court',
		(int) 111 => 'Court',
		(int) 112 => 'Court',
		(int) 113 => 'Court',
		(int) 114 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 115 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 116 => 'Asst',
		(int) 117 => 'Asst',
		(int) 118 => 'Court',
		(int) 119 => 'Court',
		(int) 120 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
		(int) 121 => 'Kom/Devasthana/2023-24',
		(int) 122 => 'Court',
		(int) 123 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 124 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 125 => 'Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 126 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
		(int) 127 => 'Court',
		(int) 128 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 129 => 'Court',
		(int) 130 => 'Court',
		(int) 131 => 'Court',
		(int) 132 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 133 => 'Shraddha',
		(int) 134 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 135 => 'Court',
		(int) 136 => 'Writ Petition No.103982/2023',
		(int) 137 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
		(int) 138 => 'Anegundi, Taluka-',
		(int) 139 => 'District-Koppal',
		(int) 140 => 'Shree Raghavendraswamy Mutt',
		(int) 141 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
		(int) 142 => 'Anegundi, Taluka-',
		(int) 143 => 'District-Koppal',
		(int) 144 => 'Court',
		(int) 145 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 146 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
		(int) 147 => 'the RSA Court',
		(int) 148 => 'Court',
		(int) 149 => 'RSA',
		(int) 150 => 'Court',
		(int) 151 => 'W.A. Nos.100390/2023',
		(int) 152 => 'WA No.100390/2023',
		(int) 153 => 'W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023',
		(int) 154 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 155 => 'I.A. No.5/2023. v) Liberty',
		(int) 156 => 'the Writ Petition',
		(int) 157 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 158 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 159 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 160 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 161 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 162 => 'the Civil Court',
		(int) 163 => 'JMFC',
		(int) 164 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 165 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 166 => 'believed.-',
		(int) 167 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 168 => 'JMFC',
		(int) 169 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 170 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 171 => 'Shri Madhwacharyaru',
		(int) 172 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 173 => 'Smt',
		(int) 174 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 175 => 'the Petitioner-Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 176 => 'WP No.103982/2023',
		(int) 177 => 'Court',
		(int) 178 => 'the Aradhana of Shri',
		(int) 179 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 180 => 'W.P. No.102614/2022',
		(int) 181 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 182 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
		(int) 183 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
		(int) 184 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 185 => 'Kom/Devasthana/2023-24',
		(int) 186 => 'Court',
		(int) 187 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 188 => 'Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 189 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
		(int) 190 => 'Court',
		(int) 191 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 192 => 'Court',
		(int) 193 => 'Court',
		(int) 194 => 'Court',
		(int) 195 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 196 => 'Shraddha',
		(int) 197 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 198 => 'Division Bench',
		(int) 199 => 'WA No.100390/2023',
		(int) 200 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 201 => 'W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023',
		(int) 202 => 'I.A. No.5/2023',
		(int) 203 => 'the Writ Petition',
		(int) 204 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 205 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 206 => 'AiÀÄ',
		(int) 207 => 'cid:5)ಾಲುD',
		(int) 208 => 'cid:5)ಾಲುD',
		(int) 209 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 210 => 'ಈ ಸ;ಳವX5cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
		(int) 211 => 'ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
		(int) 212 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 213 => 'O.S. No.65/1/59-60',
		(int) 214 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 215 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 216 => 'Munsiff',
		(int) 217 => 'Gangavathi',
		(int) 218 => 'the Court of Munciff at',
		(int) 219 => 'H.H. Suyanendra Tirtharu &',
		(int) 220 => 'CPC',
		(int) 221 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 222 => 'Brindavanas of Shri Vyasaraya Mutt',
		(int) 223 => 'Vyasarayaru',
		(int) 224 => 'Govinda Tirtharu',
		(int) 225 => 'Padmanabha Tirtharu',
		(int) 226 => 'Ravindra Tirtharu',
		(int) 227 => 'the Holy Brindavans',
		(int) 228 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 229 => 'H.H. Satya Dhanaru',
		(int) 230 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 231 => 'W/s',
		(int) 232 => 'Srinivasa',
		(int) 233 => 'Govinda',
		(int) 234 => 'Govinda Wodeyaru',
		(int) 235 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 236 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 237 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 238 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri',
		(int) 239 => 'Srinivasa',
		(int) 240 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 241 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 242 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 243 => 'Teertharu',
		(int) 244 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 245 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 246 => 'W.P. No.102614/2022',
		(int) 247 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
		(int) 248 => 'finality.-',
		(int) 249 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 250 => 'Madhva',
		(int) 251 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 252 => 'Madhva',
		(int) 253 => 'Kalaburagi',
		(int) 254 => 'State',
		(int) 255 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 256 => 'the National Award',
		(int) 257 => 'State',
		(int) 258 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 259 => 'State',
		(int) 260 => 'State',
		(int) 261 => 'State',
		(int) 262 => 'S.Rangaraj',
		(int) 263 => 'Nava - 52 - NC:2024',
		(int) 264 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 265 => 'Kalaburagi',
		(int) 266 => 'Madhva',
		(int) 267 => 'State',
		(int) 268 => 'the Mysore Gazetteer',
		(int) 269 => 'Bombay Gazetteer',
		(int) 270 => 'Karnataka Tourism Dept',
		(int) 271 => 'Gazetteers',
		(int) 272 => 'Peetadhipathi of Shri',
		(int) 273 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 274 => 'Kalaburagi',
		(int) 275 => 'Surjanarayan Das',
		(int) 276 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 277 => 'ABL International Ltd.',
		(int) 278 => 'Export Credit Guarantee Corpn',
		(int) 279 => 'India Ltd.3',
		(int) 280 => 'Court',
		(int) 281 => 'Court',
		(int) 282 => 'State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd.',
		(int) 283 => 'Court',
		(int) 284 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 285 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 286 => 'Court',
		(int) 287 => 'Court',
		(int) 288 => 'The High Court',
		(int) 289 => 'State',
		(int) 290 => 'The High Court',
		(int) 291 => 'The High Court',
		(int) 292 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 293 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 294 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 295 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 296 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 297 => 'The High Court',
		(int) 298 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 299 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 300 => 'Court',
		(int) 301 => 'Mfg. Co. Ltd.',
		(int) 302 => 'Ulhasnagar Municipal Council',
		(int) 303 => 'Court',
		(int) 304 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 305 => 'Court',
		(int) 306 => 'Court',
		(int) 307 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 308 => 'SCC769 this Court',
		(int) 309 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 310 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 311 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 312 => 'M.B.) & Collector4',
		(int) 313 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 314 => 'Civil Court',
		(int) 315 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 316 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 317 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 318 => 'Court',
		(int) 319 => 'Court',
		(int) 320 => 'Sales Tax Officer',
		(int) 321 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 322 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 323 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 324 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 325 => 'Nirupa',
		(int) 326 => 'Peetadhipathi',
		(int) 327 => 'Peetadhipathi',
		(int) 328 => 'Peetadhipati',
		(int) 329 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 330 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 331 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 332 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 333 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 334 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 335 => 'the Peetadhipathi of Shri',
		(int) 336 => 'Peetadhipathi',
		(int) 337 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 338 => 'the Karnataka Toursim Gazetteer',
		(int) 339 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 340 => 'Kalaburagi',
		(int) 341 => 'The Bombay Gazetteer',
		(int) 342 => 'The Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer',
		(int) 343 => 'the Gazetteer of India',
		(int) 344 => 'Karnataka State Gazetteer, Government of Karnataka',
		(int) 345 => 'Kalaburagi',
		(int) 346 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 347 => 'Malkhed,',
		(int) 348 => 'Kalaburagi',
		(int) 349 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 350 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 351 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 352 => 'Court',
		(int) 353 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 354 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 355 => 'Sodi Mutt, Udupi',
		(int) 356 => 'Nava brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 357 => 'History of Dvaita School of Vedanta',
		(int) 358 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 359 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 360 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 361 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 362 => 'Teertharu',
		(int) 363 => 'Teertharu',
		(int) 364 => 'Peetadhipathi of Shri',
		(int) 365 => 'Nava brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 366 => 'a Civil Court',
		(int) 367 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 368 => 'RSA No.100446/2015',
		(int) 369 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 370 => 'State of T.N.',
		(int) 371 => 'T.N.',
		(int) 372 => 'State of T.N.',
		(int) 373 => 'S.P. Mittal v. Union of India',
		(int) 374 => 'Church',
		(int) 375 => 'Church',
		(int) 376 => 'Mittal',
		(int) 377 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 378 => 'Church',
		(int) 379 => 'Explanation',
		(int) 380 => 'Digambari',
		(int) 381 => 'Jain',
		(int) 382 => 'Chakshus',
		(int) 383 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 384 => 'The Catholicate of the East',
		(int) 385 => 'Malankara Association',
		(int) 386 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 387 => 'the Appellate Court of',
		(int) 388 => 'the Royal Court',
		(int) 389 => 'Court',
		(int) 390 => 'the Syrian Orthodox Church',
		(int) 391 => 'Churches',
		(int) 392 => 'Catholicate at Malankara',
		(int) 393 => 'Evangelistic Association',
		(int) 394 => 'the Malankara Association',
		(int) 395 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 396 => 'Court',
		(int) 397 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 398 => 'the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act',
		(int) 399 => 'Satyadeo Prasad -v- Smt',
		(int) 400 => 'AIR1996PATNA110-',
		(int) 401 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 402 => 'Hardeo',
		(int) 403 => 'Ext.-',
		(int) 404 => 'C/W WP No.103994 of',
		(int) 405 => 'Kamta Prasad',
		(int) 406 => 'Hardeo',
		(int) 407 => 'Kamta',
		(int) 408 => 'Hardeo and Jagarnath',
		(int) 409 => 'Hardeo',
		(int) 410 => 'Navadagi',
		(int) 411 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 412 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 413 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 414 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 415 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 416 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 417 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 418 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 419 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 420 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde, Shri',
		(int) 421 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 422 => 'the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC',
		(int) 423 => 'Gangavathi',
		(int) 424 => 'Vyasaraja Mutt',
		(int) 425 => 'Reliefs',
		(int) 426 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 427 => 'Declare',
		(int) 428 => 'the Moola Brindavana of Sri',
		(int) 429 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi Anegundi Village',
		(int) 430 => 'Gangavathi Taluk',
		(int) 431 => 'Nava Brundavana Gaddi',
		(int) 432 => 'Gangavathi Taluk',
		(int) 433 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 434 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 435 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 436 => 'Court',
		(int) 437 => 'C/W WP No.103994'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2',
		(int) 1 => '6',
		(int) 2 => '7',
		(int) 3 => '12TH',
		(int) 4 => '12TH',
		(int) 5 => '1',
		(int) 6 => '11.RAM',
		(int) 7 => '12.VASUKI',
		(int) 8 => '13.RAGHUNTH',
		(int) 9 => '9TH',
		(int) 10 => '14.AMEETH',
		(int) 11 => '5TH',
		(int) 12 => '15.PRABHANJAN',
		(int) 13 => '1ST',
		(int) 14 => '1ST',
		(int) 15 => '51',
		(int) 16 => '5TH',
		(int) 17 => '5',
		(int) 18 => '2',
		(int) 19 => 'R4',
		(int) 20 => '24',
		(int) 21 => '27-06-2023',
		(int) 22 => '6',
		(int) 23 => 'No.4',
		(int) 24 => '27.06.2023',
		(int) 25 => '04.07.2023 to 10.07.2023',
		(int) 26 => 'No.4',
		(int) 27 => '1 to 4',
		(int) 28 => 'Mag:101:2023-24',
		(int) 29 => '27.06.2023',
		(int) 30 => '3',
		(int) 31 => '1.',
		(int) 32 => '3.2',
		(int) 33 => 'an - 8',
		(int) 34 => 'one',
		(int) 35 => '3.3',
		(int) 36 => '3.4',
		(int) 37 => '9',
		(int) 38 => '3.5',
		(int) 39 => '3.6',
		(int) 40 => '10',
		(int) 41 => '3.7',
		(int) 42 => '1/3rd',
		(int) 43 => '2/3rd',
		(int) 44 => '11',
		(int) 45 => '3.8',
		(int) 46 => '3.9',
		(int) 47 => '12',
		(int) 48 => '3.10',
		(int) 49 => '5.06.2023',
		(int) 50 => '227',
		(int) 51 => '2023',
		(int) 52 => '3.11',
		(int) 53 => '3.12',
		(int) 54 => '14',
		(int) 55 => '10.07.2023',
		(int) 56 => '3.13',
		(int) 57 => 'No.4',
		(int) 58 => '27.06.2023',
		(int) 59 => '1.',
		(int) 60 => 'No.3',
		(int) 61 => 'No.4',
		(int) 62 => '4.2',
		(int) 63 => '15',
		(int) 64 => '2023',
		(int) 65 => '4.3',
		(int) 66 => 'nine',
		(int) 67 => '16',
		(int) 68 => 'one',
		(int) 69 => '7',
		(int) 70 => '4.4',
		(int) 71 => 'three',
		(int) 72 => 'one',
		(int) 73 => '24.06.2024',
		(int) 74 => '17',
		(int) 75 => '4.6',
		(int) 76 => '26',
		(int) 77 => '18',
		(int) 78 => 'No.2',
		(int) 79 => '4:5',
		(int) 80 => '1',
		(int) 81 => 'No.2 to',
		(int) 82 => '4',
		(int) 83 => '15.07.2022',
		(int) 84 => '9',
		(int) 85 => 'two',
		(int) 86 => '19',
		(int) 87 => '2023',
		(int) 88 => 'only three',
		(int) 89 => 'three',
		(int) 90 => '227',
		(int) 91 => '20',
		(int) 92 => '30.05.2023',
		(int) 93 => '30.05.2023',
		(int) 94 => '30.05.2023',
		(int) 95 => '30.05.2023',
		(int) 96 => 'No.3',
		(int) 97 => 'No.3',
		(int) 98 => '21',
		(int) 99 => 'several thousands',
		(int) 100 => '5.3',
		(int) 101 => '27.06.2023',
		(int) 102 => '22',
		(int) 103 => '27.06.2023',
		(int) 104 => '2023',
		(int) 105 => '5.4',
		(int) 106 => '31.08.2023',
		(int) 107 => '31.08.2023',
		(int) 108 => '24',
		(int) 109 => '2023',
		(int) 110 => '25',
		(int) 111 => '4',
		(int) 112 => '26',
		(int) 113 => '8',
		(int) 114 => '6 to 15',
		(int) 115 => '6 to 15',
		(int) 116 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 117 => '9.1',
		(int) 118 => '27',
		(int) 119 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 120 => '9.3',
		(int) 121 => '9.4',
		(int) 122 => '28',
		(int) 123 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 124 => '9.6',
		(int) 125 => '6 to 15',
		(int) 126 => '9.7',
		(int) 127 => 'No.1',
		(int) 128 => '6',
		(int) 129 => 'No.8 to 10',
		(int) 130 => 'nine',
		(int) 131 => '2',
		(int) 132 => '3',
		(int) 133 => '4',
		(int) 134 => '5',
		(int) 135 => '29',
		(int) 136 => '7',
		(int) 137 => '8',
		(int) 138 => '9',
		(int) 139 => '9.8',
		(int) 140 => '9.9',
		(int) 141 => '30',
		(int) 142 => '31',
		(int) 143 => '10.1',
		(int) 144 => '10.2',
		(int) 145 => 'only one',
		(int) 146 => '32',
		(int) 147 => '5.7.2023',
		(int) 148 => '10.3',
		(int) 149 => '10.4',
		(int) 150 => '15.07.2022',
		(int) 151 => '30.05.2023',
		(int) 152 => 'No.3',
		(int) 153 => 'No.3',
		(int) 154 => 'several thousands',
		(int) 155 => '34',
		(int) 156 => '10.5',
		(int) 157 => '10.6',
		(int) 158 => '10.7',
		(int) 159 => '31.08.2023',
		(int) 160 => '35',
		(int) 161 => '10.8',
		(int) 162 => '36',
		(int) 163 => '10.9',
		(int) 164 => '12.03.1959',
		(int) 165 => '192',
		(int) 166 => 'ಸಂ',
		(int) 167 => '1',
		(int) 168 => '2',
		(int) 169 => '3',
		(int) 170 => '3ಂ(cid:10)Hಂದಲೂ 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
		(int) 171 => '37',
		(int) 172 => '3',
		(int) 173 => '5(cid:16)ೕ',
		(int) 174 => '2ೆಸU(cid:12)ೆ',
		(int) 175 => '192',
		(int) 176 => '17-00',
		(int) 177 => '10.10',
		(int) 178 => '10.11',
		(int) 179 => 'No.2',
		(int) 180 => 'No.3',
		(int) 181 => '4',
		(int) 182 => '7',
		(int) 183 => '39',
		(int) 184 => '2',
		(int) 185 => '10.12',
		(int) 186 => '10.13',
		(int) 187 => '1',
		(int) 188 => '2',
		(int) 189 => '9',
		(int) 190 => '40',
		(int) 191 => 'nine',
		(int) 192 => 'five',
		(int) 193 => '2',
		(int) 194 => 'three',
		(int) 195 => '1',
		(int) 196 => '2',
		(int) 197 => '1',
		(int) 198 => '2',
		(int) 199 => 'No.4',
		(int) 200 => '41',
		(int) 201 => '1',
		(int) 202 => '2',
		(int) 203 => '8',
		(int) 204 => '1',
		(int) 205 => '2',
		(int) 206 => '9',
		(int) 207 => '1',
		(int) 208 => '2',
		(int) 209 => '42',
		(int) 210 => '1',
		(int) 211 => '2.1',
		(int) 212 => '11.60',
		(int) 213 => '10.14',
		(int) 214 => 'nine',
		(int) 215 => '43',
		(int) 216 => '2023',
		(int) 217 => '10.15',
		(int) 218 => 'three',
		(int) 219 => 'three',
		(int) 220 => 'nine',
		(int) 221 => '11',
		(int) 222 => '12',
		(int) 223 => '13',
		(int) 224 => '14',
		(int) 225 => '15',
		(int) 226 => '17',
		(int) 227 => '18',
		(int) 228 => '44',
		(int) 229 => 'three',
		(int) 230 => '10.17',
		(int) 231 => '45',
		(int) 232 => '10.19',
		(int) 233 => '10.20',
		(int) 234 => '10.21',
		(int) 235 => '46',
		(int) 236 => 'one',
		(int) 237 => '10.22',
		(int) 238 => '10.23',
		(int) 239 => '47',
		(int) 240 => '10.24',
		(int) 241 => '48',
		(int) 242 => '10.26',
		(int) 243 => '49',
		(int) 244 => '50',
		(int) 245 => '10.29',
		(int) 246 => '51',
		(int) 247 => '51',
		(int) 248 => '2023',
		(int) 249 => '10.30',
		(int) 250 => '10.31',
		(int) 251 => '10.32',
		(int) 252 => '10.33',
		(int) 253 => '10.34',
		(int) 254 => '35',
		(int) 255 => '25',
		(int) 256 => '10.36',
		(int) 257 => '54',
		(int) 258 => '10.37',
		(int) 259 => '15 to 19',
		(int) 260 => '1 SCC216',
		(int) 261 => '218',
		(int) 262 => '7',
		(int) 263 => '3',
		(int) 264 => '55',
		(int) 265 => '3',
		(int) 266 => '774',
		(int) 267 => '14',
		(int) 268 => '14',
		(int) 269 => '56',
		(int) 270 => '2023',
		(int) 271 => '57',
		(int) 272 => '3',
		(int) 273 => '1',
		(int) 274 => '587',
		(int) 275 => '58',
		(int) 276 => '3',
		(int) 277 => '10.38',
		(int) 278 => '59',
		(int) 279 => '60',
		(int) 280 => '10',
		(int) 281 => '61',
		(int) 282 => '214',
		(int) 283 => '10.40',
		(int) 284 => '62',
		(int) 285 => '10.41',
		(int) 286 => '63',
		(int) 287 => '64',
		(int) 288 => '10.44',
		(int) 289 => '65',
		(int) 290 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 291 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 292 => '66',
		(int) 293 => '10.46',
		(int) 294 => '10.47',
		(int) 295 => '67',
		(int) 296 => '2023',
		(int) 297 => '2023',
		(int) 298 => 'two',
		(int) 299 => '11.1',
		(int) 300 => '69',
		(int) 301 => '11.2.',
		(int) 302 => '11.3',
		(int) 303 => 'one',
		(int) 304 => '70',
		(int) 305 => '11.5',
		(int) 306 => '11.6',
		(int) 307 => '11.7',
		(int) 308 => '71',
		(int) 309 => '11.8',
		(int) 310 => '11.9',
		(int) 311 => 'another - 72',
		(int) 312 => '11.10',
		(int) 313 => '11',
		(int) 314 => '37',
		(int) 315 => '89',
		(int) 316 => 'one',
		(int) 317 => '5',
		(int) 318 => '4',
		(int) 319 => '73',
		(int) 320 => '2',
		(int) 321 => '1',
		(int) 322 => '147',
		(int) 323 => '1',
		(int) 324 => '1',
		(int) 325 => '74',
		(int) 326 => '3',
		(int) 327 => '2',
		(int) 328 => '75',
		(int) 329 => 'are:1',
		(int) 330 => '26',
		(int) 331 => '76',
		(int) 332 => 'two',
		(int) 333 => '1934 Constitution',
		(int) 334 => '11.12',
		(int) 335 => '11.13',
		(int) 336 => '6',
		(int) 337 => 'one',
		(int) 338 => '78',
		(int) 339 => '2023',
		(int) 340 => '11.14',
		(int) 341 => '110',
		(int) 342 => '31',
		(int) 343 => 'two',
		(int) 344 => '79',
		(int) 345 => '2023',
		(int) 346 => '405',
		(int) 347 => '446',
		(int) 348 => 'No.2',
		(int) 349 => '80',
		(int) 350 => '11.15',
		(int) 351 => '11.16',
		(int) 352 => '81',
		(int) 353 => '2023',
		(int) 354 => '11.17',
		(int) 355 => '5.06.1985',
		(int) 356 => '82',
		(int) 357 => '11.18',
		(int) 358 => '83',
		(int) 359 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 360 => '12.1',
		(int) 361 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 362 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 363 => '84',
		(int) 364 => 'one',
		(int) 365 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 366 => '12.4',
		(int) 367 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 368 => '85',
		(int) 369 => '12.5',
		(int) 370 => '86',
		(int) 371 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 372 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 373 => '12.6',
		(int) 374 => '87',
		(int) 375 => '12.7',
		(int) 376 => '5',
		(int) 377 => '5.1',
		(int) 378 => '5.2',
		(int) 379 => '5.3',
		(int) 380 => '6',
		(int) 381 => '5.1',
		(int) 382 => '5.2'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '60',
		(int) 1 => '1/138A',
		(int) 2 => '3RD STAGE',
		(int) 3 => '5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
		(int) 4 => '5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'ST',
		(int) 1 => 'TQ.GANGAVATI',
		(int) 2 => 'J.M.',
		(int) 3 => 'W.P.No.103982/2023',
		(int) 4 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 5 => 'Ashtottara',
		(int) 6 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 7 => 'W.P.No.103994/2023',
		(int) 8 => 'Sedam',
		(int) 9 => 'Anegundi village',
		(int) 10 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 11 => 'Anegundi village',
		(int) 12 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 13 => 'India',
		(int) 14 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 15 => 'Aradhanas',
		(int) 16 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 17 => 'Cr',
		(int) 18 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 19 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 20 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 21 => 'No.103994/2023',
		(int) 22 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 23 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 24 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 25 => 'Ashtottara',
		(int) 26 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 27 => 'O.S.',
		(int) 28 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 29 => 'O.S.',
		(int) 30 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 31 => 'Cr',
		(int) 32 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 33 => 'W.A. No.100390/2023',
		(int) 34 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 35 => 'ಾಡುKಾ1&ೆ',
		(int) 36 => 'ಇ(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:31)ೆ3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ',
		(int) 37 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 38 => 'Anegundi village',
		(int) 39 => 'Pujas',
		(int) 40 => 'Aradhanas',
		(int) 41 => 'Holiness',
		(int) 42 => 'Holiness',
		(int) 43 => 'Kannada',
		(int) 44 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 45 => 'Anegundi village',
		(int) 46 => 'Malkhed',
		(int) 47 => 'Gulbarga',
		(int) 48 => 'Gazetteer',
		(int) 49 => 'India',
		(int) 50 => 'Karnataka State',
		(int) 51 => 'Karnataka',
		(int) 52 => 'O.S.',
		(int) 53 => 'Nava Brindavana - 53 - NC:2024',
		(int) 54 => 'Municipality',
		(int) 55 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 56 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 57 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 58 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 59 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 60 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 61 => 'Madhwa',
		(int) 62 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 63 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 64 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 65 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 66 => 'Shri.-',
		(int) 67 => 'Gulbarga Region',
		(int) 68 => 'Karnataka',
		(int) 69 => 'Gulbarga Region',
		(int) 70 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 71 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 72 => 'W.P.No.103982/2023',
		(int) 73 => 'Karnataka',
		(int) 74 => 'O.S.',
		(int) 75 => 'Ugamsingh',
		(int) 76 => 'Paroli',
		(int) 77 => 'Kalash',
		(int) 78 => 'worship.89',
		(int) 79 => 'India',
		(int) 80 => 'Act.3',
		(int) 81 => 'Malankara',
		(int) 82 => 'the Patriarch of Antioch',
		(int) 83 => 'Simhasana',
		(int) 84 => 'St. Mary',
		(int) 85 => 'Ramanand',
		(int) 86 => 'Ramanand',
		(int) 87 => 'Peetadhipati',
		(int) 88 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 89 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 90 => 'O.S.',
		(int) 91 => 'Karnataka'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'BANGALORE-560085',
		(int) 1 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
		(int) 2 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 3 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
		(int) 4 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 5 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 6 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 7 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 8 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 9 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 10 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 11 => 'Tungabhadra',
		(int) 12 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 13 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 14 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
		(int) 15 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 16 => 'Kaveendra Teertharu',
		(int) 17 => 'Malkhed',
		(int) 18 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 19 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 20 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 21 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 22 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
		(int) 23 => 'Holy Brindavans',
		(int) 24 => 'Nasim',
		(int) 25 => 'Nasim',
		(int) 26 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 27 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 28 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 29 => 'Shri Raghuvaryaya',
		(int) 30 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 31 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 32 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 33 => 'Swetamberi',
		(int) 34 => 'Catholicos',
		(int) 35 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 36 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'ISLAND',
		(int) 1 => 'Tungabhadra river',
		(int) 2 => 'W.P. No.103994/2023',
		(int) 3 => 'Shri Jaya Theertharu',
		(int) 4 => 'Single',
		(int) 5 => 'Single',
		(int) 6 => 'Single',
		(int) 7 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
		(int) 8 => 'Shri Jaya',
		(int) 9 => 'Shri Jaya',
		(int) 10 => 'Single',
		(int) 11 => 'Single',
		(int) 12 => 'Shri',
		(int) 13 => 'Malkhed',
		(int) 14 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
		(int) 15 => 'Malkhed',
		(int) 16 => 'Sanskrit',
		(int) 17 => 'Single',
		(int) 18 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
		(int) 19 => 'the Brindavana of Sri',
		(int) 20 => 'the Brindavana of Sri Jaya Teertharu'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Shri',
		(int) 1 => 'Shri',
		(int) 2 => 'Shri',
		(int) 3 => 'Shri Madhvacharya',
		(int) 4 => 'Articles 25',
		(int) 5 => 'Brindavanas',
		(int) 6 => 'Brindavanas',
		(int) 7 => 'Shri Madhwacharya',
		(int) 8 => 'Bench',
		(int) 9 => 'Vageesha Teertharu',
		(int) 10 => 'Shri Jaya',
		(int) 11 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 12 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 13 => 'Shri',
		(int) 14 => 'Shri Madhwacharya',
		(int) 15 => '1 ಮ2ಾಮ3ಮರ',
		(int) 16 => 'F',
		(int) 17 => 'Shri',
		(int) 18 => 'No.1 being Shri',
		(int) 19 => 'No.1',
		(int) 20 => 'Vageesha',
		(int) 21 => 'Shri',
		(int) 22 => 'Judgment',
		(int) 23 => 'Shri',
		(int) 24 => 'Shri',
		(int) 25 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
		(int) 26 => 'Shri',
		(int) 27 => 'M.P. Cases',
		(int) 28 => 'Shri',
		(int) 29 => 'Shri',
		(int) 30 => 'No.5-Shri',
		(int) 31 => 'Shri',
		(int) 32 => 'Shri',
		(int) 33 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 34 => 'Metropolitan',
		(int) 35 => 'Articles 25',
		(int) 36 => 'P.W. 24',
		(int) 37 => 'Shri',
		(int) 38 => 'Shri',
		(int) 39 => 'The Single Bench'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Holy Moola Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 1 => 'the Brindavana of Sri',
		(int) 2 => 'the Navabrindavan Gadde',
		(int) 3 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 4 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 5 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 6 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 7 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 8 => 'Koppal District',
		(int) 9 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 10 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 11 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 12 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 13 => 'the Nava Brindavan Gadde',
		(int) 14 => 'the Nava Brindavan Gadde',
		(int) 15 => 'the Nava Brindavan Gadde',
		(int) 16 => 'the Navabrindavana Gaddi',
		(int) 17 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde.',
		(int) 18 => 'the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 19 => 'the Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 20 => 'the Single Bench',
		(int) 21 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 22 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 23 => 'Sinappa Achar',
		(int) 24 => 'the Navabrindavana Gaddi',
		(int) 25 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde.',
		(int) 26 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 27 => 'Munsiff',
		(int) 28 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 29 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 30 => 'the Moola Brindavana of Shri Vyasaraja Matt, Shri',
		(int) 31 => 'the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu',
		(int) 32 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 33 => 'Nava Brindavana',
		(int) 34 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 35 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 36 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 37 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 38 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 39 => 'Nava Brindavana',
		(int) 40 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 41 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 42 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadi',
		(int) 43 => 'SCC831',
		(int) 44 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 45 => 'Koppal District',
		(int) 46 => 'Koppal District'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'second',
		(int) 1 => 'seventh',
		(int) 2 => 'seventh',
		(int) 3 => 'first',
		(int) 4 => 'first',
		(int) 5 => 'third',
		(int) 6 => '1st'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu',
		(int) 1 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 2 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 3 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy',
		(int) 4 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 5 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 6 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 7 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 8 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 9 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 10 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 11 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 12 => 'Shri Jayateertharu',
		(int) 13 => 'Teertharu or Shri Jayateertharu',
		(int) 14 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 15 => 'Shri Jayateertharu',
		(int) 16 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 17 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 18 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 19 => 'Shri Jayateertharu',
		(int) 20 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt and',
		(int) 21 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 22 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 23 => 'The Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 24 => 'The Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 25 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 26 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 27 => 'The Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 28 => 'another Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 29 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 30 => 'The Hudaya Canon',
		(int) 31 => 'Nirupa',
		(int) 32 => 'Peetadhipati',
		(int) 33 => 'the Poojas of Shri'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '14 acres',
		(int) 1 => '5(cid:16)ೕ ಮ6ಾ78ಾಯ(cid:27)ರ ಮುಖ(cid:20',
		(int) 2 => '4. ಸುBೕಂದ(cid:16',
		(int) 3 => '14 acres'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Peetadhipati of Shri'
	),
	'LANGUAGE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'English'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1232793',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'WP 103982/2023',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt Vs. The State Of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => null,
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Karnataka Dharwad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2024-06-05',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'SURAJ GOVINDARAJ',
		'judgement' => '<p>- 1 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, R DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE5H DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION No.103982 OF2023(GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.103994 OF2023(GM-RES) IN W.P.NO.103982/2023 BETWEEN SHRI UTTARADI MUTT RPRESENTED BY ITS HOLY PONTIFF SHRI SHRI1008SHRI SATYATMA TIRTHA SWAMIJI THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER R/O SHRI UTTARADI MUTT BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU56002 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. SATISH S RAICHUR & SHRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI., ADVOCATES) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU56000 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DISTRICT KOPPAL3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - 2 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 KOPPAL, DISTRICT KOPPAL4 THE TAHASILDAR ANEGUNDI TALUKA GANGAVATHI DISTRICT KOPPAL5 SHRI NANJANGUDA RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT THROUGH ITS PONTIFF MANTRALAYHA KURNOOL DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH STATE -5 6. GOPAL KRISHNA S/O DR. H.K. RAM RAO AGED ABOUT55YEARS R/O11-110, WARD NO.1 PAMPANAGAR, GANGAVATI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583227 7. VENKATESH G.N. S/O NAGARAJ ACHAR G. AGED ABOUT53YEARS, R/O #60, 12TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN ROAD BEHIND RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT, SRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE SOUTH KARNATAKA-560050.</p><p>8. KISHAN RAO S/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO AGED ABOUT64YEARS R/O #1/138A, GHORKAL MANVI TQ. RAICHUR DIST-584203.</p><p>9. K MARUTHI GURUPRASAD S/O K. BHEEMASENA RAO AGED ABOUT50YEARS R/O FLAT102 SHIVA PRADISE, 1 APARTMENT, MUNISWAMY LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE, BEHIND SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION BANGALORE SOUTH, KARNATAKA-560061 - 3 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.D. NARASINGA RAO S/O D. KISHAN RAO AGED ABOUT64YEARS R/O ANUGRAHA NILAYA JAYANAGAR, 3RD STAGE NEAR ST. PAULS SCHOOL GANGAVATI-583227. 11.RAM KUMAR AGED ABOUT49YEARS S/O N. SUBRAMANYAM977A/9 13TH MAIN8H CROSS, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560050. 12.VASUKI PRASANNA DESAI W/O PRASANNA DESAI AGED ABOUT48YEARS R/O MR26NEXT SHANTINIKETAN SCHOOL BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560056. 13.RAGHUNTH BADRINATH SOSALE S/O BADRINATH S.P. AGED ABOUT55YEARS No.41, 9TH CROSS, KENDRIYA NAGAR BSK6H STAGE, SOMAPURA EXIT HOSAHALLI, THALAGHATTAPURA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560062. 14.AMEETH BHARADWAJ S/O SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT35YEARS No.1077, 5TH MAIN, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560050. 15.PRABHANJAN MUTTAGI S/O M.L. NARAYANACHAR AGED ABOUT47YEARS, R/O No.12 PAYONIDHI, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, MANJUNATH NAGAR, ITTAMADU, BANGALORE-560085. (R6 TO R15 ARE AMENDMENT - 4 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 CARRIED OUT AS PER </p>ORDER<p> DATED2102.2024) …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. GANGADHAR J.M. AAG A/W SHRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SHRI. C.V. NAGESH., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. H.R. DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE FOR R6-R15) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE </p>ORDER<p> PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED2706-2023, IN FILE NO.SAM/KAM/MAG.101.2023-24, IN SO FAR AS THE REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY SHRI. UTTARADI MUTT REQUESTING TO DEPUTE SUFFICIENT POLICE PERSONNEL DURING THE CELEBRATION OF SHRI RAGHUVARYA TEERTHARA MAHIMOTSAVA FROM0407- 2023 TO1007-2023 AT THE HOLY MOOLA BRINDAVANA OF SHRI RAGHUVARYA TEERTHA, SITUATED IN THE ISLAND NAMED NAVA BRINDAVANA GADDE, BEARING SY.NO.192 OF ANEGUNDI, TQ.GANGAVATI, DIST.KOPPAL, THE ORIGINAL </p>ORDER<p> BEARING AT ANNEXURE-A, AND ETC ***** IN W.P.NO.103994/2023 BETWEEN SHRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT REPRESENTED BY ITS HOLINESS SHRI SUBUDHENDRA THEERATHARU BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SHRI. R.K. VADEENDRA S/O R.KRISHNACHAR AGE. 51 YEARS SHRI. NANJANGUD RAGHAVENDRA SWAMYMUTT NO.524, 5TH BLOCK , 11TH MAIN45H CROSS, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. ARUN NEELOPANT. .,ADVOCATE) AND - 5 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF REVENUE REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VIDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. TAHSILDAR GANGAVATHI O/F PAMPA NAGAR, KOPPAL SH-130, KANAKAGIRI GANGAVATHI MUNIRABAD ROAD, TQ. GANGAVATHI DIST. KOPPA-583227 3. SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE BT PATIL NAGAR, ASHOK CIRCLE, KOPPAL-583231 4. SHRI. UTTARADI MUTT REP. BY ITS PEETADHIPATHI SHRI. SATYATMATEERTHSWAMIJI UTTARADI MUTT BASVANGUDI, NEAR NATIONAL COLLEGE BANGALORE-560085 …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG A/W SHRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SHRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. SATISH S. RAICHUR & SHRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI., ADVOCATES FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT BY QUASHING THE </p>ORDER<p> BEARING No.KOM.MAG.101.2023- 24 DATED. 27-06-2023 OF SECOND RESPONDENT WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR </p>ORDER<p>S AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR </p>ORDER<p>S ON2703.2024, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 </p>ORDER<p>S1 Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, the petitioner in W.P.No.103982/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs. a. Quash the order passed by the respondent No.4 dated 27.06.2023, in file No.SAM/KAM/MAG:101:2023-24, in so far as the rejection of the application filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt requesting to depute sufficient police personnel during the celebration of Shri. Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava from 04.07.2023 to 10.07.2023 at the Holy Moola Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertha, situated in the island named Nava Brindavana Gadde, bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal, the Original order being at Annexure-A and, b. Consequently, direct the respondent No.4 authority to allow the application filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt dated 08.06.2023, the copy of which is at Annexure-N, and b(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent nos. 1 to 4 to prevent Respondent no.5, including its followers , agents and office bearers and anybody claiming through or under Respondent No.5 from offering prayers or conducting any religious activity in any form including Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the name of Sri. Jayateertharu at the Brindavana of Sri. Raghuvarya Teertharu at the Navabrindavan Gadde situated on the island named ‘NavaBrindavana Gadde’, bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal; and c. Grant any other appropriate order, writ or direction as may be necessary in the facts and - 7 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.</p><p>2. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the petitioner in W.P.No.103994/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs. i. Issue appropriate writ by quashing the order bearing No.Kom.Mag:101:2023-24 dated 27.06.2023 of second respondent which is produced at Annexure-A; ii. Direct Respondent No.1 to 3 to provide police protection during Aradhana of Shri. Jayateertharu which is scheduled to take place on 6th July 2023, 7th July 2023 and 8th July 2023. iii. Grant such other relief’s as is deemed fit.</p><p>3. Facts in W.P.No.103982/2023 filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt:</p><p>3. 1. The Petitioner Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, claims to be the main pontifical Mutt in the lineage of the great saint Shri. Madhvacharya. 3.2. Shri Uttaradi Mutt claims to be the owner of the land in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi being an island situate in Tungabhadra river which is known as Nava Brindavana Gadde (Gadde meaning an - 8 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 island). It is contended that several previous pontiffs’ brindavana is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde, one of them being that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu who was the predecessor/Peetadhipati of Shri Uttaradi Mutt. 3.3. It is contended that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, taluka Sedam, District Kalaburagi which is acknowledged by the general public. It is contended that there is no dispute as regards the said brindavana but now the dispute has been raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as regards the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu by contending that it is not of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu but of Shri Jaya Teertharu. 3.4. Various averments have been made as regards the ownership of the said land which is not relevant for the purpose of this matter since ownership dispute is not being considered in - 9 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the present matter which is part of another proceeding. 3.5. It is contended that there has been an admission on part of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde, there was never any claim made that the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is situate in Nava Brindavana Gadde. Off late Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has been raising disputes and or coming in the way of Shri Uttaradi Mutt performing aradhana and pooja of its gurus which was never in question. 3.6. Historically it is contended that in the year 1959 Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt trying to assert title over the land in Sy.No.192 belonging to Shri Uttaradi Mutt on the basis of more number of brindavanas in the Nava Brindavana Gadde are that of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt.-. 10 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 However, in the very same representation made by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, it is clearly stated that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde which resulted in the said claim being challenged by Shri Uttaradi Mutt in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 which is decreed in favour of Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Reference is made to the written statement filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in said proceedings, as also the evidence led by earlier pontiff in the said proceedings. On that basis, it is contended that there is an admission made on the existence of the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 3.7. In terms of the decree, name of Shri Uttaradi Mutt which was already entered in respect of 1/3rd of the land, the entry made in the name of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in respect of the balance 2/3rd of the land was deleted, - 11 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 therefore recognising the sole ownership of the entire island to be that of Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Insofar as the claim of ownership of the land, there are certain other proceedings which are pending. 3.8. In the present matter what is in question is as regards the admitted facts and it is in that background it is contended that this court ought to come to the rescue of Shri Uttaradi Mutt so as to permit the peaceful celebration of aradhana and pooja of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, as regards which police protection was sought for on account of the disturbance on part of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 3.9. Shri Uttaradi Mutt having performed the aradhana, pooja, etc., of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu for centuries, Shri Uttaradi Mutt made a request to jurisdictional police authorities to provide police protection which - 12 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 came to be rejected by the impugned order. It is in that background that Shri Uttaradi Mutt is before this Court challenging the said order. 3.10. Once earlier this Court vide order dated 5.06.2023 in W.P. No.103449/2023 had permitted such aradhana and pooja to be performed. The Aradhana and poojas being required to be performed on a regular basis, this court ought to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and grant the relief sought for by directing the police to depute requisite number of police personnel at the brindavana so as to protect peace and tranquillity on account of the disturbance sought to be created by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt despite Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt having categorically admitted the existence of brindavana of Shri - 13 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 3.11. The dispute in the present matter relates to the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. The contention of Shri Uttaradi Mutt is that in terms of the accepted facts and history, the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated at Navabrindavana Gadde in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District. 3.12. The said Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu belonging to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, it is for Shri Uttaradi Mutt to carry out necessary ceremonies relating to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at the said brindavana, it is in pursuance thereof Shri Uttaradi Mutt had submitted an application to the concerned authorities to depute sufficient police personnel during the celebration of Shri Raghuvarya Thirtha Mahimotsava from - 14 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 4.07.2023 to 10.07.2023 at the holy moola Brindavan of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. 3.13. The said application came to be rejected by respondent No.4-Tahsildar vide its order dated 27.06.2023, it is challenging the same that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt had approached this Court.</p><p>4. Facts in W.P. No.103994/2023 filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt:</p><p>4. 1. This petition has been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt against the State of Karnataka -respondent No.1, Tahsildar- respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police- respondent No.3 and Shri Uttaradi Mutt- respondent No.4 seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4.2. It is stated that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed an application with the Tahsildar seeking for police protection for performing aradhana of Shri Jaya Theertharu at the - 15 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 brindavana located at Nava Brindavana Gadde on 6th, 7th and 8th July 2023. This application having been rejected, the present petition has been filed. 4.3. It is stated that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is a Moola Maha Samsthana established by Shri Madhvacharya amongst other Mutts established by him. It is contended that the Nava Brindavana Gadde is a tiny island formed in Tungabhadra river in Anegundi village. This is called so since there are nine brindavanas of saints of Shri Madhva Parampara located there. The disputes in respect of certain brindavanas of Shri Padmabha Teertharu, Shri Kavindra Teertharu and Shri Vageesha Teertharu is pending consideration in RSA No.100446/2015. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had also filed W.P. No.111125/2014 as regards the land claimed to be owned by Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Shri Uttaradi Mutt claiming to have purchased the - 16 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 same from one Vakeel Krishna Rao in the year *1916. The sale deed does not mention the total extent. The entire land had been forfeited by Nizams for non-payment of revenue. Shri Uttaradi Mutt made a request to the Raja of Anegundi to regrant 14 acres 7 guntas of land. Accordingly, the same was regranted on the condition that Shri Uttaradi Mutt would not prevent the other Mutts and devotees visiting the Nava Brindavana Gadde and performance of aradhana. 4.4. It is contended that apart from the aforesaid three brindavanas, one other brindavana is of Shri Jaya Teertharu which is wrongly claimed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt to be that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is claimed that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is performing aradhana of Shri Jaya Theetharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde and in this regard certain paper clippings are sought to be placed on *Corrected vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 17 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 record which are relating to the year 1988-89, 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2008-09 and 2009-10. 4.5. It is claimed that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers wanting to perform aradhana of Shri Jaya Theetharu, Shri Uttaradi Mutt with a malicious intent has sought to interfere with the same by falsely claiming that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. 4.6. The application filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt for police protection has been rejected on the ground that there is likelihood of breach of peace which is not permissible. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is entitled under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India to perform the aradhana of its pontiff Shri Jaya Theetharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde which cannot be denied by executive action.-. 18 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 5. OBJECTIONS BY RESPONDENTS No.2 to 4:</p><p>5. 1. Respondents No.2 to 4-State had filed its objections contending that there have been disputes from the year 2022 which have been raised by both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had sought for police protection for conducting aradhana and pooja in the month of July 2022 which came to be rejected by the police authorities, as regards which W.P. No.102614/2022 came to be filed which came to be disposed of on 15.07.2022 with the following observations: “9. Having heard the learned senior counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there is nothing on record which would show that earlier such Aradhana of Sri Jaya Theertharu was conducted or permitted to be conducted by the petitioner-Mutt at the Nava Brindavan Gadde. When it is an admitted fact that a dispute in respect of the Brindavanas are pending consideration at the hands of this Court in R.S.A. No.100446/2015 and several interim orders are passed by this Court to ensure that some arrangement is made permitting the two Mutts to conduct Aradhanas and more particularly in - 19 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 respect of only three Brindavanas, the petitioner Mutt could not have ventured to take a unilateral decision to conduct Aradhana without permission of this Court in R.S.A. No.100446/2015. The petitioner-Mutt was required to approach this Court by filing appropriate application seeking permission of the Court to conduct Aradhana at the Nava Brindavan Gadde. The question as to whether the dispute in R.S.A. No.100446/2015 is restricted only to three Brindavanas or it spreads across the entire island is something which cannot be gone into by this Court in this writ proceedings.</p><p>10. Moreover, in this writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 what is required to be considered is whether there is any impropriety in the impugned orders enforcing Section 144 in the Nava Brindavan Gadde during the days mentioned therein. The District administration is well within its powers to impose the sanction contained under Section 144 Cr.P.C. to ensure public peace and tranquility. When the authorities have found that conducting of the Ardahana in such a situation has all the potential of disturbing the public peace, the authorities are well within their powers to impose sanction under Section 144 of Cr.P.C.</p><p>11. For the reasons stated above, this Court is convinced that there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly.</p><p>5.2. Since the said petition had been dismissed, Shri Uttaradi Mutt continued to perform aradhana and pooja. In the year 2023 once again Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt made similar - 20 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 application. This time an application was made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt also seeking for police protection. The Asst. Commissioner called for a meeting on 30.05.2023 since no consensus were arrived at, the Asst. Commissioner by order dated 30.05.2023 issued an endorsement that both the Mutts should seek necessary orders from the Court. The said order dated 30.05.2023 came to be challenged before this Court in W.P. No.103449/2023 which came to be disposed of by order dated 5.06.2023 with the following directions: i)The writ petition is allowed in part. ii) Order dated 30.05.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 in File No.Kom/Devasthana/2023-24 is quashed to the extent of directing the petitioner to approach this Court to obtain order to perform the religious rituals. iii) The Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 shall provide suitable protection for maintenance of public peace and tranquility and would be at liberty to impose or pass an order for maintenance of public peace and tranquility including issuance of an order under section 144 of Cr.P.C. to permit the petitioner to conduct the rituals only with - 21 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 regard to conducting of Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, on fifth, sixth and seventh of June, 2023, at the Holy site of Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu in the island of Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy. No.192 of Anegundi. iv) It is however made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter including other issues in dispute other than conducting Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. v) This Court also does not express any opinion with regard to the question of rights of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu or rights of Shri Jayateertharu in the Navabrindavana Gaddi. This aspect would have to be decided in the pending proceedings between the parties to the lis, if any. vi) This Court further observes that in view of the fact that both the parties are claiming lineage of the great saint Shri Madhwacharya and adored by several thousands of people, this Court hopes that both the parties would maintain public peace and tranquility for the religious rituals of Aradhana and Shraddha being conducted in the said Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu of the Nava Brindavana Gadde. vii) All rights of the parties are kept open. 5.3. Subsequently, the Tahsildar made an order on 27.06.2023 stating that it was difficult to permit both the Mutts to perform aradhana and pooja which has been challenged before this court in - 22 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the above writ petitions. This Court vide common order dated 5.07.2023 passed the following order: </p>ORDER<p> (i) The writ petitions are allowed in part with following directions: (ii) The impugned order dated 27.06.2023 passed by the Tahashildar vide Annexure- is quashed. (iii) The petitioners in Writ Petition No.103982/2023 namely Shree Uttaradi Mutt shall be entitled to celebrate Shree Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava from 4th July to 7th July, 2023 (both days inclusive) at the Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Taluka- Gangavati, District-Koppal. (iv) The petitioners No.103994/2023 in Writ Petition namely Shree Raghavendraswamy Mutt shall be entitled to perform Aradhana of Shree Jayateertharu for a period from 8th July to 10th July 2023 (both days inclusive) at the Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Taluka- Gangavati, District-Koppal. (v) The respondent/State shall provide suitable Police assistance and protection for the purpose of maintaining public peace, morality, tranquility and would be at liberty to impose the suitable orders to maintain the public peace and tranquility or discipline încluding issuance of an order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C during the said period mentioned hereinabove. (vi) It is made clear that this Court has not touched upon the merits and demerits of the case, existence or otherwise of either Shree Raghuvarya - 23 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Teertharu or Shri Jayateertharu in Navabrindavana Gaddi which is being agitated before the RSA Court as disputed question of fact and law are involved. (vii) It is also made clear by virtue of this Court granting reliefs to both parties, this order would not in any way create a precedent for the litigations if any arise between the parties as the same will have to be adverted in the RSA proceedings, wherein the larger issue between the parties are pending consideration. (viii) The directions issued to the respondent/State shall be followed in stricto sensu, without any violation and breach. Proper protection shall be given to both parties devotees, followers for the relevant dates mentioned hereinabove, failing which, authorities will face serious repercussion from this Court. 5.4. The said order dated 5.07.2023 having been challenged in W.A. Nos.100390/2023 and 100391/2023, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.2023 has been set-aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. The order dated 31.08.2023 reads as under: </p>ORDER<p> i) Both the writ appeals in WA No.100390/2023 and WA No.100391/2023 are hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed in W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023 is hereby set- aside.-. 24 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 iii) The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant as well as respondent No.5 to produce additional documents in support of their respective claims including additional documents produced by the appellant along with I.A. No.5/2023. v) Liberty is also reserved to the parties to file objections, additional pleadings, counter affidavits etc., in support of their vi) respective claims. The parties are also at liberty to file interlocutory application(s) in the Writ Petition and seek suitable reliefs and also request the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal of the matter. vii) All rival contention between the parties on all aspects of the matter including the several contentions noted above are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.</p><p>5.5. The submission made is that since both the Mutts are seeking for permission to conduct aradhana and pooja on the very same date or same set of dates, it is difficult for the administration to provide necessary protection for the same day or set of dates and as such, the administration will abide by any orders passed by this Court.-. 25 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 6. A co-ordinate bench of this court having partly allowed the Writ Petitions filed by both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt permitting both the Mutts to perform their respective poojas at different dates. The said order was taken on appeal before the Division Bench by Shri Uttaradi Mutt, no appeal having been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the Division Bench had remanded the matter and hence, the petition is taken up for consideration afresh.</p><p>7. Post the remand, Shri Uttaradi Mutt filed an application seeking an amendment, which came to be allowed, and in terms of the amendment petition, the prayer sought is as follows: b1) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent nos.1 to 4 to prevent Respondent No 5, including its followers, agents and office bearers and anybody claiming through or under Respondent No.5 from offering prayers or conducting any religious activity in any form including Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the - 26 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 name of Shri Jayateertharu at the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at the Navabrindavana Gadde situated on the island named ‘NavaBrindavana Gadde”, bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal; 8. Subsequently, respondents Nos. 6 to 15 sought to be impleaded in the present matter. The application was rejected by the Single Bench. An appeal having been filed before the Division Bench, the Division Bench allowed the said application. Hence, an amendment was carried out, bringing on record respondents Nos. 6 to 15, who also filed their statement of objections and addressed their arguments opposing the petition.</p><p>9. Respondents No.6 to 15 have filed their objections contending that, 9.1. The writ petitions have become infructuous since the prayer sought for originally do not survive for consideration and the amended relief at prayer B(i) is not tenable or sustainable; - 27 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 9.2. That relief sought for can only be granted by the Civil Court in a properly instituted suit, respondents No.6 to 15 have filed a suit in O.S. No.35/2024 before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati, who would consider the issue. 9.3. There is a civil dispute between the parties on account of the filing of the suit. There being a dispute as regards the identity of the brindavana, evidence has to be led and adjudication has to be made. They reiterate the contentions of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu and not Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. 9.4. The so-called admission made by previous pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is a rebuttable one. The entire gazetteers have not been produced, hence they cannot be relied upon. There is discrepancy in the date of death of Shri Jaya Teertharu, therefore the contents cannot be believed.-. 28 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 9.5. Any order which is passed in the present proceedings would affect respondents No.6 to 15 who have filed the suit and rights of private parties are required to be adjudicated in a civil proceedings and not a public remedy like a writ petition. 9.6. A suit in O.S. No.35/2024 is filed by Respondents 6 to 15 before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati. 9.7. In the said plaint, it is contended that the plaintiffs No.1 to 6 are the disciples of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, plaintiff No.7 is the disciple of Shri Uttaradi Mutt, plaintiff No.8 to 10 are disciples of Shri Vyasaraya Mutt. They contend that in the Nava Brindavana Gadde there are nine brindavanas as under:</p><p>1. Shri Padmanabha Teertharu (1324) 2. Shri Jaya Teertharu (1388) 3. Shri Kaveendra Teertharu (1398) 4. Shri Vageesha Teertharu (1406) 5. Shri Govinda Odeyar (1534) - 29 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 6. Shri Vysararaj Teertharu (1539) 7. Shri Srinivas Teertharu (1564) 8. Shri Rama Teertharu (1584) 9. Shri Sudheendra Teertharu (1683) 9.8. Based on the above, it is contended that there is no brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and that brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 9.9. It is contended that the dispute as regards the brindavana of Shri Padmanabha Teertharu, Kaveendra Teertharu and Vageesha Teertharu in a separate proceeding. They deny that Shri Uttaradi Mutt is carrying on uninterrupted parampara of Shri Madhwacharyaru. References are made as regards the dates on which aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu are to be conducted. There are certain averments made and references made to certain books to lay a claim that the brindavana is that of Shri Jaya Teertharu.-. 30 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 9.10. That the brindavanas located in Malkhed are though of Shri Akshobhya Teertharu and Shri Jaya Teertharu, they are Mrutika brindavanas. They admit that the claim was made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt for permitting to worship at the said brindavanas and the said application came to be rejected on account of the same being under the control of Smt.Bhageerathi Bai, Sinappa Achar and Raghappa Achar, however subsequently in the year 1958 the same was granted to Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Insofar as the cause of action is concerned, it was contended cause of action arose in the year 2022 when Shri Uttaradi Mutt tried to prevent the aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu by the plaintiffs and it was contended by Shri Uttaradi Mutt that the Mahimotsava of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu would be conducted therein and it is in that background seek the reliefs as sought for.-. 31 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10. Shri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Shri Uttaradi Mutt in WP No.103982/2023 would submit that; 10.1. Respondent No.5- Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has sought to prevent Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, from carrying out the celebration of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Mahimotsava as also carrying out aradhana puja, offering prayers, etc., to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu requiring Shri Uttaradi Mutt to approach the jurisdictional authorities for police protection, which application having been rejected Shri Uttaradi Mutt is before this Court. 10.2. This is more so for the reason that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had indicated that they would conduct the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at the same brindavana as that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. There being only one person who could occupy the brindavana. Shri Uttaradi Mutt claiming that brindavana is - 32 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu which is so from time immemorial and all the poojas being conducted as regards the said brindavana on the basis that brindavana was of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu had filed an application with the revenue officials for grant of necessary police protection for carrying out aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu from 5.7.2023 to 7.07.2023. 10.3. There is an earlier round of litigation between the parties in as much as Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed W.P. No.102614/2022 and Shri Uttaradi Mutt had filed W.P. No.103449/2023. 10.4. He submits that vide order dated 15.07.2022 and 5.06.2023, respectively, both the above writ petitions came to be disposed of. In W.P. No.103449/2023, the following directions were issued: Order - 33 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 i) The writ petition is allowed in part. ii) Order dated 30.05.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 in File No.Kom/Devasthana/2023-24 is quashed to the extent of directing Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to approach this Court to obtain order to perform the religious rituals. iii) The Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 shall provide suitable protection for maintenance of public peace and tranquility and would be at liberty to impose or pass an order for maintenance of public peace and tranquility including issuance of an order under section 144 of Cr.P.C. to permit Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to conduct the rituals only with regard to conducting of Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, on fifth, sixth and seventh of June, 2023, at the Holy site of Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu in the island of Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi. iv) It is however made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter including other issues in dispute other than conducting Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. v) This Court also does not express any opinion with regard to the question of rights of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu or rights of Shri Jayateertharu in the Navabrindavana Gaddi. This aspect would have to be decided in the pending proceedings between the parties to the lis, if any. vi) This Court further observes that in view of the fact that both the parties are claiming lineage of the great saint Shri Madhwacharya and adored by several thousands of people, this Court hopes that both the parties would maintain public peace and tranquility for the religious rituals of Aradhana and Shraddha being conducted in the said - 34 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu of the Nava Brindavana Gadde. vii) All rights of the parties are kept open. 10.5. In furtherance of the above orders, Shri Uttaradi Mutt performed the poojas for Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 10.6. It is thereafter that once again the present issue has arisen which resulted in both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt filing the present Petitions. These Petitions were earlier disposed by a co-ordinate bench on 5.07.2023 passed the order which is extracted hereinabove. 10.7. Writ appeals being filed in W.A. No.100390/2023 and 100391/2023, the Division Bench vide its order 31.08.2023 disposed of both the writ appeals as under: </p>ORDER<p> i. Both the writ appeals in WA No.100390/2023 and WA No.100391/2023 are hereby allowed.-. 35 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 ii. The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed in W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023 is hereby set-aside. iii. The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. iv. Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant as well as respondent No.5 to produce additional documents in support of their respective claims including additional documents produced by the appellant along with I.A. No.5/2023. v. Liberty is also reserved to the parties to file objections, additional pleadings, counter affidavits etc., in support of their respective claims. vi. The parties are also at liberty to file interlocutory application(s) in the Writ Petition and seek suitable reliefs and also request the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal of the matter. vii. All rival contention between the parties on all aspects of the matter including the several contentions noted above are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. 10.8. It is in the above background that the Amendment was sought by Shri Uttaradi Mutt to include prayer b(1); Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has not filed any application for - 36 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 amendment or otherwise as permitted by the Hon’ble division bench. 10.9. Tracing the history of the dispute he submits that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed an application before the Munsiff, Gangavati on 12.03.1959 categorically stating as under: (cid:1)ಷಯ:- ಆ(cid:5)ೆಗುಂ(cid:10)ಯ ತುಂ(cid:12)ಾಭದ(cid:16) ನ(cid:10)ಯ ಮಧ(cid:20)ದ(cid:21)ರ(cid:22) ುವ ಸ(cid:26)ೆ(cid:27) ನಂಬ(cid:29) 192 ನವ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನ ಗ ಯನು! "ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄUÀrØ" ಎಂದು ¥ÀmÁÖ $ಾಡುವ (cid:1)ಷಯದ(cid:21).(cid:22) $ಾನ(cid:20)&ೇ ಆ(cid:5)ೆಗುಂ(cid:10)ಯ ತುಂ(cid:12)ಾಭದ(cid:16) ಪ(cid:16)(cid:26)ಾಹದ ಮಧ(cid:20)ದ(cid:21) (cid:22) ಸ(cid:26)ೆ(cid:27) ನಂಬ(cid:29)192 AiÀÄ ಕ&ೆ 14-7ರ(cid:21)((cid:22) ನವ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನ ಗ ಯ(cid:21)(cid:22)) ªÀiÁzsÀé ಸಂಪ(cid:16)(cid:31)ಾಯದ ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄಗಳ ,ೕ-ಾ(cid:10)ಪ.ಗಳ/ ಒಂಬತು 1 ಮ2ಾಮ3ಮರ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಗಳ/ ಇ(cid:26)ೆ. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಮ6ಾ78ಾಯ(cid:27)ರ ಮುಖ(cid:20) ಸಂ:ಾ;ನ(cid:26)ಾದ ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) ¸Áé«ÄUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ¦ÃoÁ¢ü¥ÀwUÀ¼ÁwzÀÄÝ 1. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಪದ?.(cid:5)ಾಭ .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 2. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಕ(cid:1)ೕಂದ(cid:16) .ೕಥ(cid:27) 3. 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:12)ೇA .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 2ಾಗು 4. ಸುBೕಂದ(cid:16) .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ (cid:5)ಾಲುD ಜನ ಮ2ಾಮ3ಮರು ಇ(cid:21) (cid:22) ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಸ;&ಾE(cid:31)ಾF&ೆ ಈ (cid:5)ಾಲುD AiÀÄwUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ಆ&ಾಧ(cid:5)ೆ 2ಾಗು ಈ ತರ ವ(cid:20)ವ:ೆ;ಗಳನು! 3ಂ(cid:10)Hಂದಲೂ 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ ,ೕ-ಾBಪ.ಗJೇ $ಾಡುKಾ1&ೆ. :ೋಸLೆ5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜ ಮ-ಾBೕಶ&ಾEದ F (cid:1)ಜಯನಗರದ ರತ!Nಂ2ಾಸ(cid:5)ಾBೕಶ&ಾEಕೃಷO(cid:31)ೇವ&ಾಯನ ಕುಲ ಗುರುಗJಾEದF1 - 37 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 5(cid:16)ೕ(cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರು 2. 5(cid:16)ೕ 5(cid:16)ೕH(cid:26)ಾಸ .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 2ಾಗು 3. 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಮಚಂದ(cid:16) .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ ಮೂರು ಜನ ಮ2ಾನುQಾವರು ಇ(cid:21) (cid:22) ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಸ;&ಾE(cid:31)ಾF&ೆ ಇ(cid:21)(cid:22)ಯ Rಾವತು1 ವ(cid:20)ವ:ೆ; 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಯರ ಮಠTೆD :ೇU(cid:31)ಾFE(cid:31)ೆ. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಉತ1&ಾ(cid:10) ಮಠದ 5(cid:16)ೕ ರಘW .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನವX ಇ(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:31)ೆ3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ ಮಠ ಮತು1 :ೋಸLೆ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರ ಮಠದ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಗJೇ ಇ(cid:21) (cid:22) 2ೆಚುY ಇದು ಅ(cid:5)ಾ(cid:10)Tಾಲ(cid:10)ಂದಲೂ ಈ ಸ;ಳವX5cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ 2ಾಗು 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರ ಮಠTೆD :ೇU(cid:31)ಾFE(cid:31)ೆ ಅ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:20)ಗು ಈಗ ಇದನು! ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄUÀrØ ಎಂದು ¥ÀmÁÖ $ಾ N ಮೂರು ಮಠಗಳ :ಾ7Iತ(cid:20)ದ(cid:21)(cid:22)ಡಲು ಇ[YಸುKೆ1ೕ(cid:26)ೆ. ಅದTಾDE ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ ಮಠ :ೋಸLೆ 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರ ಮಠ 2ಾಗು 5(cid:16)ೕ ಉತ1&ಾ(cid:10) ಮಠ 3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ ಮೂರು ಮಠಗಳ 2ೆಸU(cid:12)ೆ ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄUÀrØ ಎಂದು ಸ(cid:26)ೆ(cid:27) ನಂಬ(cid:29) 192 AiÀÄಕ&ೆ 14-7 ರೂ\ಾ]. 17-00 ಆTಾರªÀżÀî ನವ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನ ಗ ಯನು! ¥ÀmÁÖ $ಾಡ^ೇTೆಂದು ^ೇ Tೆ. ಗಂ(cid:12)ಾವ. ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳ/ ಮಠದ ಪರ(cid:26)ಾE ಸ3 ಜಯ&ಾಂ ಸರ _ೋ‘ 10.10. He submits that even in this representation there is no claim made by Shri Raghavendra - 38 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Swamy Mutt that the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at the Nava Brindavana Gadde, more importantly he submits that there is an admission that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvara Teertharu is at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 10.11. It is in view of the above representation that the Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was constrained to file a suit in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 against defendant No.1 being Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, defendant No.2 being Shri. Vyasarayaru Mutt of Sosale, defendants No.3 and 4 being the representatives of the above Mutts. In the said suit, Shri Uttaradi Mutt had prayed for declaration to the effect that the Shri Uttaradi Mutt is the sole owner of the land in S.No.192 (Old S.No.239) measuring 14 acres 7 guntas, situated at Anegundi village and to enter the plaintiff-Shri Uttaradi Mutt’s name in the - 39 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 mutation register, revenue records by deleting the name of the defendants No.1 and 2. 10.12. His submission is that as per the representation made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt before the Munsiff, Gangavathi, it is clear that even as per Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s brindavana, is located in Sy.No.192, Anegundi. 10.13. In the said suit, a written statement came to be filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which reads as under: Copy of the Additional Written Statement In the Court of Munciff at Gangavathi in O.S.No.65/1 of 1959-60 H.S. Stya Pramooda Teertharu……… Pltf vs H.H. Suyanendra Tirtharu & others.... Defts. In the above case the defendants 1 and 2 submit their additional written statement as follows:- Under Order VIII R. 9 of CPC: - 40 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 1.- It is specifically denied that the plaintiff holiness has inherited the suit land through succession as he is put to strict proof of the same and further it is denied that he is the owner and possessor of the suit land.</p><p>2. That there are nine (9) holy Brindavanas among them the Moola Brindavana of Shri Vyasaraja Matt, Shri. Vyasarayaru is situated. Including Moola Brindavana there are five Brindavanas of Shri Vyasaraya Mutt i.e, Vyasarayaru, Srinivas Tirtharu Rama Thirtharu, Govinda Tirtharu (Govinda Vadiyaru) and Padmanabha Tirtharu (Padmanabharu comes to the common i.e, D.1 and and 2). There are three Holi brindavanas belonging to Deft. No.1's Mutt they are Ravindra Tirtharu, Vageesha Tirtharu and Sudhendra Tirtharu. The plaintiff with mala fide intention has preferred to mention in the rejoinder para No.7 that the Holy Brindavans are not in the possession of the defendants 1 and 2. On the contrary the plaintiff. has never been in possession of the same. Since time immemorial the defendants 1 and 2 are in possession of the Holy Brindavans by performing Pujas and Aradhanas as owners and possessors till to this day.</p><p>3. That the plaintiff ought to have submitted the records at the time of filing the suit. But the late production of the documents at the time of rejoinder and further no proper reasons are shown for their late production, hence they are liable to be rejected.</p><p>4. That the orders passed by the Nasim samsthan Anegundi in the year 1351 F. is conclusive and the same is in consonance with the law and procedure, which not be deemed to be set aside under law. The subsequent orders. of Nasim as allege in para No.4 of rejoinder passed in the year 1355 F. to which these defendants deny is without jurisdiction - 41 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 as the said order had been passed ignoring the law of limitation and procedure prevailent then.. Further the order of Rajasab and restoration of patta as alleged do not stand in the eye of law, and hence denied specifically.</p><p>5. That these defendants 1 and 2 specifically deny the right and title of the plaintiff over the suit land and the plaintiff bound to prove all the allegations made in para 8 of the rejoinder. That the factum of purchase by H.H. Satya Dhanaru is false and hence denied. The plaintiff is not entitled to lead secondary evidence. The peshkar Krishn Rao as alleged in the sale deed was not a owner and possessor of the suit land and hence denied.</p><p>6. That the rejoinder has not been signed either by the plaintiff's holiness or by his authorised agent hence the same is liable to be rejected.</p><p>7. That the defendants 1 and 2 have appointed D. 3 and D.4 as their respective agents as such they are entitled to appear and allegation in para 9 rejoinder is vague. Hence it is prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs. Defendants 1 and 2..</p><p>1. His Holiness Suyamendra Thirtharu through Agent Jayaramachar Sir Joshi Sd/- in Hindi.</p><p>2. His Holiness Vidya Prasanna Theertharu through: Agent Hanumanthacharya Sir joshi. Sd/- in Kannada.-. 42 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 It is to certify on oath this day that the contents of additional W/s are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. Defendants 1 and 2.</p><p>1. His Holiness Suyamendra Thirtharu through agent Jayaramachar Sir Joshi Sd/- in Hindi.</p><p>2. His Holiness Vidya Prasanna Teertharu through Agent Hanmanthacharya Sir joshi. Sd/- in Kannada. Dt:</p><p>29. 11.60. Through: Sd/-Pleader. 10.14. Even in the written statement, it is clearly admitted by both Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Vyasaraya Mutt that there are nine holy brindavanas at Anegundi, the moola brindavana of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is situate there. Apart from moola brindavana of Shri. Srinivasa, Shri. Rama, Shri. Govinda (Govinda Wodeyaru) and Shri. Padmanabha Teertharu, as also Shri. Raveendra, Shri. Vageesha and Shri. Sudheendra Teertharu are situated - 43 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 therein. At no place in the written statement, a claim is made as regards the existence of the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 10.15. In the said suit, evidence of Shri. Sujayendra Teertharu, the Peetadhipati of Raghavendra Swamy Mutt was led on 24.12.1967. In his deposition, he stated that the island is the property of all three Mutts, and there are brindavanas in all three Mutts situated therein. The nine brindavanas are as follows:</p><p>10. Shri Padmanabha Teertharu 11. Shri Kavindra Teertharu 12. Shri Vagisha Teertharu 13. Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu 14. Shri Sudhindra Teertharu 15. Shri Vyasarayaru (Vysararaj Teertharu) 16. Shri Srinivas Teertharu 17. Shri Rama Teertharu 18. Shri Govindawadiyaru.-. 44 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.16. Out of the said brindavanas, Shri Padmanabha Teertharu is common to all the three Mutts, Shri Kaveendra and Shri Vageesha Teertharu are common to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is solely that of Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Sudheendra Teertharu is that of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Govinda Wodeyaru, Shri. Srinivasa and Shri. Rama Teertharu are exclusively that of Shri. Vyasaraya Mutt. 10.17. By relying on the above, Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande submits that even as per the Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in his deposition tendered on 24.12.1967 the moola brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu was located in Anegundi. Furthermore there is no claim made that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde.-. 45 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.18. The suit that was filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was decreed and Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was declared to be the sole and absolute owner of Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village vide Judgment and decree dated 13.03.1968. 10.19. Thus, his contention is that the entire property belongs to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, of course he submits that poojas could be performed by other Mutts of their respective predecessor Gurus. 10.20. An appeal having been filed against the decree, the appeal also came to be dismissed on 2.02.1972; thereafter, no challenge was made, and as such, it attained finality. 10.21. In the year 1991, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt sought to interfere with Shri. Uttaradi Mutt performing pooja and aradhana at Anegundi; hence, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was constrained to - 46 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 file one more suit seeking a permanent injunction against Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt from interfering with the aradhana of Shri. Padmanabha, Shri. Kaveendra and Shri. Vageesha Teertharu, which was defended by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt by filing written statement contending that they also have the right to perform aradhana of the said Teertharu. 10.22. His submission is that there is no mention made of Shri Jaya Teertharu in the written statement, nor is any claim made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that there is a brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu as regards whom they have to perform pooja and aradhana. 10.23. His submission is that in none of the above proceedings the dispute centered around the identity of the brindavana and never was there - 47 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 any assertion made that it belongs to Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 10.24. It is only now that a departure is sought to be made contending that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde, by wrongly contending that the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is that of Shri Jaya Teertharu which cannot be so made. It was always understood that the brindavana was that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is only now that an assertion is made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Therefore, it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish that brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu which it has failed to do so and until they do so, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt ought to be permitted to perform pooja and aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at his brindavana.-. 48 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.25. In the year 2022, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt filed W.P. No.102614/2022, and for the first time in a court proceeding, it was claimed that there is a brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu in Sy. No.192 of Anegundi, which is known as Nava Brindavana Gadde. This court, vide its order dated 15.07.1952, held that there is nothing to show on record that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had conducted aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde, which order has attained finality. 10.26. Shri. Uttaradi Mutt had filed W.P. No.103449/2023 wherein this court permitted Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to conduct aradhana of Shri Raghuvaryaya Teertharu which order has attained finality.-. 49 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.27. He submits that offerings of prayers to former gurus is an essential religious custom of Madhva community, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and its followers are bound to offer prayers to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu as regards whom they have been offering prayers for centuries. Merely because now Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is making a new claim without the establishment of such a claim, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt cannot be deprived of performing pooja which they have been doing for centuries. What Shri. Uttaradi Mutt have sought for in the present petition is only for police help to carry out the poojas as required and as done in the past and now due to the obstruction held out by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt necessary police help is sought for. If not for the said obstruction, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt would not have approached the authorities and on their refusal this court.-. 50 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.28. The brindavana being the final resting place of a saint belonging to Madhva community, there is only one saint who could be said to be in the said Brindavana and as per Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, it is Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s brindavana. The Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is near Malkhed, Kalaburagi where prayers are offered in his name. 10.29. He relies upon a Judgment in S.Rangaraj –v- P.Jagjeeva1 more particularly, para 51 thereof to contend that the State is required to protect fundamental rights. Para 51 thereof is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>51. We are amused yet troubled by the stand taken by the State Government with regard to the film which has received the National Award. We want to put the anguished question, what good is the protection of freedom of expression if the State does not take care to protect it?. If the film, is unobjectionable and cannot constitutionally be restricted under Article 19(2), freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of 1 1989(2) SCC574- 51 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 violence. That would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation. It is the duty of the State to protect the freedom of expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the State. The State cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to prevent it and protect the freedom of expression. 10.30. By relying on S.Rangaraj’s case, his submission is that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has a right to offer prayers at the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu. This right would be negated if the obstruction held out by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not dealt with in a proper and required manner by the jurisdictional police by offering necessary protection to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt. The right of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt will be frustrated if the authorities, including the police authorities, do not assist Shri. Uttaradi Mutt in asserting such a right. 10.31. In order to further establish that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is not at Nava - 52 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana Gadde, he submits that judicial notice could be taken under Section 56 of the Evidence Act that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, Kalaburagi which is recorded not only in the commentaries of Madhva faith but also in various gazetteers which have been published by the State. 10.32. In this regard he relies upon the Mysore Gazetteer, 1966, Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka Gazeteer, Dharwad District, publication of Karnataka Tourism Dept., Gulbarga district and Gazetteer of India, Karnataka State published by government of Karnataka. 10.33. These publications in the Gazetteers along with deposition of Peetadhipathi of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60, he submits is a conclusive proof that Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s brindavana is located in Nava Brindavana - 53 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Gadde, Anegundi and that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is located in Malkhed, Kalaburagi. 10.34. He relies upon the following decisions:</p><p>10. 35. In Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das v. Surjanarayan Das2, more particularly para 25 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>25. It is urged for the appellant that what is stated in the Gazetter cannot be treated as evidence. These statements in the Gazetter are not relied on as evidence of title but as providing historical material and the practice followed by the math and its head. The Gazetteer can be consulted on matters of public history. 10.36. Relying on the decision in Surjanarayan Das case, submission is that though what is stated in a gazetteer cannot be considered evidence but the statement made in the Gazetteer can be regarded as historical material and of public history. These aspects if taken into consideration, and judicial notice is taken under 2 1966 Supp SCR436- 54 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Section 56 of the Evidence Act, the Gazetteer would establish that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and not of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and any assertion made contrary thereto would have to be established by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 10.37. In ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.3, particularly paras 15 to 19 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>15. The learned counsel then contending that this Court will not entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC216 wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 218, para</p><p>7) “7. In our view, it is apparent that the order passed by the High Court is, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. It is true that many matters could be decided after referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be a ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of alleged breach of contract. Whether the alleged non- 3 (2004) 3 SCC553- 55 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 supply of road permits by the appellants would justify breach of contract by the respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and is not required to be decided or dealt with in a writ petition. Such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuing writs.</p><p>16. A perusal of this judgment though shows that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of facts which requires consideration of evidence which is not on record, will not normally be entertained by a court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This decision again, in our opinion, does not lay down an absolute rule that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact the parties should be relegated to a civil suit. In this view of ours, we are supported by a judgment of this Court in the case of Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda [(1969) 3 SCC769 where dealing with such a situation of disputed questions of fact in a writ petition this Court held: (SCC p. 774, paras 14-16) “14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit-in- reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to - 56 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.</p><p>15. From the averments made in the petition filed by the appellants it is clear that in proof of a large number of allegations the appellants relied upon documentary evidence and the only matter in respect of which conflict of facts may possibly arise related to the due publication of the notification under Section 4 by the Collector.</p><p>16. In the present case, in our judgment, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that it will not determine disputed question of fact. The High Court has jurisdiction to - 57 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 determine questions of fact, even if they are in dispute and the present, in our judgment, is a case in which in the interests of both the parties the High Court should have entertained the petition and called for an affidavit-in-reply from the respondents, and should have proceeded to try the petition instead of relegating the appellants to a separate suit.</p><p>17. The above judgment of Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC769 finds support from another judgment of this Court in the case of Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council [(1970) 1 SCC582 wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 587, para</p><p>13) “Merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit against a public body. The questions of fact raised by the petition in this case are elementary.</p><p>18. This observation of the Court was made while negating a contention advanced on behalf of the respondent Municipality which contended that the petition filed by the appellant Company therein apparently raised questions of fact which argument of the Municipality was accepted by the High Court holding that such disputed questions of fact cannot be tried in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But this Court held otherwise.</p><p>19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In the above case of - 58 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC769 this Court even went to the extent of holding that in a writ petition, if the facts require, even oral evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the writ court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact. 10.38. By relying on the decision in ABL International’s case, he submits that it is not in all cases where there are disputed questions of fact, would the writ court refuse to exercise jurisdiction. It is only disputed question of fact that require a trial to be held that the court could refuse to entertain jurisdiction. In the present matter, it is undisputed that Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu’s brindavana is at Anegundi which is admitted by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, it is only in the year 1985 that the former pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt on his deathbed had - 59 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 indicated that he was mistaken to believe the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu to be that of Shri. Raghuvara Teetharu, and as such, he had instructed his disciples to perform the aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. His submission is that until the year 1985 there was no dispute and even the pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and the Mutt by itself had accepted and asserted that the said Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu. If that be so, for the first time an assertion being made in the year 1985 to the contrary it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish the assertion in a suit to be filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, it cannot therefore be contended that it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file such a suit.-. 60 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.39. In Tejraj-President, Jain Sangh v. State (M.B.) & Collector4, particularly para 10 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>19. The Supreme Court then, after indicating the question involved in the case, said that all those questions should be decided in a properly constituted suit in a Civil Court rather than in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is thus clear that the power under Article 226 ought not to be exercised if the right which the Petitioner is seeking to enforce depends on facts which are complex and disputed and which have to be established. The dispute as to the facts persuading the High Court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution must, however, be real and substantial. It must be with regard to perception of facts as distinguished from their evaluation. The rule that the High Court should not in an application under Article 226 embark on an investigation into the disputed facts and materials for determining whether the Petitioner Mutt has the right which he is seeking to enforce, cannot apply where the doubt or dispute is as to the construction of a document or a judicial order or as to the effect and meaning of a record. Again, the mere statement of the opponent in a petition under Article 226 challenging the correctness of the facts averred by the suppliant and saying that he is in possession of documents and materials to contradict the statements made by the Petitioner is not sufficient for holding that the case is of the type in which facts have to be established. If such a statement is accepted as sufficient to decline to exercise power under 4 1957 SCC OnLine MP81- 61 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Article 226 then the opponent in a petition under Article 226 and not the Court would be the arbiter of the question whether the case is of a type where questions of facts have to be established. The opponent is under an obligation to produce sufficient material to satisfy the Court that there does exist a real and serious dispute as to the facts on which the Petitioner concerned bases his rights sought to be enforced. As will be shown presently, in this case there is no such dispute as to the material facts. When the right sought to be enforced is clear and undisputable and is a fundamental right, the Petitioner cannot be directed to avail himself of the remedy of a suit (see Himmatlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR1954SC403]. and Mahabir Prasad v. B.S. Gupta, Sales Tax Officer, Indore [1957 M.P. Cases 214.]. 10.40. By relying on Jain Sangh’s case, he submits that a dispute has been raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt subsequently, and the dispute is not on account of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt. Accepted facts which were admitted by the pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt was that the brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu. It is only after 1985 that the said aspect has been disputed and recently that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has - 62 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 obstructed Shri. Uttaradi Mutt offering pooja, aradhana, etc. for Shri. Raghuvarya Rayaru contending that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 10.41. On the basis of the above, he submits that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt itself has admitted at an undisputed point of time that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has now only with the intention of creating problems and obstacles in Shri. Uttaradi Mutt performing required poojas is contending that the brindavana is that of Shri Jaya Teertharu requiring Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to approach Courts of law for protection being a law abiding entity. If not for the obstructions held out by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt would not have approached this court.-. 63 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.42. The Brindavana where aradhana and puja was being performed for the last several centuries is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and it is only now that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has sought to contend that the said Brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. It is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish the same by cogent evidence and it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to seek for a declaration in a properly instituted suit that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. The status-quo as prevalent now is that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and as such, it does not now lie for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to contend that it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to establish the Brindavana to be of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu.-. 64 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.43. His submission is that it is only in the Nirupa issued by the Peetadhipathi that the Peetadhipathi has stated that he was under mistaken belief that the Brindavana is that of the Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu when in actuality it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. This alleged mistaken belief having been acted upon for at last four hundred and more years and the aradhana being performed as that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is only in the year 1985 that the Nirupa was issued just prior to the death of the Peetadhipati. This cannot be a ground for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to contend that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 10.44. For centuries, these prayers being offered at the Brindavana to Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and their followers who have impleaded themselves - 65 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 as respondents No.6 to 15 to establish it, to the contrary. The suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, until a decision is rendered in the said suit, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt ought to be permitted to offer prayers for Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu in Navabrindavana Gadde. 10.45. The offering of prayers to the former gurus and saints is a fundamental religious practice of the Madhwa community, as such, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt whose saint is Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is the bounden duty of all followers of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to offer prayers to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu during the important events of his lifetime, and if such poojas are not offered, it would amount to disrespect to that saint, which is not in the interest of the Mutt and/or the followers of the Mutt. The poojas having been offered for centuries to Shri.-. 66 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghuvarya Teertharu, the followers of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt having followed and implemented, the belief that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is also a bounden duty on the part of the said followers to see to it that the said Brindavana is not treated as that of anyone else and that only pooja of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is offered in the said Brindavana. 10.46. The Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu, being situated in Navabrindavana Gadde, is established by the evidence of the Peetadhipathi of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in O.S.No.65/1/1959-60 wherein the name of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu has been mentioned by the said Peetadhipathi. 10.47. Even in O.S.No.193/1992, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, in its evidence, has categorically stated that the Brindavana is that of Shri.-. 67 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghuvarya Teertharu. This aspect is reflected in the Karnataka Toursim Gazetteer, Gulbarga Region (Anegundi). Similarly, it is also established by the very same documents that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is not at Navabrindavana Gadde. The Mysore State Gazetteer published in the year 1966 indicates and establishes that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, Kalaburagi. The Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka, Dharwad District also speaks of the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu being situated in Malkhed. The Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga Region as also the Gazetteer of India, Karnataka State Gazetteer, Government of Karnataka indicates that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s Brindavana is at Malkhed, Kalaburagi. The Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu being at Nava Brindavana Gadde cannot be disputed. Once it is established that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s - 68 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana is situated at Malkhed, Kalaburagi, there cannot be another Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Navabrindavana Gadde. Furthermore, it cannot be contended by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu since there cannot be two saints who occupy the same Brindavana. On the basis of the above, the submission of Sri.Amit Kumar Deshpande is that the writ petition filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt has to be allowed and the writ petition filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has to be dismissed.</p><p>11. Shri. Prabhuling Navadgi, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.5-Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would submit that, 11.1. It is only the amended prayer B(i) in W.P.No.103982/2023 which is required to be considered by this Court. Other prayers having - 69 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 been rendered infructuous due to the passage of time, he submits that interim prayer and final prayer, being one and the same, cannot be granted. 11.2. He denies that there is any admission made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as regards the existence of the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Navabrindavana Gadde and submits that there is a lot of research which has happened which would indicate otherwise. 11.3. Shri. Vadirajaru, a pontiff of Sodi Mutt, Udupi, had written a book indicating the existence of the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava brindavana Gadde, one Shri. BNK Sharma, scholar in his treatise History of Dvaita School of Vedanta and his literature, also recognised that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde.-. 70 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 11.4. Another researcher M.R.Anantha Padmanabha Rao also recognizes that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 11.5. Shri. Sannur Bheema Bhat has translated the Sanskrit work of Shri. Vadirajaru mentioned earlier into Kannada which records the existence of Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s Brindavana at Navabrindavana Gadde. 11.6. It is further claimed that Shri. T.K.Venugopala Dasaru who has done research on Dasa Parampara has also written a booklet on Srimad Jaya Theerta Moola Brindavana which is stated to be situate at Navabrindavana Gadde. 11.7. The government of Karnataka while celebrating Anegundi Utsava had also published a souvenir authored by Sharana Basappa Kolkar that Shri.-. 71 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana is at Nava Brindavana Gadde, hence, his submission is that in the light of these scholars having written and having published works indicating Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana being located at Nava Brindavana Gadi, the so-called admission on part of the then Peetadhipathi of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt cannot be the basis for the claim of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt. 11.8. His submission is that there being a dispute as regards whose brindavana is located at Nava brindavana Gadde, it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file a suit in relation thereto and only on a determination of the matter by a Civil Court, could the matter be laid to rest and a claim made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt be considered. 11.9. The aspect of whether Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is the owner of Sy.No.192; he submits that another - 72 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 matter is pending consideration before this court, in RSA No.100446/2015, which would have to decide on that aspect. He submits that the suit in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60 has no relevance for this case. 11.10. He relies upon the following decisions:</p><p>11. 11. In Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma5, particularly paragraphs 37 and 89 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>37. It was vehemently urged that declaration of the character of a church, viz., whether it was autocephalous was solely dependent upon the canonical laws and it necessarily involved an adjudication of what was the applicable canon, what was its interpretation and what are the religious beliefs, practices, customs and usage in the church which pertained to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the civil courts could not embark on such an enquiry. This is the farthest or the highest stand that could be taken by the appellant. The answer is twofold, one Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and other Article 25 of the Constitution. The latter guarantees constitutionally freedom of conscience and the right freely to 5 1995 Supp (4) SCC286- 73 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 profess, practise and propagate religion to every person. Its reach has been explained in various decisions. In His Holiness Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami v. State of T.N. [Seshammal v. State of T.N., (1972) 2 SCC11sub nom His Holiness Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami v. State of T.N., AIR1972SC1586 it was held that this article guarantees freedom to practise rituals and ceremonies which are integral parts of a religion. In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P. [(1977) 1 SCC677:</p><p>1977. SCC (Cri) 147 : AIR1977SC908 it was held that right to practise and propagate not only matters of faith or belief but all those rituals and practices which are regarded as integral parts of a religion by the followers of a doctrine. In S.P. Mittal v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC51: AIR1983SC1 it was held that freedom or right involving the conscience must naturally receive a wide interpretation. The suit filed was thus maintainable. The injunction and prohibition sought from interfering in administration of Church are certainly matters which pertain to the religious office. Even the declaration that the Church is episcopal is covered in the expansive expression of religion as explained in Mittal case [(1983) 1 SCC51: AIR1983SC1 . The word ‘episcopal’ means “of or pertaining to bishops, having a government vested in bishop”. A suit for declaration of such a right would be maintainable under Section 9. Not only because it is claim to an office but also because there is no other forum where such dispute can be resolved. If a dispute arises whether a particular religious shrine has ceased to be so due to its anti-religion activities then the followers of that religion or belief and faith cannot be denied the right to approach the court. Explanation I is not restrictive of the right or matters pertaining to religion. It only removes the doubt to enable the courts to entertain suits where dispute about religious office is involved. The right - 74 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 to religion having become fundamental right, it would include the right to seek declaration that the Church was episcopal. But the court may refrain from adjudicating upon purely religious matters as it may be handicapped to enter into the hazardous hemisphere of religion. Maintainability of the suit should not be confused with exercise of jurisdiction. Nor is there any merit in the submission that Explanation I could not save suits where the right to property or to an office was not contested or where the said right depended on decisions of questions as to religious faith, belief, doctrine or creed. The emphasis on the expression “is contested” used in Explanation I is not of any consequence. It widens the ambit of the Explanation and includes in its fold any right which is contested to be a right of civil nature even though such right may depend on decisions of questions relating to religious rights or ceremonies. But from that it cannot be inferred that where the right to office or property is not contested it would cease to be a suit cognizable under Section 9. The argument is not available on facts but that shall be adverted to later. Suffice it to mention that in Ugamsingh [(1970) 3 SCC831: (1971) 2 SCR836 the plaintiff's claim was that they were entitled to worship without interference of the idol of Adeshwarji in the temple named after him at Paroli according to tenets observed by the Digambari sect of the Jain religion. It was held that from the pleadings and the controversy between the parties it was clear that the issue was not one which was confined merely to rites and rituals but one which effected the rights of worship. If the Digambaris have a right to worship at the temple, the attempt of the Swetamberis to put Chakshus or to place Dhwajadand or Kalash in accordance with their tenets and to claim that the idol is a Swetamberi idol was to preclude the Digambaris from exercising their right to worship at the temple, with respect to - 75 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 which a civil suit is maintainable under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The scope of the section was thus expanded to include even right to worship.</p><p>89. The conclusions thus reached are:</p><p>1. (a) The civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and suits. (b) The expression ‘civil nature’ used in Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is wider than even civil proceedings, and thus extends to such religious matters which have civil consequence. (c) Section 9 is very wide. In absence of any ecclesiastical courts any religious dispute is cognizable, except in very rare cases where the declaration sought may be what constitutes religious rite.</p><p>2. Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not debar those cases where declaration is sought for a period prior to the Act came into force or for enforcement of right which was recognised before coming into force of the Act.</p><p>3. The following findings in Moran Mar Basselios (supra) have become final and operate as res judicata: (a) The Catholicate of the East was created in Malankara in 1912. (b) The Constitution framed in 1934 by Malankara Association is valid. (c) The Catholicos were not heretics nor they had established separate church.-. 76 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 (d) The meeting held by Patriarch group in 1935 was invalid.</p><p>4. (a) The effect of the two judgments rendered by the Appellate Court of the Royal Court and in Moran Mar Basselios (supra) by this Court is that both Catholicos and Patriarch groups continue to be members of the Syrian Orthodox Church. (b) The Patriarch of Antioch has no temporal powers over the Churches. (c) Effect of the creation of Catholicate at Malankara and 1934 Constitution is that the Patriarch can exercise spiritual powers subject to the Constitution. (d) The spiritual powers of the Patriarch of Antioch can be exercised by the Catholico in accordance with the Constitution.</p><p>5. (a) The Hudaya Canon produced by the Patriarch is not the authentic version. (b) There is no power in the Hudaya Canon to excommunicate Catholicos.</p><p>6. The excommunication of the Catholicos by the Patriarch was invalid.</p><p>7. All churches, except those which are of Evangelistic Association or Simhasana or St. Mary are under spiritual and temporal control of the Malankara Association in accordance with 1934 Constitution. 11.12. By relying on Moran Mar Marthoma’s case, he submits that it is only a civil court which can - 77 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 entertain jurisdiction in the matter and not this court since there are disputed questions of facts which have to be adjudicated. This court ought not to embark to see such a finding on disputed questions of fact in a writ proceeding when it could only be done so by a trial Court. Any right, even under Article 25 of the Constitution, could be pressed into service by filing a suit and not by filing a writ petition is the submission. 11.13. In Basant Singh -v- Janki Singh AIR1967SC341 particularly para 6 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>6. The explanation of Janki Singh and Kailashpati Singh that the plaint was drafted by their lawyer Ramanand Singh at the instance of the panchas including one Ramanand and they signed and verified the plaint without understanding its contents cannot be accepted. There is positive evidence on the record that the plaint was drafted at the instance of Janki Singh and was filed under his instructions. The plaint was signed not only by Janki Singh and Kailashpati Singh but also by their lawyer, Ramanand Singh. Neither Ramanand Singh nor the panch Ramanand was called as a - 78 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 witness. Even in this litigation, Ramanand Singh was acting as a lawyer on behalf of some of the defendants. Kailashpati Singh is a Homeopathic medical practitioner and knows English. The plaint was read over to Janki Singh. Both Janki Singh and Kailashpati Singh signed the plaint after understanding its contents and verified all the statements made in it as true to their knowledge. They then well knew that Ramyad Singh had died in 1939 after the passing of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act. It is not shown that the admission in the plaint as to the date of death of Ramyad Singh is not true or that it was made under some error or misapprehension. This admission must be regarded as a strong piece of evidence in this suit with regard to the date of death of Ramyad Singh. 11.14. In the case of Satyadeo Prasad -v- Smt.Chanderjoti Debi and others6 AIR1996Patna 110, particularly para 31 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>31. Section 21 of the Evidence Act states that admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the persons who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in certain cases with which we are not concerned for the present. Section 31 lays down that admissions “are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained”. On a reading of the two 6 AIR1996PATNA110- 79 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 sections together, the law on the point appears to be clear that an admission of a person is admissible in evidence as against him and though, under certain circumstances, it operates as estoppel against him, it is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted and it can be explained away by the maker thereof or the person against whom it is sought to be proved. For example, a person against whom it is sought to be used may prove that it was made without his knowledge or in ignorance of facts admitted, or under such other circumstances; but there is no doubt about its admissibility in evidence against the maker thereof. The above view gains support from a Single Judge decision of this court in Jairam Mahaton v. Lokenath Mahaton, AIR1930Pat 405, wherein it was held that, in a title suit the proceedings in a previous title suit between the present defendants and a third person were relevant under S. 19 and the pleadings of the defendants were admissible as admission of the defendants under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. In S.T. Chendikamba v. K.I. Viswanathamayya, AIR1939Mad 446; it was pointed out that what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so, but the party making the admission may give evidence to rebut this presumption, and unless and until that is satisfactorily done the fact admitted must be taken to be established. It was further pointed out that the same principle will apply to an admission in a signed pleading, and that, so far as Indian Law is concerned, there can be no doubt that under the provisions of the Evidence Act, an admission contained in a plaint or written statement or an affidavit or any sworn deposition given by a party in a prior litigation will be regarded as an admission in a subsequent action, though it is capable of rebuttal. The statement of Hardeo (defendant No.2) in his written statement in the previous partition suit (Ext.-. 80 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023</p><p>6) is, therefore, admissible in evidence, and unless any evidence in rebuttal has been given by him, that will be a very valuable piece of evidence against his contention in the present suit. Unfortunately, no explanation has been given by him with regard to the statements made in the above written statement, and all that he has said in his evidence is that he did not know the contents of that written statement, as it had been drafted at the instructions of Kamta Prasad. Kamta Prasad, who has been examined as P.W. 24, has, no doubt, admitted in his examination-in-chief that he had also come when Hardeo filed the written statement in that suit. But the stand taken by the defendants in cross- examining this witness is to the effect that the written statement was not written in his (Kamta's) presence. A suggestion had been put to him that the written statement was not written in his presence, and he stated that it is not a fact that the written statements of Hardeo and Jagarnath were not written in his presence. Thus, the explanation offered by Hardeo is not convincing and cannot be accepted. That being so, the admissions made in the above written statement are admissible against him. 11.15. Though several other judgments have been annexed to the memo, he does not refer to or rely on any of those judgments. 11.16. The submission of Shri. Prabhuling Navadagi, learned Senior counsel is that the dispute being - 81 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 civil in nature, the civil court would have to decide the dispute. The deposition of Peetadhipati is not relevant since subsequently, the said Peetadhipati had issued a Nirupa wherein he had categorically stated that he was under a misapprehension that the brindavana located in Navabrindavana Gadde was that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. After having read various treatises, he has now come to a conclusion that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and has called upon his disciples to treat the said brindavana as that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and go ahead with the prayers to him therein. 11.17. On enquiry as to when this Nirupa was issued, he submits that the Nirupa was recorded by the disciples of the erstwhile Peetadhipati on 5.06.1985. On enquiry as to whether any pooja or aradhana has been performed after - 82 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 5.06.1985 of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and if any document could be placed in support thereof, though he submits that the pooja and aradhana has been carried out, there is no particular document that is placed on record in relation to the Aradhana having been performed but some pamphlets relating to the announcement of the aradhana are placed on record. 11.18. Based on the above, he submits that from the time Nirupa was issued, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has been performing aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde and as such, the application filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt for protection ought not to have been rejected. Based on the above, he submits that the writ petition filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt is required to be dismissed and that filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt be allowed.-. 83 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12. Shri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 15 who are impleaded, subsequently submits that; 12.1. The respondents No.6 to 15 are followers and devotees of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, their rights would be affected by any orders that may be passed in the present matter in as much as it is respondents No.6 to 15 who are going to be performing the pooja and any order against Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would affect them adversely. 12.2. At the outset Shri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel submits that he would be adopting the submissions made by and on behalf of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt by Shri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi learned senior counsel.-. 84 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.3. In addition, he submits not only in support of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt but as also on behalf of the devotees that the dispute in the present matter is as regard the identity of one Brindavana in Navabrindavana Gadde, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt claiming it to be that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and the very same Brindavana is claimed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and respondents No.6 to 15 as that Shri Jaya Teertharu. 12.4. Subsequent to the impleading application filed in the present matter, respondents No.6 to 15 have also filed a representative suit in OS No.35/2024 before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Gangavathi seeking for declarative and injunctive relief against Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Vyasaraja Mutt. The Reliefs as sought for are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: - 85 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 i. To Declare that the Moola Brindavana of Sri. Jaya Teertharu is at Navabrindavana Gaddi Anegundi Village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District and further to declare the claim of the 1st defendant that it is the Brindavana of Sri. Raghuvaryaru is untenable and illegal. ii. Injunct the 1st defendant and their henchmen, workers and their followers or any one claiming under them not to worship by conducting daily pujas and aradhana or Mahimotsava to the Brindavana of Sri Jaya Teertharu as that of Sri. Raghavaryaru at Nava Brundavana Gaddi, Anegundi Village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District. iii. Grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble court deems fit grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 12.5. The Single Bench, having rejected the impleading application on an appeal filed in Writ Appeal No.100023/2024, the Division Bench has categorically concluded that any order passed in the writ petition would affect or would have a bearing on the suit that the impleading applicants have filed and, as such they cannot be said not to have any interest, in the subject matter of the writ petition. Whether the claim - 86 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 or independent right is claimed through Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is proper or not is to be decided in the suit where both Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt are parties. Respondents No.6 to 15 cannot be considered to be ordinary devotees since they have initiated a suit in O.S. No.35/2024. Though they are not necessary parties, they would be proper parties. Thus, he submits that any order passed in the present matter would have a direct bearing on respondents No.6 to 15. 12.6. As regards the maintainability of the writ petition, he submits that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is seeking a direction to the authorities to prevent Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt from performing the Poojas of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Navabrindavana Gadde. There has been no determination of this aspect by any court of law - 87 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 till now. Without declaration of the civil right, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt cannot seek such a direction to be issued against respondent-State as regards undeclared civil rights. 12.7. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri. Althaf Ahamed v. State of Karnataka and others7 more particularly paras 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference.</p><p>5. The weighty aspect which dissuades the court from exercising the writ jurisdiction is that the dispute between the parties is essentially in relation to validity of the gift deed. This dispute involves civil rights. In the ultimate analysis, what is to be adjudicated is whether respondent Nos.5 and 6 have got valid title over the property or not and whether the Will referred to by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and alleged to have been executed fraudulently and by misrepresentation is valid or not. 5.1 It is in light of these aspects that the assertion of the appellant that he is the absolute owner of the property will have to be examined. Decision on all issues would require leading of evidence and determination of civil rights amongst the parties. It involves adjudication into titular rights of the parties. It is a trite principle that the 7 WA No.713/2023 dated 11.3.2024 - 88 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 dispute regarding property rights cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction. The parties have to take recourse to civil court. 5.2 The contested property rights cannot be dealt with in writ jurisdiction. The writ court can at the best take notice of the property rights of the parties which are already established rights. When a party is claiming under the disputed Will, the writ court would not be able to adjudicate it, for, it is a matter of leading evidence. In the same way when the gift deed is the derivative document, whereunder the parties claim their respective title rights and dispute one another’s claims, the adjudication has to be done by the civil court. The remedy before the civil court would be proper remedy in such circumstances. 5.3 This is reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sohan Lal vs. Union of India and Another (AIR1957SC529 observing thus, “We do not propose to enquire into the merits of the rival claims of title to the property in dispute set up by the appellant and Jagan Nath. If we were to do so, we would be entering into a field of investigation which is more appropriate for a Civil Court in a properly constituted suit to do rather than for a Court exercising the prerogative of issuing writs. These are questions of fact and law which are in dispute requiring determination before the respective claims of the parties to this appeal can be decided. Before the property in dispute can be restored to Jagan Nath it will be necessary to declare that he had title in that property and was entitled to recover possession of it. This would in effect amount to passing a decree in his favour. In the circumstances to be mentioned hereafter, it is a matter for serious consideration whether in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution such a declaration ought to be made and restoration of the property to Jagan Nath be ordered.” (para</p><p>5) - 89 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.8. Relying on the aforesaid paragraphs in Althaf Ahamed’s case, he submits that when the alleged admissions in the Gazetteer are seriously disputed by respondents, the writ Court cannot adjudicate the undeclared rights. Whenever parties claim their own respective title and dispute the others’ claims, adjudication has to be done by a Civil Court and not by a writ petition. The injunctory relief which Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is seeking for against Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt cannot be so granted in a writ proceeding; such a relief cannot be dehors the ordinary civil remedies which are available under the general law of land before a Civil Court. Respondents No.6 to 15 have filed a comprehensive suit before the civil Court, which would decide the matter. Till then, this Court ought not to intercede in the matter or grant the orders sought by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt.-. 90 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.9. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T.8 more particularly para 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 14. These questions, in our view, were pure questions of fact and could be answered one way or the other only by the civil court in a properly constituted civil suit and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court.</p><p>15. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria [Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC61 and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal 8 AIR2019SC659- 91 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 [Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC230 .) 16. In our view, the writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) in the civil court.</p><p>17. We cannot, therefore, concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court when it unnecessarily went into all the questions of fact arising in the case on the basis of factual pleadings in detail (43 pages) and recorded a factual finding that it was Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) who was in possession of the flat and, therefore, he be restored with his possession of the flat by the appellant.</p><p>18. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, while so directing exceeded its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. Indeed, the High Court in granting such relief, had virtually converted the writ petition into a civil suit and itself to a civil court. In our view, it was not permissible. 12.10. By relying on Roshina’s case, he submits that disputes relating to rights and liabilities of the private individuals must be adjudicated by the civil Courts and not in a writ jurisdiction. The private law dispute cannot be adjudicated in a public law remedy of writ petition, a private law dispute can only be adjudicated in a civil suit.-. 92 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.11. He relies upon the decision of the hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes9 more particularly a portion of para 7 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>7. …….. the jurisdiction of the High Court was bypassed, the appellants moved the High Court challenging the competence of the Provincial Legislature to extend the concept of sale, and invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and sought to reopen the decision of the Taxing Authorities on question of fact. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary : it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self- imposed limitations. Resort that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by 9 AIR1964SC1419- 93 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. 12.12. By relying on Thansingh Nathmal’s case, he submits that when Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has an alternative efficacious remedy the writ court ought not to entertain a writ petition under Article 266. It is open to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to move Civil court or tribunal, this court should direct Shri Uttaradi Mutt to move such court or a tribunal and not entertain a claim made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt before this Court. 12.13. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal10 more particularly a portion of para 36 thereof, which is reproduced here under for easy reference; 10 AIR2003SC2686- 94 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 36. ……. The High Court derives its jurisdiction in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if an occasion arises therefor, to make judicial review of the order passed by a statutory authority. It is beyond any cavil that no writ can be issued if the disputes involve private law character. The writ court has also no jurisdiction to determine an issue on private dispute over a property or right under a partnership. ……. 12.14. By relying on Dwarka Prasad Agarwal’s case he submits that no writ can be issued when the dispute involves private law, a writ court can only deal with public law. 12.15. As regards the admission of the deponent in OS No.65/1/1959-60 he submits that the said admission can only bind Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and the person succeeding to the office of the said deponent it cannot be binding on respondent no.6 to 15 who have an independent right. This independent right has been recognized by the Division Bench while allowing writ appeal filed by respondents No.6 to 15 as regards the rejection of the impleading - 95 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 application by the single judge. Thus, this right having been upheld as regards respondents No.6 to 15 which is independent of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the statement of the deponent in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60 will not be binding on respondent no.6-15, nor are they claiming under Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 12.16. He submits that the suit in OS No.65/1/1959-60 was filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt seeking for relief of declaration that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is the owner of 14 acres 7 guntas and for deletion of the entry made in the name of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. There was no issue in the said suit as regards the existence or otherwise of the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvara Teertharu or Shri Jaya Teertharu. Therefore, the admission made in a suit where the existence or otherwise of the Brindavana was - 96 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 not in question will not be binding on anybody in so far as the present dispute is concerned. 12.17. He relies upon the decision of the hon'ble Apex court in the case of Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil11 more particularly para 13 thereof which is reproduced here under for easy reference; 13. The first infirmity in regard to this admission is that whatever was said by the respondent in regard to Survey No.201/2 is irrelevant and inadmissible in the deposition of the respondent in that case. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act states that “An admission is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned”. In regard to dispute between the appellant and the respondent arising out of Surveys Nos. 194/15 and 200/29, Survey No.s Nos. 201/2 and 194/13 were neither issues in fact nor relevant fact. 12.18. By relying on the Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case he submits that admission, if any made in such a suit can only be read in regard to and in reference to a dispute in the said suit and not 11 AIR1977SCC1712- 97 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 beyond the dispute in the said suit. Therefore, admission cannot apply in the present case. There is no issue raised in the said suit as regards the existence or not of the Brindavana. Therefore, the alleged admission would not be binding on respondents No.6 to 15. 12.19. He again relies on para 16 of Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case (supra) which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>16. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent even though not confronted with the admission would be bound by his admissions and the appellant would be entitled to rely on the admissions as admissible. There is the observation in the very next sentence in the aforesaid decision of this Court that “the purpose of contradicting the witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act is very much different from the purpose of proving the admission”. It, therefore, follows that admission is relevant and it has to be proved before it becomes evidence. 12.20. Relying on the above, he submits that an opportunity has to be given to put the admission across to the person who has made - 98 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the admission, permitting him to tender his explanation, merely because admission is made cannot be held against him. 12.21. He reiterates that an admission is not conclusive proof; admission can be explained, in this regard he relies upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Basant Singh vs. Janki Singh and other12 more particularly a portion of para 5 thereof which is reproduced here under for easy reference:</p><p>5. ….Under the Indian law, an admission made by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him in other suits. In other suits, this admission cannot be regarded as conclusive, and it is open to the party to show that it is not true…… 12.22. He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal13 more particularly para 30 12 AIR1967SC34113 AIR1979(4) SCC790- 99 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 thereof, which is reproduced here under for easy reference:</p><p>30. In the face of this evidence reinforced by the oral evidence on the record, the learned Judge of the High Court concluded that the Math and the temple in this case are a public religious Trust and not the personal property of the defendant. We do not find any reason to take a different view. 12.23. By relying on Avadh Kishore Das’s case he submits that the present Peetadhipati can also in the civil suit filed by respondents No.6-15 depose that the statement of the earlier Peetadhipati to be incorrect or not on the basis of cogent evidence which is also available in terms of various books and documents which have been produced. 12.24. The deponent in OS No.65/1/1959-60 also issued a Nirupa in which he who was the earlier Peetadhipati has stated that he had consulted various scholars, writers, researchers, etc., and - 100 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 thereafter concluded that the earlier statement made by him was not correct; therefore, the said explanation would have to be considered by this Court. 12.25. In so far as Gazetteers are concerned, he submits that the same lacks credence since there is a statement made in the Bombay Gazetteer that Shri. Jaya Teertharu expired in 1269 AD and the Gulbarga Gazetteer it is stated that he expired in 1389 AD. There being a gap of more than 100 years it cannot be accepted that the location of the Brindavana as stated therein to be genuine, the discrepancy going to the root of the matter. 12.26. He relies upon the decision in Triyambak Shivarudra vs. State of Bombay14 more particularly para 8 thereof which is reproduced here under for easy reference:</p><p>14. 1950 Crl.LJ1372- 101 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 8. Section 81, Evidence Act, provides that Courts shall presume the genuineness of every document referred to therein. Official Gazettes are amongst the documents included in that section. It is therefore dear that we must raise an initial presumption that 0.</p><p>0. 8 which is published in the Gazette of India dated 26th January I960 is a genuine document. The presumption enacted by Section 81 is, however, a rebuttable one. That is a clear from the definition of the words "shall presume" which is a given in Section 4, Evidence Act. According to that section: Whenever it is directed by this Act that, the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved. 12.27. Relying on Triyambak Shivarudra’s case, he submits that the Gazetteers by themselves are not conclusive evidence but are rebuttable pieces of evidence which can be rebutted before the civil court. On the basis of the wrong statement or mistake in the statements made in the Gazetteer, the same already stands rebutted even before this Court and, as such, cannot be relied upon. 12.28. He relies upon the decision of Calcutta high court in the decision of Kali Prosanna vs.-. 102 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Nagendra Nath 44 (CWN) Calcutta weekly notes which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; “Reports and gazetteers ae not strictly evidence of the truth of all the statements contained in them, although they may be read for what they are worth.</p><p>12.29. Relying on Kali Prosanna’s case, he submits that reports and Gazetteer are not strictly evidence of truth. In that background, he submits that even the Gazetteers relied upon by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt cannot be accepted by this court. All these aspects would have to be decided in the suit filed by respondents Nos. 6 to 15, and on that basis, he submits that the above writ petition is required to be dismissed.</p><p>13. Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior counsel in reply would submit as under: - 103 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 13.1. Insofar as the reliance placed by both Shri. Prabhuling Navadgi and Shri. C.V. Nagesh learned Senior Counsels on the work of one Dr B.N.K.Sharma published in 1986; he submits that this, though it is a scholarly work, would not have the same value as a gazetteer, which is recognised under Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act. It can only be a scholarly work, which will have to be established in the course of trial before the trial Court in the suit filed by respondents No.6 to 15, and the same cannot be a basis for claiming the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu to be that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu in the present writ petition. 13.2. As regards the judgments relied upon in Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case, Basant Singh’s case and Nagindar Ramdas’s case [referred to supra]., by the respondents to contend that admissions are not conclusive on account of the - 104 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 possibility of they being proved wrong, he submits that the said proposition would not apply to the present facts. The admission has never been established to be wrong. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt itself has been of a consistent opinion of the identity of nine Brindavanas in Nava Brindavana Gadde for centuries. Evidence in this regard was led in the suit filed in the year 1959 as also in the year 1992. There is nothing on record to show that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has conducted or was permitted to conduct the Aaradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at the Navabrindavana Gadde as observed in the judgment dated 15.07.2022 in WP No.102614/2022. 13.3. Neither Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt nor Respondents 6 to 15 have been able to explain the admissions pertaining to the identity of the Brindavana in Navabrindavana Gadde except to - 105 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 lay a claim on the Nirupa issued by the former Peetadhipati (which in a manner amounts to resiling from the earlier admission) and the publication made by Dr.B.N.K.Sharma as also by the Pontiff of Sosale Mutt. These are all aspects which have come into being in recent times and cannot upset the facts which have been accepted by all concerned for centuries. 13.4. Insofar as the contention of the respondents that the writ court cannot decide the disputed question of fact, he submits that this Court can assess the veracity of facts which can be so ascertained on the basis of the documents produced. The dispute having been raised as regards established facts of over centuries only recently in the year 1985, the established facts prior to the dispute being that the Brindavana belonged to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, this aspect would have to be taken into - 106 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 consideration by this Court and there would be no disputed question which this Court would be addressing itself to. 13.5. By relying on ABL International Ltd’s case (referred to supra), he contends that the adjudication in the instant case does not require detailed evidence or trial to be conducted. The entire evidence in the form of documents which are uncontroverted and are reliable are already on record, which this Court can take cognisance of. Since Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Respondents 6 to 15 have now sought to deny and/or controvert the established facts; it is for them to establish the same in the suit filed. Admittedly, no suit has been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt but has been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, who were, according to him, acting at the behest of Shri Raghavendra - 107 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Swamy Mutt to only try and derail these proceedings. 13.6. He submits that the brindavana where aradhanas and poojas were being performed for the last several centuries is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and it is only now that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has sought to contend that the said brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. It is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish the same by cogent evidence and it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to seek a declaration in a properly instituted suit that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. The status quo as prevalent now is that the brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu, and as such, it does not now lie for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt or respondents No.6 to 15 to contend that it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to establish the - 108 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. His submission is that it is only in the Nirupa issued by the Peetadhipati that the Peetadhipati has stated that he was under a mistaken belief that brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu when in actuality it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Assuming the contentions of shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Respondents 6 to 15 to be true, this alleged mistaken belief having been acted upon for last 400 and more years and the aradhana being performed as that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is only in the year 1985 that Nirupa was issued just prior to the death of Peetadhipati, this cannot be a ground for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to contend that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 13.7. For centuries, prayers have been offered at the brindavana to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is - 109 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers who have impleaded themselves as respondents No.6 to 15 to establish to the contrary. The suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, until a decision is rendered in the suit, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt ought to be permitted to offer prayers for Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu in the Nava brindavana Gadde, without any interference from Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt or its followers. 13.8. The offering of prayers to the former gurus and saints is a fundamental religious practice of the Madhva community; as such, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, whose saint is Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, has a bounden duty as also all followers of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt have a bounden duty to offer prayers to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu during the important events of his life, and if poojas are not offered, it will amount - 110 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 to disrespect to the saint, which is not in the interest of Shri Uttaradi Mutt and the followers of the Shri Uttaradi Mutt. 13.9. The poojas having been offered for centuries to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, the followers of Shri Uttaradi Mutt having followed and implemented the belief that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is also a bounden duty of the said followers to see to it that the said brindavana is not treated as that of anyone else and that only poojas of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is offered in the said brindavana. 13.10. The brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, being situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde, is established by the evidence of Peetadhipati of Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60, wherein the name of Shri.-. 111 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu has been mentioned by the said Peetadhipati. Even in O.S. No.193/1995, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, in its evidence, has categorically stated that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. This aspect is also reflected in the Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga region (Anegundi). 13.11. Similarly, it is also established by the very same document that brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is not at Nava Brindavana Gadde. The Mysore State Gazetteer, published in the year 1966, indicates and establishes that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is at Malked, Gulbarga. The Bombay Gazetteer Karnataka, Dharwad district also speaks of brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu to be situated at Malkhed. The Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga region, as also the Gazetteer of India Karnataka - 112 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 State Gazetteer, Government of Karnataka, indicate that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana is at Malked, Kalburagi. The brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being at Nava brindavana Gadde cannot be disputed. Once it is established that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana is situated at Malked, Kalaburagi; there cannot be another brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava brindavana Gadde. Furthermore, it cannot be contended by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu since there cannot be two saints who occupy the same brindavana. 13.12. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, not having chosen to file any suit to establish its claim, merely because respondents No.6 to 15 have filed a suit, would not make the fact a disputed fact.-. 113 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 13.13. By relying on Jain Sangh’s case, he reiterates that the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has categorically held that objections as to disputed question of fact raised, when raised for the sake of raising will not deviate from the established facts. 13.14. As regards the decision in Triyambak Shivarudra’s case relied upon by respondents he submits that there is no material which has been placed on record showing that any fact recorded therein is wrongly recorded in the gazetteer and as such, the said judgment would not apply in the present case and in the above background, he submits that the writ petition filed by Uttaradi Mutt is required to be allowed.</p><p>14. Shri Gangadhar J.M, Learned Additional Advocate General, would submit that it is only on account of a possible law and order issue that could be created - 114 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that the requests made by both the Mutts have been rejected. The state would adhere to any direction issued by this court.</p><p>15. Heard Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Satish S Raichur and Sri. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, learned counsel for Petitioner and Sri. Gangadhar J.M. learned AAG a/w Sri. Praveen Uppar, AGA for Respondents No.1 to 4, Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadagi, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Arun L. Neelopant for Respondent No.5, Sri. C.V. Nagesh Senior Counsel for Sri. H.R. Deshpande for Respondents No.6 to 15 in W.P.No.103982/2023, Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadagi, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Arun Neelopant for Petitioner and Sri. Gangadhar J.M. AAG a/w Sri. Praveen Uppar, for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Satish S. Raichur and Sri. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, learned - 115 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 counsel for Respondents No.4 in W.P.No.103994/2023. Perused papers.</p><p>16. Based on the above arguments the points that arise for determination in this matter are:</p><p>1. Whether this court cannot entertain the present petition and pass orders thereon on account of the contentions raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, on the one hand, and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as also its followers Respondents 6 to 15 on the other being disputed?.</p><p>2. Whether the contention raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as well as its followers Respondents 6 to 15, can, in fact, be said to be disputed questions of fact.</p><p>3. Despite a suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, is the present petition maintainable?.</p><p>4. Would the admission made by former Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt be binding on Shri. Raghavendra - 116 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Swamy Mutt and its followers Respondents 6 to 15?.</p><p>5. Whether the Gazetteers produced by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, now at this stage, can be relied upon by this Court?.</p><p>6. Whether at this juncture, it can be said that the Brindavana at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu or Shri. Raghuvara Rayaru?.</p><p>7. What order?.</p><p>17. I answer the above points as under:</p><p>18. Insofar as the history of litigation as regards the present matter is concerned, originally, both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed petitions in W.P. No.103994/2023 and 102614/2022 respectively. Shri Uttaradi Mutt wanted to perform the Mahimotsava of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at his Brindavana in Nava - 117 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana Gaddi from 4.07.2023 to 10.07.2023. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt also wanted to perform Aradhana of Jaya Teertharu at his Brindavana in Nava Brindavana Gaddi, from 5.07.2023 to 7.07.2023.</p><p>19. It is clear that for the first time, both the Mutts wanting to celebrate the Aradhana of their respective Gurus during the same period of time. Apprehending interference, both the mutts filed applications before the tahsildar for police protection, but both applications were rejected. In view thereof, the above writ petitions are filed.</p><p>20. A coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petitions by permitting both the Mutts to perform the Aradhana on different sets of dates. Aggrieved by the same, Shri Uttaradi Mutt filed a Writ Appeal, but Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt did not.-. 118 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 21. In the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench allowed the same by setting aside the orders of the coordinate Bench and remanded the same for adjudication by taking on record the additional documents filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt. The Division Bench afforded an opportunity to both the Mutts to file amended petitions and additional documents and seek additional reliefs.</p><p>22. An amendment was filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt, but no amendment has been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt; only objections have been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. Thus, it is clear that insofar as the writ petition by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as regards the dates mentioned in the said writ petition and the prayers, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt does not intend to press or prosecute the said petitions since the dates mentioned have already passed and the said writ petition therefore - 119 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 rendered infructuous. It is also clear that only Shri Uttaradi Mutt, has been prosecuting the matter, agitating its legal rights.</p><p>23. In the above background history of the matter, I would have to consider the points raised.</p><p>24. ANSWER TO POINTS NO.1, 2 AND3 1. Whether this court cannot entertain the present petition and pass orders thereon on account of the contentions raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, on the one hand, and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as also its followers Respondents 6 to 15 on the other being disputed?.</p><p>2. Whether the contention raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as well as its followers Respondents 6 to 15, can, in fact, be said to be disputed questions of fact.</p><p>3. Despite a suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, is the present petition maintainable?. - 120 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.1. Points 1,2 and 3 being related to each other are considered together. 24.2. The submission of Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi., learned senior counsel appearing for Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and that of Shri. C.V. Nagesh., learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023 is that the writ petition filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt is not maintainable since the questions which have arisen out of said writ petition are disputed questions of fact which this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot decide. 24.3. The additional submission of Shri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel is that respondents No.6 to 15, having filed a suit for declaration until the determination of the dispute raised in the - 121 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 said suit, this Court ought not to pass any orders and, as a necessary corollary ought to leave it to the civil Court to determine the disputed question of facts. 24.4. Shri. C.V. Nagesh., learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Roshina’s case, Thansingh Nathmal’s case, Dwarka Prasad Agarwal’s case, Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case, Avadh Kishore Dass’ case, Triyambak Shivarudra’s case and Kali Prosanna’s case for the same purpose. 24.5. The submission of Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande., learned senior counsel appearing for Shri Uttaradi Mutt is that there is no disputed question of fact which requires trial, in so far as Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt’s dispute. Respondents No.6 to 15 having filed a suit, the same would be defended. Shri - 122 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has not filed any suit; the claim made by its followers is on the basis of the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, which has created confusion. The Nirupa having been issued in the year 1985, there is no dispute prior to 1985 of the aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being performed at the Nava Brindavana Gadde and no aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu was performed there. Even during the lifetime of the earlier pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the said pontiff, in the evidence led in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60, has categorically admitted that it is the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu which is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde. Neither in the written statement nor the evidence has the earlier pontiff ever claimed that the Brindavana of - 123 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Shri. Jaya Teertharu was located in Nava Brindavana Gadde. 24.6. For over 400 years the aradhana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu having been performed at Nava Brindavana Gadde, it cannot be now contended that there is a dispute of fact requiring trial in so far as the existence of the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu in Nava Brindavana Gadde. His further submission is that the aradhana and other ceremonies in so far as Shri. Jaya Teertharu has been performed for last few centuries at Malkhed, Kalaburagi district and continue to be performed there even today. Thus, the contention of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and/or respondents No.6 to 15 that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde subsequent to the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt will - 124 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 not make it a disputed question of facts requiring trial. 24.7. In this regard, he relies upon the decision in ABL International Ltd. Case and submits that the writ court would also have jurisdiction to try issues both fact and law even if they are in dispute, when the same does not require a detailed trial this Court can determine the issues and pass necessary judgment on the basis of the documents available on record. 24.8. The dispute having been raised by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers post 1985, it is the assertion now made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which is required to be established in a Court of law and not that of Shri Uttaradi Mutt who has been performing the aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde for over a century.-. 125 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.9. He also relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Tejraj- President Jain Sangh's case. In view thereof submission is made that this Court can and would have to decide the above issue. 24.10. It is therefore in the background of the above submissions that this court would have to decide the above issues. 24.11. It is trite law that this Court exercising writ jurisdiction would ordinarily not cause an enquiry into disputed question of facts and would normally relegate the parties to a civil suit. It is also trite law that this Court would not countenance any contention on the part of the respondents that there are disputed questions of fact when there are in fact no such disputed questions of fact and/or that the respondents - 126 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 have raised the disputed question of fact and/or brought into dispute certain admitted facts to try and prevent orders being passed in the Writ Petition, which in my considered opinion would also amount to abuse of the process of court. 24.12. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Moran Mar Marthoma case’s and principles laid down therein cannot be disputed; the said decision dealt with and was rendered in respect of the jurisdiction of a civil Court to decide a claim under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. In the said judgment, there is no reference, nor is any issue dealt with as regards a writ Court not having jurisdiction. Thus, the said decision will not be a touchstone to decide on whether this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction in the present case or not. 24.13. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Roshina’s case was one relating to a claim of - 127 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 property rights which were disputed and it is in that background that the Hon’ble Apex Court came to a conclusion that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to convert a writ petition into a civil suit. The said decision also would not apply to the present case since there are no property rights which are required to be decided upon or adjudicated by this Court. The dispute, essentially in Roshina’s case, was a property dispute which was inter se the parties, and as such, the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the opinion that those disputes would have to be adjudicated by the Civil Court and not by a writ court. Since this is a private law dispute which cannot be decided in a public law remedy. 24.14. Again the decision in Thansingh Nathmal’s case was one relating to the exercise of - 128 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 jurisdiction by the High Court where an alternative remedy was available and where the Court came to a conclusion that there was an elaborate examination of evidence required in order to establish or enforce a right as regard which a writ was filed and it is in that background that the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the opinion that an elaborate examination of evidence cannot be made by a writ Court. These judgments in my considered opinion would not help the cause of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and/or respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023. 24.15. Per contra the decision relied upon by Shri. Ameet Kumar Kumar Deshpande., learned counsel appearing for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt in ABL International Ltd. Case would be of relevance since the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the High Court could - 129 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 exercise jurisdiction to determine the question of fact even if they are in dispute and those could be determined on the basis of the affidavits and reply rather than relegate the parties to a separate suit. This jurisdiction needs to be exercised at the discretion of the Court. 24.16. Thus, it is clear that there is no specific bar for a writ Court to exercise jurisdiction merely because respondents were to contend that the facts are disputed, it is left to the discretion of the Court. 24.17. It is not in dispute that the aradhana and other functions in so far as Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is concerned has been performed at Nava Brindavana Gadde for more than four centuries, it is only after a Nirupa was issued by the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati in the year 1985 - 130 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that the existence of the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu has been brought into question. 24.18. In the year 1959, Shri Uttaradi Mutt had filed a suit in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 claiming proprietary rights over the land in Sy.No.192 (old Sy.No.239) situate at Anegundi Village in which the Nava Brindavana Gadde is situated. 24.19. In the written statement filed more so at para 2 Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt contended that the Brindavana’s of the Gurus of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Vyasaraya Mutt are situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 24.20. It was contended that five Brindavana’s belonging to Shri Vyasaraja Mutt are situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde namely that of; 1. Shri Vyasarayaru (Vysararaj Teertharu) - 131 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 2. Shri Sinivas Teertharu 3. Shri Rama Teertharu 4. Shri Govinda Teertharu (Govindawadiyaru) 5. Shri Padmanabha Teertharu 24.21. It was contended that three Brindavana’s belonging to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt are situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde namely that of:</p><p>1. Shri Ravindra Teertharu, 2. Shri Vageesh Teertharu and 3. Shri Sudhendra Teertharu. 24.22. Though the details of the ninth Brindavana is not mentioned in the written statement what is required to be appreciated by this Court is that even among the eight out of nine names mentioned the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Theertharu who is claimed to belong to Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not mentioned in the written statement.-. 132 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.23. In the evidence led by the earlier pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt namely his holiness Shri. *Sujeendra Teertharu, it has been stated that nine Brindavana’s are that of; 1. Padmanabha Tirtha 2. Kavindra Tirtha 3. Vagisha Tirtha 4. Raghuvarya Tirtha 5. Sudhindra Tirtha 6. Vyasarayaru (Vysararaj Tirtha) 7. Sinivas Tirtha 8. Rama Tirtha 9. Govindawadiyaru. 24.24. Thus, Shri *Sujeendra Teertharu who was the earlier Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in his evidence has categorically admitted that the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde. In the said evidence led by him, there is no mention made of Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Theertharu. *Corrected vide Court Order dated 24.06.2024 - 133 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.25. In the evidence it is further stated that the aforesaid Brindavana’s belong to all three Mutt namely, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri Sosale Vyasarayaru Mutt. 24.26. Shri. Kavindra Theertharu and Shri Vagisha Theertharu being common to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being solely belonging to Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri. Sudhendra Teertharu being solely belonging to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Govindawadiyaru, Shri Sinivas Teertharu and Shri. Rama Teertharu exclusively belonging to Shri. Sosale Vyasarayaru Mutt. 24.27. Thus, from the evidence led it is clear that Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Brindavana is categorically admitted to be located at Nava - 134 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana Gadde and the same solely belongs to Shri Uttaradi Mutt. 24.28. Though all three Mutts follow Shri. Madhavcharya’s philosophy it appears that there are some disputes between these three Mutts which ought not to have occurred and the earlier pontiff having accepted that Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Brindavana solely belongs to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and situate in Nava Brindavana Gadde, now it is sought to be contended that such Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is not situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde and that the said Brindavana belongs to that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Though it is admitted that Shri Raghuvara Teertharu was a Guru of the Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, and there is denial made of the existence of his brindavana at Nava Brindavana Gadde, there is - 135 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 no assertion made as to where his Brindavana is, if not at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 24.29. This assertion which has been made is only post the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff in the year 1985, there being no such claim or assertion made prior to 1985. Thus, merely post 1985 such an assertion having been made would not make the practice followed for four centuries earlier of offering pooja and aradhana to the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde a disputed one. Thus, on the face of it, by sheer extent of time it cannot at this stage be said that there are disputed questions of facts requiring this Court not to exercise jurisdiction. 24.30. Furthermore, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt also has filed WP No.103994/2023 seeking similar reliefs as that sought for by Shri - 136 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Uttaradi Mutt in WP No.103982/2023. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt itself having approached this Court seeking for the more or less identical reliefs as that sought for by Shri Uttaradi Mutt and not filing a suit in that regards till date, also indicates the double standards adopted. Though the prayer sought for by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt have been rendered infructuous, the fact remains that even according to Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt this Court could exercise jurisdiction to decide the matters in issue and it is for that reason that this court has been approached vide a writ petition by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, if not then it would amount to the said Mutt abusing the process of court since the writ petition is filed knowing fully well that this court would not have jurisdiction. Even for this reason I am therefore - 137 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 unable to agree with the submissions made that this court has no jurisdiction. 24.31. It is trite law that jurisdiction to a Court cannot be conferred by consent, thus, it is not only on the basis of the writ petition filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that I come to the conclusion that this Court has jurisdiction but also on the grounds aforesaid i.e., there is no disputed question of fact which can be said to come in the way of this Court exercising its jurisdiction. 24.32. A suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023 and no suit having been filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in that regard even if it is assumed that respondents No.6 to 15 are acting at the instance of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the assertion now made by respondents No.6 to 15 - 138 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 would have to be determined by that Court, such suit pending determination by the Civil Court would not come in the way of this Court exercising jurisdiction. Of course, the determination by the Court would be binding on the parties. Merely, because of the said subsequent suit being pending it is not required for this Court not to decide the present matter. It would also be open for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to seek for such reliefs that they are entitled to in the said suit. 24.33. As regards the performance of the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde, certain documents are sought to be relied upon, viz., paper publications/Pamphlets from the year 1989 onwards. The same would not amount to evidence of the Poojas and Aradhanas being performed at Nava Brindavana - 139 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Gadde for Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Be that as it may there is nothing on record prior to 1989 indicating that the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu was performed at the Nava Brindavana Gadde, in fact, in an earlier Writ Petition in W.P. No.102614/2022 filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, this court vide its order dated 15.07.2022 while dismissing the said writ petition has categorically come to a conclusion that there was nothing on record to show that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had conducted or was permitted to conduct the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. The said observation and judgment have not been challenged, attaining finality and the said observation is binding on this Court. 24.34. In W.P. No.102614/2022 relating to the performance of Aradhana in the year 2022, - 140 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 again in the year 2023, another dispute arose when the performance of aradhana by Shri Uttaradi Mutt of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu was resisted by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt constraining Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file writ petition in W.P. No.103499/2023. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the coordinate Bench of this Court permitting Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to carry out the Aradhana in furtherance of which Aradhana was in fact carried out, no challenge being made to the said order of the coordinate Bench, thus attaining finality. 24.35. Therefore, evidence and records available indicate that Shri. Uttarathus attainingied out pooja, Aradhana and other ceremonies concerning its Guru Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu for more than 400 years, as also in the recent past at Nava Brindavana Gadde.-. 141 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.36. There is no believable document placed on record by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as regards the conduct of pooja, aradhana and other ceremonies relating to Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde, either in the past or present. 24.37. One of the writ petitions filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has been dismissed with an observation that there is nothing on record to indicate such performance of pooja or aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. In that background, it cannot be said that the contention now taken by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is one which gives rise to disputed questions of fact requiring the trial court to decide the matter in a properly constituted suit. It is only in the recent past that the disputes have arisen, more particularly in the last three years.-. 142 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.38. Though the contention of Shri C.V.Nagesh learned Senior Counsel is that there is no determination or adjudication of the claim of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, I’am of the considered opinion that when the dispute has been raised by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and it is asserted and claimed that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu, when in fact all records indicate otherwise, it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to file necessary proceedings for declaration of the assertion and claim, now made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. It would not be for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file any such suit or proceedings. Merely because a party were to make a claim, the party against whom such claim is made need not be driven to court, it is for the party making a claim to approach the jurisdictional and - 143 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 competent court, seeking for adjudication of its claim. 24.39. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that this Court can entertain the writ petition in WP No.103982 of 2023 and pass orders thereon, despite the contentions raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and respondents 6 to 15 contending that there are alleged disputed question of fact, when in fact there are none. 24.40. I answer point No.2 by holding that the contention raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and respondents 6 to 15 cannot in fact be said to be disputed questions of fact considering that Shri Uttaradi Mutt has been offering poojas and performing aradhana’s of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu for over 400 years at Nava Brindavana Gadde and there are admissions made in this regard by Shri.Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. The aspect of admission has also been separately considered hereinbelow.-. 144 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.41. I answer point No.3 by holding that the suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023 no suit having been filed by the Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt , respondents No.6 to 15 being disciples and or followers of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt who claim that Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde and claim of respondents No.6 to 15 being yet to be adjudicated, the same shall not come in way of this Court exercising jurisdiction. Since I have come to the conclusion that as on today the undisputed fact is that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu.</p><p>25. Answer to point No.4: Would the admission made by former Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt be binding on Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers Respondents 6 to 15?. 25.1. As referred to in answer to points No.1 to 3 the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had in the written statement in - 145 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 O.S. No.65/1/59-60 as also in the evidence categorically stated that Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Brindavana is located in Nava Brindavana Gadde. There was no mention made in either the written statement or in evidence that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu was located in Nava Brindavana Gadde. 25.2. The contention of Sri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel for respondents No.6 to 15 is that such an admission made by the earlier pontiff does not bind respondents No.6 to 15. They have an independent right, they can always negate any admission made by the earlier pontiff. In this regard, he relies upon the decision in Dwarka Prasad Agarwal’s case as also Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case his submission is that in the suit in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 there was no dispute as regards the existence or otherwise of the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and Shri. Jaya - 146 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Teertharu in the absence of such a dispute the admission made by the earlier pontiff cannot be binding. If an admission has to be relied upon, the admission should be put across to the person against whom the admission is sought to be relied upon for him to offer an explanation. 25.3. By relying on Basant Singh’s case his contention is that the admissions made in another suit cannot be regarded as conclusive its open to a party to the other suit to prove otherwise. By relying on Avadh Kishore Das’s case his submission is that, in the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati, the said pontiff/Peetadhipati has explained the admissions by stating that he was under a mistaken belief, now it having been brought to his notice various Articles, Research, Publications that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s - 147 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde, a Nirupa has been issued by the earlier pontiff, this Nirupa would negate the so-called admission made in the aforesaid suit. 25.4. The submission that an opportunity would have to be granted to a person who has made an admission to explain the same, in my considered opinion, cannot be so done in the present case since the earlier pontiff has expired long ago in the year 1985 and therefore the admission made by him cannot be put across to him. In this regard the submission made by Sri.C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel is that the successor to the earlier pontiff, i.e., the present pontiff, can explain the admission in the view of the Nirupa. 25.5. The Nirupa as issued is extracted hereinbelow for easy reference - 148 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 “²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ªÉƺÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà UÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgÀ ªÉƺÀj£À°è” ²æà gÁªÉÆ ¨sÁw¸ÀªÁå¸À ²æà ªÀÄzsÁé¸ÁÜ£À ¸ÀA¹ÜvÉÊB²æà gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÀzÀéA±ÉÊB ¨sÀĪÀ£ÉÃAzÉæ’ÊB ²æà AiÀiÁaðvÀ JAzÀÄ EzÉ. ¸Àé¹Ü²æà «dAiÀƨsÀÄåzÀAiÀÄUÀvÀ ±Á°ÃªÁºÀ£À ±ÀPÀ 1907 £Éà ²æà PÉÆæÃzsÀ£ÁªÀÄ ¸ÀAªÀvÀìgÀ eÉåõÀ× §ºÀļÀ ¨sÁ£ÀĪÁgÀzÀ®Æè 5-6-1905 ²æà ªÀÄvÀàgÀªÀĺÀA¸À ¥ÀjªÁædPÁZÁAiÀÄð ¥ÀzÀªÁPÀå ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÁgÁªÁgÀ ¥ÁgÀAUÀvÀ ¸ÀªÀðvÀAvÀæ ¸ÀévÀAvÀæ ²æà ªÀÄzÉé’ʵÀÚªÀ¹zÁÞAvÀ ¥ÀæwµÁ×¥À£ÁZÁAiÀÄð ²æà ªÀÄ£ÀÆð®gÀWÀÄ¥Àw ªÉÃzÀ’ªÁå¸ÀzÉêÀ ¢ªÀå ²æà ¥ÁzÀ¥ÀzÁägÁzÀPÀgÁzÀ dUÀzÀÄÎgÀÄ ²æà ªÀÄ£ÀäzÁéZÁAiÀÄðgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀA¸ÁÜ£Á¢üñÀégÀgÁzÀ £ÀAd£ÀUÀÆqÀÄ ²æà ªÀÄzÁæWÀªÉAzÀæ ¸Áé«ÄUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄoÀzÀ ªÉÃzÁAvÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁædå ¢VédAiÀÄ «zÁå¹AºÁ¸À£Á¢üñÀégÀgÁzÀ ²æà ªÀÄvï ¸ÀĪÀæwÃAzÀæ wÃxÀð ²æÃ¥ÁzÀAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ PÀgÀPÀªÀÄ® ¸ÀAeÁvÀgÁzÀ ²æà ²æà ªÀÄvÀÄìAiÀÄ«ÄÃAzÀæwÃxÀð ²æà ¥ÁzÀAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀPÀgÁzÀ ²²²²ææææÃÃÃà ªªªªÀÀÀÀÄÄÄÄvvvvÀÀÀÀÄÄÄÄììììdddd¬¬¬¬ÄÄÄÄÃÃÃÃAAAAzzzzÀÀÀÀææææ wwwwÃÃÃÃxxxxÀÀÀÀðððð ²²²²ææææÃÃÃà ¥¥¥¥ÁÁÁÁzzzzÀÀÀÀAAAAUUUUÀÀÀÀ¼¼¼¼ÀÀÀÀªªªªÀÀÀÀggggÀÀÀÀÄÄÄÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¦æAiÀÄ ²µÀåjUÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸ÀägÀuÉ. £ÁªÀÅ ²æà UÀÄgÀÄzÉêÀvÁ£ÀÄUÀæºÀ§®¢AzÀ ¸ÁߣÀ, d¥À, vÀ¥À, zÉêÀvÁ ¥ÀÇeÁ, ¥ÁoÀ¥ÀæªÀZÀ£À, ¹zÁÝAvÀ ¸ÁÜ¥À£Á¢ ¸ÁévÀªÉÆÃavÀ PÁAiÀiÁð£ÀĵÀÛ¤gÀvÀgÁV ¤ªÀÄUÉ ±ÉæÃAiÉÆéüªÀÈzsÀxÀðªÁV ²æà ªÀÄ£ÀÆä®gÀWÀÄ¥Àw ªÉÃzÀªÁå¸ÀzÉêÀgÀ ¥ÁæxÀð£À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ ªÀÄAvÁæ®AiÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄzÀ°èzÉÝêÉ. ¤ªÀÄä AiÉÆÃUÀPÉëêÀĪÀ£ÀÄß *Retyped and Replaced vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 149 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 §gɹ PÀ½¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. vÀgÀĪÁAiÀÄ F »AzÉ £ÁªÀÅ G¥À£Áå¸ÀUÀ¼À°è, £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄUÀ¼À°è, £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°è ²æà gÀWÀĪÀAiÀÄðwÃxÀðgÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÉݪÀÅ. E°èAiÀÄ vÀ£ÀPÀ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁVzÀÝ F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ²æêÀÄoÀzÀ D¸ÁÜ£À«zÁéA¸ÀgÀÄ, »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀPÀgÀÆ, ¯ÉÃRPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆ DzÀ ªÀiÁUÀr gÀAUÀ£ÁxÁZÁAiÀÄðgÀÆ, BNK ±ÀªÀÄð ªÉÆzÀ¯ÁzÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀ£Á, ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¸ÀAUÀæºÀ «ªÀıÀð ¯ÉÃR£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DªÀÄƯÁUÀæªÁV £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉÆøÀ¯É ªÁå¸ÀgÁd ªÀÄoÀzÀ ¦ÃoÁ¢ü¥ÀwUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æà «zÁå¥ÀAiÉÆä¢ü wÃxÀðgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ²æà gÀWÀĪÀAiÀÄðwÃxÀðgÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀgÀA¥ÀgÉAiÀÄ ²æà dAiÀÄwÃxÀðgÀ ªÀÄÆ® §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ RavÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ EzÉà ªÀµÀð £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°è £ÀqÉzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ²æà ¸ÀÄ¢üÃAzÀæwÃxÀðgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ²æà ªÁå¸ÀgÁdgÀ DgÁzsÀ£Á ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¥Á¯ÉÆÎAqÀ £Á«ÃªÀðgÀÆ ²æà dAiÀÄwÃxÀðgÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀPÉÌ £ÉqÀ¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¥ÀÇeÁgÁzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹gÀÄvÉÛêÉ. F PÁgÀt¢AzÀ £ÁªÀÅ F »AzÉ G¥À£Áå¸À ªÉÆzÀ¯ÁzÀªÀÅUÀ¼À°è ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖAvÉ £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÀÅ ²æà gÀWÀĪÀAiÀÄðgÀzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛêÉ. PÁgÀt ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ²µÀågÀÄ F DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ²æà dAiÀÄwÃxÀðgÀ ªÀÄÆ® §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÀÅ £ÀªÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà EzÉ JAzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀªÁV ¤±ÀéӬĹPÉÆAqÀÄ CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥ÀÇeÉ, DgÁzsÀ£É, G¥Á¸À£É, EvÁå¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÉÝAzÀÄ ªÀÄAvÁæ®AiÀÄ PÉëÃvÀæ¢AzÀ §gɹzÀ ¤gÀÆ¥À gÁAiÀĸÀ. *Retyped and Replaced vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 150 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Ew £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸ÀägÀuÉUÀ¼ÀÄ «zÁå ªÀÄoÀ PÀÄA¨sÀPÉÆÃt JA§ ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ aPÀÌ ªÉƺÀgÀÄ</p><p>25.6. The examination of the Nirupa would indicate that even according to the earlier pontiff, it was believed that the disputed Brindavana situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde is that belonging to Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. The said belief is now sought to be termed as mistaken belief in the Nirupa and a direction has been issued by the earlier pontiff to his disciples to conduct the pooja and aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at the said Brindavana, by indicating or contending that the said Brindavana is not of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu but it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. *Retyped and Replaced vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 151 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 25.7. Thus, even in the admitted Nirupa there is an admission made by the earlier pontiff that there was a belief of the Brindavana to be belonging to Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and that belief is now sought to be changed at the time of issuance of Nirupa in the year 1985 to contended that the Brindavana is not of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu but that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 25.8. Thus, the admission made in the suit is not denied in the Nirupa but is sought to be resiled from, this in my considered opinion cannot take away the admission made, the resiling from the admission made and a new claim being set up under the Nirupa it is required for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish this new claim. An explanation to an admission cannot be by way of resiling from the admission, a new - 152 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 case or claim being set up under the Nirupa, the same would have to be established in a court of law by anyone claiming the contents of the Nirupa to be true by filing a properly constituted suit before the Jurisdictional and Competent Court, which would also be the situation in respect of the Successor Pontiffs. 25.9. The said admission is made in a proceeding between the same party i.e., Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was the plaintiff therein, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt was the Defendant No.1 and Shri. Sosale Vyasarayaru Mutt was the defendant No.2, the dispute in the said suit was as regards the ownership of the property where the Nava Brindavana Gadde is situated. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the said proceedings and the present proceedings cannot be so different to contend that the admission made in the earlier proceedings - 153 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 would not be binding in the present proceedings. 25.10. Since Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has specifically pleaded and led evidence as regards the Brindavanas located in the Nava Brindavana Gadde. Hence, the decision in Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case would not be appliable. In so far as Basant Singh’s case is concerned wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that an admission can be explained by the concerned party, here the person who has made the said admission having expired his successor to office relying on the Nirupa issued by the person making the admission and the said Nirupa also clearly stating that there was an alleged mistaken belief that the Brindavana was of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu when it is in fact of Shri. Jaya Teertharu, I am of the considered opinion that these aspects would - 154 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 have to be independently established by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in a proceedings initiated in that regard by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 25.11. The admission has not been explained but is sought to be resiled from, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the admission made in O.S. No.65/1/59-60. 25.12. Hence, I answer point No.4 by holding that the admission made by former Peetadhipati of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would be binding on Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers.</p><p>26. ANSWER TO POINT NO.5: Whether the Gazetteers produced by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, now at this stage, can be relied upon by this Court?. 26.1. Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has produced several Gazetteers based on which the submission - 155 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 made by Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande is that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is recognized to be that in Nava Brindavana Gadde and that of Shri Jaya Teertharu is in Malkhed, Kalaburagi. Reliance is placed on the Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga Region (Anegundi) to contend that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is at Anegundi viz., Nava Brindavana Gadde. By relying on the very same document/publication, it is contended that the brindavana of Shri *Jaya Teertharu is not at Nava Brindavana Gadde since his name is not mentioned. 26.2. By relying on the Mysore State Gazetteer published in the year 1966, it is contended that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, Gulbarga, now Kalaburagi. By relying on Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka, Dharwad district, it is again contended that the *Corrected vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 156 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed. 26.3. The submission made by Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande is that in terms of Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is a presumption as to the contents of the Gazetteer and this Court would have to take the same into account to be genuine and accept the contents thereof. It is further contended that cognizance of the contents thereof could be taken in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act. 26.4. The submission of Sri. C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsel for respondents No.6 to 15 is that the Gazetteer cannot be taken to be or considered to be the gospel truth, the contents of the Gazetteer would have to be independently assessed on the available evidence, this Court cannot look into the same due to the contents of the Gazetteer being disputed, it would be better to let the Court - 157 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 seized of the suit now filed by respondents No.6 to 15 to decide on the same. 26.5. His submission is that in terms of Bombay Gazetteer Shri Jaya Teertharu is stated to have expired in the year 1269 and in terms of the Gulbarga Gazetteer, he is stated to have expired in the year 1389 there being difference of 100 years amongst these two Gazetteers. The year of expiry being wrongly mentioned, the contents of the Gazetteers cannot be considered to be true. In this regard reliance has been placed on Thriamak Shivarudra’s case to contend that the Gazetteers themselves are not conclusive evidence but are rebuttable pieces of evidence. Reliance is also placed on Kali Prasanna’s case to contend that Gazetteers are strictly not evidence of the truth of the matter.-. 158 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 26.6. Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act is extracted hereinbelow for easy reference:</p><p>81. Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of Parliament and other documents. The Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the London Gazette or [any official Gazette, or the Government Gazette]. [Substituted by A.O. 1937, for "the Gazette of India, or the Government Gazette of any L.G., or".]. of any colony, dependency or possession of the British Crown, or to be a newspaper or journal, or to be a copy of a private Act of Parliament [of the United Kingdom]. [Inserted by A.O. 1950.]. printed by the Queen's Printer and of every document purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such document is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody. 26.7. A perusal of Section 81 of Indian Evidence Act, extracted hereinabove, would indicate that the Court shall presume the genuineness of every document, be it official gazette or government gazette printed by the Queens printer, which - 159 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 would now have to be read as Government Press, thus, the Gazetteers having been produced there would be a presumption drawn by this Court. 26.8. The said presumption as contended by Sri.C.V.Nagesh is rebuttable except for pointing out the divergence in the year of death of Shri. Jaya Teertharu, nothing has been placed on record to disbelieve the Gazetteers, nor is any defect pointed out in the Gazetteers. Merely because the year of death of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is mentioned wrongly would not take away the assertion made in the Gazetteers that the brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde nor does it take away the fact that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated at Malkhed, Kalaburagi.-. 160 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 26.9. All the counsels having specifically asserted that a brindavana can relate to only one pontiff or Guru and that two pontiffs or two Gurus cannot be in the same brindavana. It cannot therefore be contended that the same brindavana is of a different pontiff than that of the pontiff which has been believed for the last several centuries. 26.10. The denial by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is based on one single contradiction. The existence of the Gazetteers and the publication thereof is not disputed. 26.11. The submission of Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsel in this regard is that in the Suit, the truth of the Gazetteers would come out. The fact remains that respondents No.6 to 15 are seeking to deny the veracity of the contents of the Gazetteers, as regards which, as of today, there is only a denial. The Gazetteers speak for themselves and have been published, - 161 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 admitted to be so published, the existence being admitted. At this stage, the said gazetteers would have to be considered by this Court. The request for non-consideration by respondents No.6 to 15 on the basis of their dispute, as regards the veracity, is yet to be established in the suit. 26.12. The veracity and authenticity of the gazetteers being established, I’am of the considered opinion that in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act, this court can take cognizance of, as also take judicial notice of the contents of the said gazetteers which give a history of people and places, which includes that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and Shri. Jaya Teertharu and their respective Brindavanas including location thereof. 26.13. Insofar as the books and treatises relied upon by Sri.C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior counsel, - 162 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 these books and treatises are private publications which are not ones which are recognized or be recognised under Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act. Without commenting on the veracity and or the authenticity of the said books, it can only be said that the contents of the said books and the statements made therein are the opinion of the authors concerned. If at all, they are required to be established during the trial in the suit filed by respondents No.6 to 15, the authors would have to be examined in the said suit. 26.14. Merely because there is a publication that would not bind this court. It is a trite law that newspaper publications or the like are not ones which can be taken to be established evidence without them being established in the manner known to law.-. 163 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 26.15. Merely because the said suit is pending and a claim is made contra to the existing state of affairs, it cannot be said that the said dispute will override the existing state of affairs, requiring the contents of the Gazetteers to be disbelieved. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the contents of the Gazetteers would have to be taken into consideration by this Court in terms of Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, as also in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act. 26.16. Thus, I answer Point No.5 by holding that the Gazetteers relied upon by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt can and/or to be believed by this Court for the purpose of ascertaining and passing necessary orders there being no rebuttable evidence placed on record contrary to the contents of the Gazetteers - 164 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 except the divergence pointed out in the year of death of Shri Jaya Teertharu.</p><p>27. ANSWER TO POINT NO.6: Whether at this juncture, it can be said that the Brindavana at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu or Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu?. 27.1. In view of my answer to points No.1 to 5 above, it is clear that until the year 1985 even Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its pontiffs believed that the brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde to be that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is only post the Nirupa which had been issued by earlier pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt based on certain publications that it is now sought to be asserted that the brindavana is of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and not of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. 27.2. As held above, there is nothing on record which would indicate that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy - 165 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Mutt is performing any pooja or aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde prior to 1985 and even after 1985 except for the pamphlets which have been produced there is nothing placed on record and coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 15.07.2022 in WP No.102614/2022 has come to a conclusion that there is nothing which is on record to establish that Shri.Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has conducted any aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 27.3. In the suit which had been filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, written statement having been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as also evidence having been led by the earlier pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, firstly there is no mention of the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu being existent at Nava Brindavana Gadde in the written statement.-. 166 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 27.4. In the evidence led by the pontiff, firstly it is categorically asserted that the brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde and secondly, nowhere it has been claimed that brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 27.5. It is also clear from the records that in the year 1985 when Nirupa was issued by earlier pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, for the first time it is contended that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde. In fact, the pontiff has categorically stated that he was under a mistaken belief that the brindavana was that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. This would indicate and categorically establish that even until 1985 both the pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt were of the opinion - 167 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that the brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and not Shri Jaya Teertharu. 27.6. Even thereafter there are no issues which arose until 2021-22 when the ceremony, pooja, aradhana sought to be performed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt was obstructed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which resulted in writ petition being filed for that year followed by subsequent years. The Nirupa having been issued on the basis of certain publication made by Sosale Vysaraya Mutt and now sought to be substantiated by relying on the publication by certain other researchers viz., Shri. M.R.Anantha Padmanabha, Shri. Sanur Bheema Bhat, Shri. T.K.Venugopala Dasaru, which are all private publications which would need to be established by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt by cogent evidence being led. These being - 168 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 private publications by individuals cannot be accepted to be the gospel truth or Veda Vakya, on the face of it. The authors would have to be examined and cross-examined, their assertions being contrary to the admission even made by the pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt cannot be a ground for this Court to disbelieve that the brindavana located at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu requiring this court to take judicial notice of the same in terms of Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act. 27.7. Be that as it may, these are all documents which have come into being post the admission made in the Suit on which basis the Nirupa has been issued and as such, the Nirupa being a assertion of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would have to be established by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt.-. 169 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 27.8. At this stage when Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has not sought for any further relief than that originally sought for in W.P. No.103994/2023, it is Shri Uttaradi Mutt who has persisted in prosecuting its writ petition by filing amendment and addressing arguments. This would give rise to unmistakable conclusion that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not interested in prosecuting W.P. No.103994/2023. 27.9. The arguments of Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi and Shri. C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsels has always been with an intent to find lacuna in the claim of Shri Uttaradi Mutt rather than establishing the claim of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not merely a Respondent in WP No.103982 of 2023 but is also a Petitioner in WP No.103994 of 2023. The only assertion made as regards - 170 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 establishing the claim of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt being reference to aforesaid publications and the Nirupa. 27.10. A suit has also been filed by respondents No.6 to 15 wherein petitioners No.1 to 6 claims to be the devotees and followers of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which has been filed after the filing of the present writ petition and those persons have also been impleaded in the present matter. The manner in which the said suit has been filed subsequent to filing of the writ petition, impleading application being filed and asserted that respondents No.6 to 15 will be affected if any order is passed and there being no suit which has been filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, I am of the considered opinion that the intention behind filing of the said suit is also suspect. Be that as it may the arguments of respondents 6 to 15 - 171 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 were heard in detail and all the submissions made on their behalf by Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel have been dealt with in the present order. 27.11. For all the above-mentioned reasons, I answer point No.6 by holding that at this juncture, I am of the considered opinion that the brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and not that of Shri Jaya Teertharu.</p><p>28. ANSWER TO POINT No.7: What order?. 28.1. I am of the considered opinion that it does not behoove the Mutts of the stature of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and/or Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to have such disputes in a court of law, they ought to have resolved the same among themselves they being guiding Mutts as regards - 172 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the Shri. Madhva philosophy which the common citizens look upto. 28.2. The mutts and their Peetadhipatis, being knowledgeable of worldly and other worldly affairs, are looked upon to offer solace to a common man. It is never advisable for such guiding Mutts, who are friends, philosophers and guides to the general public, to have such disputes. It is, in fact, for such Mutts to guide the general public, their devotees and followers in such a manner that there is no scope for any disputes to arise, if despite the same if any worldly or other worldly disputes were to arise to guide them in such a manner that they are resolved amicably. If the same are not so resolved, the Courts are always available to decide on the dispute raised. 28.3. It is there required for the Peetadhipatis of both the Mutts to resolve these disputes at the - 173 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 earliest, lest the followers and devotees would be dragged into the same, as can be seen by Respondents No.6 to 15 having been dragged in. 28.4. Considering that these disputes have recently arisen for the last three to four years leading to litigation before this Court, and this litigation arises every year when Aradhana is required to be performed, I am of the opinion that waiting for the Civil Court to decide the alleged dispute now raised which may take many years, would not be in the interest of both the Mutts and/or the followers of the Mutt. 28.5. This court would have to take into consideration the circumstances as existing and as also established as being followed to arrive at a conclusion rather than to wait for a decision of a Civil Court as regards the dispute raised only now based on the Nirupa issued by the former - 174 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, which Nirupa is also contrary to the statements made by the very same pontiff in a litigation before Courts of law. 28.6. In view of the above findings and observations, I pass the following: </p>ORDER<p> i. The Writ Petition in W.P. No.103994/2023 filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is dismissed. ii. The writ petition in W.P. No.103982/2023 filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is allowed. iii. A mandamus is issued directing official respondents No.1 to 4 to provide adequate protection, if and when necessary, for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to offer prayers, conducting pooja Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the name Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu at his Brindavana situated on the island named ‘Nava Brindavana Gadde”, - 175 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Gangavati Taluk, Koppal District; and iv. Respondents No.1 to 4 are also directed to ensure that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and/or its followers do not offer any prayers, conducting pooja Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc, in the name of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at any brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde. v. The above order shall, however, be subject to the Judgement and decree, if any, passed in OS No.35/2024, now pending before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Gangavathi. I place on record my appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Sri.Vinay Kudri, Law Clerk- cum-Research Assistant. Sd/- JUDGE LN, List No.:</p><p>19. Sl No.: 1</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State Of Karnataka',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1232793'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt Vs. The State Of Karnataka Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 1 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 2 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 144',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 144',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 144',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 144',
			(int) 7 => 'Amendment',
			(int) 8 => 'Article 19(2',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 56',
			(int) 10 => 'the Evidence Act',
			(int) 11 => 'the Evidence Act',
			(int) 12 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
			(int) 13 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 14 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 15 => 'Article 226 the High Court',
			(int) 16 => 'Section 4',
			(int) 17 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
			(int) 18 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
			(int) 19 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
			(int) 20 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 21 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
			(int) 22 => 'Article 226 embark',
			(int) 23 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 24 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 25 => 'Article 226',
			(int) 26 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 27 => 'Section 9',
			(int) 28 => 'Article 25 of the Constitution',
			(int) 29 => 'Section 9',
			(int) 30 => 'Section 9',
			(int) 31 => 'Section 9',
			(int) 32 => 'Section 9',
			(int) 33 => 'Section 9',
			(int) 34 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 35 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 36 => 'Article 25 of the Constitution',
			(int) 37 => 'Section 21 of the Evidence Act',
			(int) 38 => 'Section 31',
			(int) 39 => 'Section 21',
			(int) 40 => 'the Evidence Act',
			(int) 41 => 'the Evidence Act'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 1 => 'DESHPANDE.',
			(int) 2 => 'BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI',
			(int) 3 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 4 => 'KOPPAL5 SHRI NANJANGUDA RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT',
			(int) 5 => 'H.K. RAM RAO AGED ABOUT55YEARS R/O11-110',
			(int) 6 => 'KISHAN RAO S/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO AGED',
			(int) 7 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 8 => 'BTM LAYOUT',
			(int) 9 => 'BANGALORE-560056',
			(int) 10 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 11 => 'ARUN L. NEELOPANT',
			(int) 12 => 'H.R. DESHPANDE.',
			(int) 13 => 'RAGHUVARYA TEERTHA',
			(int) 14 => 'DIST.KOPPAL',
			(int) 15 => 'R.K. VADEENDRA S/O R.KRISHNACHAR AGE',
			(int) 16 => 'JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041',
			(int) 17 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 18 => 'KANAKAGIRI GANGAVATHI',
			(int) 19 => 'DESHPANDE',
			(int) 20 => 'BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI',
			(int) 21 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 22 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 23 => 'a. Quash',
			(int) 24 => 'Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava',
			(int) 25 => 'Raghuvarya Teertha',
			(int) 26 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 27 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 28 => 'Mahimotsava',
			(int) 29 => 'Sri',
			(int) 30 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 31 => 'c. Grant',
			(int) 32 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 33 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 34 => 'Shri',
			(int) 35 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 36 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 37 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 38 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 39 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 40 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 41 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 42 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 43 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 44 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 45 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 46 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 47 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 48 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 49 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 50 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 51 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 52 => 'Shri',
			(int) 53 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 54 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy',
			(int) 55 => 'Shri Uttaradi',
			(int) 56 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 57 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 58 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 59 => 'Shri Madhva Parampara',
			(int) 60 => 'Shri Kavindra Teertharu',
			(int) 61 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 62 => 'Krishna Rao',
			(int) 63 => 'Nizams',
			(int) 64 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 65 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 66 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 67 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 68 => 'Shri Jaya',
			(int) 69 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 70 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 71 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 72 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 73 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 74 => 'Ardahana',
			(int) 75 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 76 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 77 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 78 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 79 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 80 => 'Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 81 => 'Tahsildar',
			(int) 82 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 83 => 'Tahashildar',
			(int) 84 => 'Shree Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 85 => 'Shree Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava',
			(int) 86 => 'Shree Raghuvarya - 23 - NC:2024',
			(int) 87 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 88 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 89 => 'vii',
			(int) 90 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 91 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 92 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 93 => 'Mahimotsava',
			(int) 94 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 95 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 96 => 'Nos',
			(int) 97 => 'Nos',
			(int) 98 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 99 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 100 => 'No.7',
			(int) 101 => 'Govinda Odeyar',
			(int) 102 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 103 => 'Shri Vysararaj Teertharu',
			(int) 104 => 'Shri Srinivas Teertharu',
			(int) 105 => 'Shri Sudheendra Teertharu',
			(int) 106 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 107 => 'Shri Akshobhya Teertharu',
			(int) 108 => 'Bhageerathi Bai',
			(int) 109 => 'Raghappa Achar',
			(int) 110 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 111 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 112 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 113 => 'Kumar Deshpande',
			(int) 114 => 'Respondent No.5- Shri',
			(int) 115 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 116 => 'Shri',
			(int) 117 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 118 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 119 => 'Shri',
			(int) 120 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 121 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 122 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 123 => 'Shri',
			(int) 124 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 125 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 126 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 127 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 128 => 'v. Liberty',
			(int) 129 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 130 => 'b(1',
			(int) 131 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 132 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 133 => '¦ÃoÁ¢ü¥ÀwUÀ¼ÁwzÀÄÝ',
			(int) 134 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 135 => 'ಇ(cid:21',
			(int) 136 => 'ೇU(cid:31)ಾFE(cid:31)ೆ ಅ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:20)ಗು',
			(int) 137 => 'ÀmÁÖ',
			(int) 138 => 'ಾಡ^ೇTೆಂದು',
			(int) 139 => 'Shri Raghavendra - 38 - NC:2024',
			(int) 140 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 141 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 142 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 143 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 144 => 'Shri',
			(int) 145 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 146 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 147 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 148 => 'Shri',
			(int) 149 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 150 => 'H.S. Stya Pramooda',
			(int) 151 => 'Defts',
			(int) 152 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 153 => 'Brindavanas',
			(int) 154 => 'Moola Brindavana',
			(int) 155 => 'Srinivas Tirtharu Rama Thirtharu',
			(int) 156 => 'Holi',
			(int) 157 => 'Deft',
			(int) 158 => 'Vageesha Tirtharu',
			(int) 159 => 'Sudhendra Tirtharu',
			(int) 160 => 'para No.7',
			(int) 161 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 162 => 'Rajasab',
			(int) 163 => 'Krishn Rao',
			(int) 164 => 'Suyamendra Thirtharu',
			(int) 165 => 'Jayaramachar',
			(int) 166 => 'Joshi Sd/-',
			(int) 167 => 'Prasanna Theertharu',
			(int) 168 => 'Hanumanthacharya',
			(int) 169 => 'joshi',
			(int) 170 => 'Sd/-',
			(int) 171 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 172 => 'Suyamendra Thirtharu',
			(int) 173 => 'Jayaramachar',
			(int) 174 => 'Joshi Sd/-',
			(int) 175 => 'Prasanna Teertharu',
			(int) 176 => 'Hanmanthacharya',
			(int) 177 => 'joshi',
			(int) 178 => 'Sd/-',
			(int) 179 => 'Shri',
			(int) 180 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri',
			(int) 181 => 'Vyasaraya Mutt',
			(int) 182 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 183 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 184 => 'Shri',
			(int) 185 => 'Shri',
			(int) 186 => 'Padmanabha Teertharu',
			(int) 187 => 'Shri',
			(int) 188 => 'Raveendra',
			(int) 189 => 'Shri',
			(int) 190 => 'Sudheendra Teertharu',
			(int) 191 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 192 => 'Shri',
			(int) 193 => 'Sujayendra Teertharu',
			(int) 194 => 'Shri Kavindra',
			(int) 195 => 'Vysararaj Teertharu',
			(int) 196 => 'Shri Srinivas',
			(int) 197 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 198 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 199 => 'Shri Sudheendra Teertharu',
			(int) 200 => 'Shri',
			(int) 201 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri',
			(int) 202 => 'Govinda Wodeyaru',
			(int) 203 => 'Shri',
			(int) 204 => 'Shri',
			(int) 205 => 'Shri',
			(int) 206 => 'Vyasaraya Mutt',
			(int) 207 => 'Shri',
			(int) 208 => 'Kumar Deshpande',
			(int) 209 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 210 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 211 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 212 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 213 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 214 => 'Gurus',
			(int) 215 => 'Shri',
			(int) 216 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 217 => 'Shri',
			(int) 218 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 219 => 'Shri',
			(int) 220 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 221 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 222 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 223 => 'Shri',
			(int) 224 => 'Kaveendra',
			(int) 225 => 'Vageesha Teertharu',
			(int) 226 => 'Shri',
			(int) 227 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 228 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 229 => 'Shri',
			(int) 230 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 231 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 232 => 'Shri',
			(int) 233 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 234 => 'Shri',
			(int) 235 => 'Shri',
			(int) 236 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 237 => 'Shri',
			(int) 238 => 'Shri',
			(int) 239 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 240 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 241 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 242 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 243 => 'Shri',
			(int) 244 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 245 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 246 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 247 => 'Shri',
			(int) 248 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 249 => 'Shri',
			(int) 250 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 251 => 'Shri',
			(int) 252 => 'Shri',
			(int) 253 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 254 => 'Shri',
			(int) 255 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 256 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 257 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 258 => 'Para 51',
			(int) 259 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 260 => 'Shri',
			(int) 261 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 262 => 'Shri',
			(int) 263 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 264 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 265 => 'Karnataka Gazeteer',
			(int) 266 => 'Dharwad District',
			(int) 267 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 268 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 269 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 270 => 'Shri',
			(int) 271 => 'Srinivas Ramanuj Das v.',
			(int) 272 => 'Surjanarayan Das2',
			(int) 273 => 'Gazetteer',
			(int) 274 => 'Gazetteer',
			(int) 275 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 276 => 'Gazetteer',
			(int) 277 => 'Shri',
			(int) 278 => 'Shri',
			(int) 279 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 280 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 281 => 'Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee',
			(int) 282 => 'Bhatinda',
			(int) 283 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 284 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 285 => 'Gunwant Kaur',
			(int) 286 => 'Century Spg',
			(int) 287 => 'para13',
			(int) 288 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 289 => 'Shri',
			(int) 290 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 291 => 'Shri',
			(int) 292 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 293 => 'Shri',
			(int) 294 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 295 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 296 => 'Shri',
			(int) 297 => 'Raghuvara Teetharu',
			(int) 298 => 'Shri',
			(int) 299 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 300 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 301 => 'Shri',
			(int) 302 => 'Shri',
			(int) 303 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 304 => 'Shri',
			(int) 305 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 306 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 307 => 'Jain Sangh v. State',
			(int) 308 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 309 => 'Himmatlal',
			(int) 310 => 'Mahabir Prasad',
			(int) 311 => 'B.S. Gupta',
			(int) 312 => 'Jain Sangh’s',
			(int) 313 => 'Shri',
			(int) 314 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 315 => 'Shri',
			(int) 316 => 'Shri',
			(int) 317 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 318 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 319 => 'Raghuvarya Rayaru',
			(int) 320 => 'Shri',
			(int) 321 => 'Shri',
			(int) 322 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 323 => 'Shri',
			(int) 324 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 325 => 'Shri',
			(int) 326 => 'Shri',
			(int) 327 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri',
			(int) 328 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 329 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 330 => 'Shri',
			(int) 331 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 332 => 'Shri',
			(int) 333 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 334 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 335 => 'Shri',
			(int) 336 => 'Shri',
			(int) 337 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 338 => 'Shri',
			(int) 339 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 340 => 'Shri',
			(int) 341 => 'Shri',
			(int) 342 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 343 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 344 => 'Shri',
			(int) 345 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 346 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 347 => 'Shri',
			(int) 348 => 'Shri',
			(int) 349 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 350 => 'Nirupa',
			(int) 351 => 'Shri',
			(int) 352 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 353 => 'Shri',
			(int) 354 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 355 => 'Shri',
			(int) 356 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 357 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 358 => 'Shri',
			(int) 359 => 'Shri',
			(int) 360 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 361 => 'Shri',
			(int) 362 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 363 => 'Shri',
			(int) 364 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 365 => 'Shri',
			(int) 366 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 367 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 368 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 369 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 370 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 371 => 'O.S.No.193/1992',
			(int) 372 => 'Shri',
			(int) 373 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 374 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 375 => 'Dharwad District',
			(int) 376 => 'Shri',
			(int) 377 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 378 => 'Shri',
			(int) 379 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 380 => 'Shri',
			(int) 381 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 382 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 383 => 'Shri',
			(int) 384 => 'Sri',
			(int) 385 => 'Kumar Deshpande',
			(int) 386 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 387 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 388 => 'Shri',
			(int) 389 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 390 => 'BNK Sharma',
			(int) 391 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 392 => 'M.R.Anantha Padmanabha Rao',
			(int) 393 => 'Sannur Bheema Bhat',
			(int) 394 => 'Shri',
			(int) 395 => 'Kannada',
			(int) 396 => 'Shri',
			(int) 397 => 'Shri',
			(int) 398 => 'T.K.Venugopala Dasaru',
			(int) 399 => 'Dasa Parampara',
			(int) 400 => 'Srimad Jaya',
			(int) 401 => 'Anegundi Utsava',
			(int) 402 => 'Sharana Basappa Kolkar',
			(int) 403 => 'Shri.-',
			(int) 404 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 405 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 406 => 'Shri',
			(int) 407 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 408 => 'Shri',
			(int) 409 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 410 => 'Moran Mar',
			(int) 411 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 412 => 'Srimad Perarulala',
			(int) 413 => 'Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami',
			(int) 414 => 'Srimad Perarulala',
			(int) 415 => 'Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami',
			(int) 416 => 'Stainislaus v. State of M.P.',
			(int) 417 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 418 => 'Adeshwarji',
			(int) 419 => 'Swetamberis',
			(int) 420 => 'Dhwajadand',
			(int) 421 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 422 => 'Moran Mar Basselios',
			(int) 423 => 'Catholicos',
			(int) 424 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 425 => 'Moran Mar Basselios',
			(int) 426 => 'Catholicos',
			(int) 427 => 'Moran Mar Marthoma’s',
			(int) 428 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 429 => 'Basant Singh -v- Janki Singh',
			(int) 430 => 'Janki Singh',
			(int) 431 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
			(int) 432 => 'Ramanand Singh',
			(int) 433 => 'Janki Singh',
			(int) 434 => 'Janki Singh',
			(int) 435 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
			(int) 436 => 'Ramanand Singh',
			(int) 437 => 'Ramanand Singh',
			(int) 438 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 439 => 'Ramanand Singh',
			(int) 440 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
			(int) 441 => 'Homeopathic',
			(int) 442 => 'Janki Singh',
			(int) 443 => 'Janki Singh',
			(int) 444 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
			(int) 445 => 'Ramyad Singh',
			(int) 446 => 'Ramyad Singh',
			(int) 447 => 'Ramyad Singh',
			(int) 448 => 'Chanderjoti Debi',
			(int) 449 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 450 => 'Jairam Mahaton',
			(int) 451 => 'Lokenath Mahaton',
			(int) 452 => 'S.T. Chendikamba v. K.I. Viswanathamayya',
			(int) 453 => 'Indian Law',
			(int) 454 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 455 => 'Kamta Prasad',
			(int) 456 => 'Shri',
			(int) 457 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 458 => 'Peetadhipati',
			(int) 459 => 'Shri',
			(int) 460 => 'Shri',
			(int) 461 => 'Nirupa',
			(int) 462 => 'Nirupa',
			(int) 463 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 464 => 'Nirupa',
			(int) 465 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 466 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 467 => 'Shri',
			(int) 468 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 469 => 'Shri',
			(int) 470 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 471 => 'Shri',
			(int) 472 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 473 => 'Prabhuling K. Navadgi',
			(int) 474 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 475 => 'Shri',
			(int) 476 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 477 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 478 => 'Uttaradi Mutt, Shri',
			(int) 479 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri',
			(int) 480 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 481 => 'Mahimotsava',
			(int) 482 => 'Sri',
			(int) 483 => 'Anegundi Village',
			(int) 484 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 485 => 'Shri',
			(int) 486 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 487 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 488 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 489 => 'Shri',
			(int) 490 => 'Shri',
			(int) 491 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 492 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
			(int) 493 => 'Shri',
			(int) 494 => 'Shri',
			(int) 495 => 'Althaf Ahamed v. State',
			(int) 496 => 'Will',
			(int) 497 => 'Shri',
			(int) 498 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 499 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2023',
			(int) 1 => '2023',
			(int) 2 => '2024',
			(int) 3 => '2023',
			(int) 4 => '2023',
			(int) 5 => '2023',
			(int) 6 => '2023',
			(int) 7 => '2023',
			(int) 8 => '2023',
			(int) 9 => 'R6-R15',
			(int) 10 => '2023',
			(int) 11 => 'TO1007-2023',
			(int) 12 => '11TH MAIN45H',
			(int) 13 => '2023',
			(int) 14 => '2023 1',
			(int) 15 => 'THIS DAY',
			(int) 16 => '2023',
			(int) 17 => '2023',
			(int) 18 => '2023',
			(int) 19 => '2023',
			(int) 20 => '6th July 2023, 7th July 2023',
			(int) 21 => '8th July 2023',
			(int) 22 => '2023',
			(int) 23 => '2023',
			(int) 24 => '2023',
			(int) 25 => '2023',
			(int) 26 => 'the year 1959',
			(int) 27 => '2023',
			(int) 28 => '2023',
			(int) 29 => '2023',
			(int) 30 => '2023',
			(int) 31 => 'centuries',
			(int) 32 => '2023',
			(int) 33 => '2023',
			(int) 34 => '2023',
			(int) 35 => '2023',
			(int) 36 => '2023',
			(int) 37 => '2023',
			(int) 38 => '6th, 7th and',
			(int) 39 => '8th July 2023',
			(int) 40 => '2023',
			(int) 41 => '2023',
			(int) 42 => 'the year *1916',
			(int) 43 => '2023',
			(int) 44 => '2023',
			(int) 45 => 'the year 1988-89',
			(int) 46 => '2001-02',
			(int) 47 => '2003-04',
			(int) 48 => '2004-05',
			(int) 49 => '2008-09',
			(int) 50 => '2009-10',
			(int) 51 => '2023',
			(int) 52 => '2023 5',
			(int) 53 => 'the year 2022',
			(int) 54 => 'the month of July 2022',
			(int) 55 => '2023',
			(int) 56 => 'days',
			(int) 57 => 'the year 2023',
			(int) 58 => '2023',
			(int) 59 => '2023',
			(int) 60 => '2023',
			(int) 61 => '2023',
			(int) 62 => 'fifth, sixth',
			(int) 63 => 'June, 2023',
			(int) 64 => '2023',
			(int) 65 => '2023',
			(int) 66 => '4th July to 7th July, 2023',
			(int) 67 => 'both days',
			(int) 68 => '8th July to 10th July 2023',
			(int) 69 => 'both days',
			(int) 70 => '2023',
			(int) 71 => '100391/2023',
			(int) 72 => '2023',
			(int) 73 => 'the same day',
			(int) 74 => '2023',
			(int) 75 => '2023 6',
			(int) 76 => '2023',
			(int) 77 => '2023',
			(int) 78 => '2023',
			(int) 79 => '2023',
			(int) 80 => '2023',
			(int) 81 => '2023 9.5',
			(int) 82 => '1324',
			(int) 83 => '1388',
			(int) 84 => '1398',
			(int) 85 => '1406',
			(int) 86 => '1534',
			(int) 87 => '2023',
			(int) 88 => '2023 6',
			(int) 89 => '1539',
			(int) 90 => '1564',
			(int) 91 => '1584',
			(int) 92 => '1683',
			(int) 93 => '2023',
			(int) 94 => '2023 9.10',
			(int) 95 => 'the year 1958',
			(int) 96 => 'the year 2022',
			(int) 97 => '2023',
			(int) 98 => '2023 10',
			(int) 99 => '2023',
			(int) 100 => '2023',
			(int) 101 => '2023',
			(int) 102 => '2023',
			(int) 103 => 'fifth, sixth',
			(int) 104 => 'June, 2023',
			(int) 105 => '2023',
			(int) 106 => '2023',
			(int) 107 => '100391/2023',
			(int) 108 => '2023',
			(int) 109 => '2023 ii',
			(int) 110 => '2023',
			(int) 111 => '2023',
			(int) 112 => '14-7ರ(cid:21)((cid:22',
			(int) 113 => '2023',
			(int) 114 => '2023 5(cid:16)ೕ(cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರು 2',
			(int) 115 => '2023',
			(int) 116 => '2023',
			(int) 117 => '2023',
			(int) 118 => '2023',
			(int) 119 => '1959-60',
			(int) 120 => '2023',
			(int) 121 => '2023 1.-',
			(int) 122 => 'the year 1351',
			(int) 123 => 'the year 1355 F.',
			(int) 124 => '2023',
			(int) 125 => '2023',
			(int) 126 => '2023',
			(int) 127 => '2023',
			(int) 128 => 'this day',
			(int) 129 => '2023',
			(int) 130 => '24.12.1967',
			(int) 131 => '16',
			(int) 132 => '2023',
			(int) 133 => '2023 10.16',
			(int) 134 => '2023',
			(int) 135 => '2023 10.18',
			(int) 136 => '13.03.1968',
			(int) 137 => 'the year 1991',
			(int) 138 => '2023',
			(int) 139 => '2023',
			(int) 140 => '2023',
			(int) 141 => '2023',
			(int) 142 => '2023',
			(int) 143 => '2023 10.25',
			(int) 144 => 'the year 2022, Shri',
			(int) 145 => '15.07.1952',
			(int) 146 => '2023',
			(int) 147 => '2023 10.27',
			(int) 148 => 'centuries',
			(int) 149 => 'centuries',
			(int) 150 => '2023',
			(int) 151 => '2023 10.28',
			(int) 152 => '1 1989(2',
			(int) 153 => '2023',
			(int) 154 => '2023',
			(int) 155 => '2023',
			(int) 156 => '1966',
			(int) 157 => '2023',
			(int) 158 => '2023',
			(int) 159 => 'under 2 1966',
			(int) 160 => '2023',
			(int) 161 => '2023 Section 56',
			(int) 162 => '2002',
			(int) 163 => '3 (2004',
			(int) 164 => '2023',
			(int) 165 => '2023',
			(int) 166 => '1969',
			(int) 167 => '2023',
			(int) 168 => '2023',
			(int) 169 => '2023',
			(int) 170 => '1969',
			(int) 171 => '1970',
			(int) 172 => '2023',
			(int) 173 => '2023',
			(int) 174 => '1969',
			(int) 175 => 'the year 1985',
			(int) 176 => '2023',
			(int) 177 => '2023',
			(int) 178 => 'the year 1985',
			(int) 179 => 'the year 1985',
			(int) 180 => '2023',
			(int) 181 => '2023 10.39',
			(int) 182 => '2023',
			(int) 183 => '2023',
			(int) 184 => '1957',
			(int) 185 => '1985',
			(int) 186 => '2023',
			(int) 187 => '2023',
			(int) 188 => '2023',
			(int) 189 => '2023 10.42',
			(int) 190 => 'the last several centuries',
			(int) 191 => '2023',
			(int) 192 => '2023 10.43',
			(int) 193 => 'the year 1985',
			(int) 194 => 'centuries',
			(int) 195 => '2023',
			(int) 196 => '2023',
			(int) 197 => '10.45',
			(int) 198 => 'centuries',
			(int) 199 => '2023',
			(int) 200 => '2023',
			(int) 201 => '2023',
			(int) 202 => 'the year 1966',
			(int) 203 => '2023',
			(int) 204 => '2023',
			(int) 205 => '2023',
			(int) 206 => '2023',
			(int) 207 => '2023 11.4',
			(int) 208 => '2023',
			(int) 209 => '2023',
			(int) 210 => '2023',
			(int) 211 => '2023',
			(int) 212 => '1995',
			(int) 213 => '2023',
			(int) 214 => '2023',
			(int) 215 => '1972',
			(int) 216 => '1977',
			(int) 217 => '1983',
			(int) 218 => '1983',
			(int) 219 => '2023',
			(int) 220 => '2023',
			(int) 221 => '1970',
			(int) 222 => '1971',
			(int) 223 => '2023',
			(int) 224 => '2023',
			(int) 225 => '1991',
			(int) 226 => '1912',
			(int) 227 => '1934',
			(int) 228 => '2023',
			(int) 229 => '2023',
			(int) 230 => '1935',
			(int) 231 => '2023',
			(int) 232 => '2023',
			(int) 233 => '2023',
			(int) 234 => '1939',
			(int) 235 => '2023',
			(int) 236 => '2023',
			(int) 237 => '20236',
			(int) 238 => '2023',
			(int) 239 => '2023',
			(int) 240 => '2023 5.06.1985',
			(int) 241 => '2023',
			(int) 242 => '2023 12',
			(int) 243 => '2023',
			(int) 244 => '2023 12.3',
			(int) 245 => '2023',
			(int) 246 => '2023',
			(int) 247 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 248 => 'daily',
			(int) 249 => '2023',
			(int) 250 => '2023',
			(int) 251 => '2023',
			(int) 252 => '2023',
			(int) 253 => '11.3.2024 - 88 - NC:2024',
			(int) 254 => '2023',
			(int) 255 => '2023'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 1 => 'KARNATAKA',
			(int) 2 => 'C/W WRIT PETITION No.103994 OF2023(GM-RES',
			(int) 3 => 'SR',
			(int) 4 => 'SATISH S RAICHUR & SHRI',
			(int) 5 => 'ADVOCATES',
			(int) 6 => 'PRINCIPAL',
			(int) 7 => 'DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA',
			(int) 8 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 9 => 'GOPAL KRISHNA S/O DR',
			(int) 10 => 'CROSS',
			(int) 11 => 'MAIN',
			(int) 12 => 'SRINAGAR',
			(int) 13 => 'BANASHANKARI',
			(int) 14 => 'BANGALORE SOUTH KARNATAKA-560050.8',
			(int) 15 => 'K MARUTHI GURUPRASAD S/O K. BHEEMASENA RAO AGED ABOUT50YEARS R/',
			(int) 16 => 'UTTARAHALLI',
			(int) 17 => 'BANGALORE',
			(int) 18 => 'KARNATAKA-560061',
			(int) 19 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 20 => 'NARASINGA RAO S/O D. KISHAN RAO AGED ABOUT64YEARS R/O ANUGRAHA NILAYA JAYANAGAR',
			(int) 21 => 'SRINAGAR',
			(int) 22 => 'PRASANNA DESAI W/O PRASANNA DESAI AGED',
			(int) 23 => 'CROSS',
			(int) 24 => 'THALAGHATTAPURA',
			(int) 25 => 'BENGALURU',
			(int) 26 => 'KARNATAKA-560062',
			(int) 27 => 'No.1077',
			(int) 28 => 'MAIN',
			(int) 29 => 'SRINAGAR',
			(int) 30 => 'MUTTAGI S/O M.L. NARAYANACHAR AGED ABOUT47YEARS',
			(int) 31 => 'MAIN',
			(int) 32 => 'ITTAMADU',
			(int) 33 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 34 => 'J.M. AAG',
			(int) 35 => 'AGA',
			(int) 36 => 'SR',
			(int) 37 => 'C.V. NAGESH',
			(int) 38 => 'SR',
			(int) 39 => 'FILE NO.SAM/KAM',
			(int) 40 => 'NO.524',
			(int) 41 => 'SR',
			(int) 42 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 43 => 'KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF REVENUE REP',
			(int) 44 => 'PRINCIPAL',
			(int) 45 => 'AAG A/W SHRI',
			(int) 46 => 'AGA',
			(int) 47 => 'SR',
			(int) 48 => 'S. RAICHUR & SHRI',
			(int) 49 => 'DATED',
			(int) 50 => 'ETC',
			(int) 51 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 52 => 'Court',
			(int) 53 => 'Original',
			(int) 54 => 'Annexure-N',
			(int) 55 => 'Respondent no.5',
			(int) 56 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 57 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 58 => 'Court',
			(int) 59 => 'i. Issue',
			(int) 60 => 'Aradhana of Shri',
			(int) 61 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 62 => 'District Kalaburagi',
			(int) 63 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 64 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 65 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 66 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 67 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 68 => 'O.S. No.65/1/59-60',
			(int) 69 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 70 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 71 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 72 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 73 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 74 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 75 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 76 => 'Court',
			(int) 77 => 'Court',
			(int) 78 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
			(int) 79 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 80 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 81 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 82 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde in Sy',
			(int) 83 => 'Gangavathi Taluk',
			(int) 84 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 85 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 86 => 'the State of Karnataka -respondent No.1',
			(int) 87 => 'Tahsildar',
			(int) 88 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 89 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 90 => 'RSA No.100446/2015',
			(int) 91 => 'W.P. No.111125/2014',
			(int) 92 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 93 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 94 => 'the Raja of Anegundi',
			(int) 95 => 'Shri Jaya Theetharu',
			(int) 96 => 'Court',
			(int) 97 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 98 => 'Shri Jaya Theetharu',
			(int) 99 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 100 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 101 => 'W.P. No.102614/2022',
			(int) 102 => 'Court',
			(int) 103 => 'Court',
			(int) 104 => 'Court',
			(int) 105 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 106 => 'Brindavanas',
			(int) 107 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 108 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 109 => 'Court',
			(int) 110 => 'Court',
			(int) 111 => 'Court',
			(int) 112 => 'Court',
			(int) 113 => 'Court',
			(int) 114 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 115 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 116 => 'Asst',
			(int) 117 => 'Asst',
			(int) 118 => 'Court',
			(int) 119 => 'Court',
			(int) 120 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
			(int) 121 => 'Kom/Devasthana/2023-24',
			(int) 122 => 'Court',
			(int) 123 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 124 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 125 => 'Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 126 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
			(int) 127 => 'Court',
			(int) 128 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 129 => 'Court',
			(int) 130 => 'Court',
			(int) 131 => 'Court',
			(int) 132 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 133 => 'Shraddha',
			(int) 134 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 135 => 'Court',
			(int) 136 => 'Writ Petition No.103982/2023',
			(int) 137 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
			(int) 138 => 'Anegundi, Taluka-',
			(int) 139 => 'District-Koppal',
			(int) 140 => 'Shree Raghavendraswamy Mutt',
			(int) 141 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
			(int) 142 => 'Anegundi, Taluka-',
			(int) 143 => 'District-Koppal',
			(int) 144 => 'Court',
			(int) 145 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 146 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
			(int) 147 => 'the RSA Court',
			(int) 148 => 'Court',
			(int) 149 => 'RSA',
			(int) 150 => 'Court',
			(int) 151 => 'W.A. Nos.100390/2023',
			(int) 152 => 'WA No.100390/2023',
			(int) 153 => 'W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023',
			(int) 154 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 155 => 'I.A. No.5/2023. v) Liberty',
			(int) 156 => 'the Writ Petition',
			(int) 157 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 158 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 159 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 160 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 161 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 162 => 'the Civil Court',
			(int) 163 => 'JMFC',
			(int) 164 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 165 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 166 => 'believed.-',
			(int) 167 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 168 => 'JMFC',
			(int) 169 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 170 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 171 => 'Shri Madhwacharyaru',
			(int) 172 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 173 => 'Smt',
			(int) 174 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 175 => 'the Petitioner-Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 176 => 'WP No.103982/2023',
			(int) 177 => 'Court',
			(int) 178 => 'the Aradhana of Shri',
			(int) 179 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 180 => 'W.P. No.102614/2022',
			(int) 181 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 182 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
			(int) 183 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
			(int) 184 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 185 => 'Kom/Devasthana/2023-24',
			(int) 186 => 'Court',
			(int) 187 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 188 => 'Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 189 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
			(int) 190 => 'Court',
			(int) 191 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 192 => 'Court',
			(int) 193 => 'Court',
			(int) 194 => 'Court',
			(int) 195 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 196 => 'Shraddha',
			(int) 197 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 198 => 'Division Bench',
			(int) 199 => 'WA No.100390/2023',
			(int) 200 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 201 => 'W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023',
			(int) 202 => 'I.A. No.5/2023',
			(int) 203 => 'the Writ Petition',
			(int) 204 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 205 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 206 => 'AiÀÄ',
			(int) 207 => 'cid:5)ಾಲುD',
			(int) 208 => 'cid:5)ಾಲುD',
			(int) 209 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 210 => 'ಈ ಸ;ಳವX5cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
			(int) 211 => 'ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
			(int) 212 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 213 => 'O.S. No.65/1/59-60',
			(int) 214 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 215 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 216 => 'Munsiff',
			(int) 217 => 'Gangavathi',
			(int) 218 => 'the Court of Munciff at',
			(int) 219 => 'H.H. Suyanendra Tirtharu &',
			(int) 220 => 'CPC',
			(int) 221 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 222 => 'Brindavanas of Shri Vyasaraya Mutt',
			(int) 223 => 'Vyasarayaru',
			(int) 224 => 'Govinda Tirtharu',
			(int) 225 => 'Padmanabha Tirtharu',
			(int) 226 => 'Ravindra Tirtharu',
			(int) 227 => 'the Holy Brindavans',
			(int) 228 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 229 => 'H.H. Satya Dhanaru',
			(int) 230 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 231 => 'W/s',
			(int) 232 => 'Srinivasa',
			(int) 233 => 'Govinda',
			(int) 234 => 'Govinda Wodeyaru',
			(int) 235 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 236 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 237 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 238 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri',
			(int) 239 => 'Srinivasa',
			(int) 240 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 241 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 242 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 243 => 'Teertharu',
			(int) 244 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 245 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 246 => 'W.P. No.102614/2022',
			(int) 247 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
			(int) 248 => 'finality.-',
			(int) 249 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 250 => 'Madhva',
			(int) 251 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 252 => 'Madhva',
			(int) 253 => 'Kalaburagi',
			(int) 254 => 'State',
			(int) 255 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 256 => 'the National Award',
			(int) 257 => 'State',
			(int) 258 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 259 => 'State',
			(int) 260 => 'State',
			(int) 261 => 'State',
			(int) 262 => 'S.Rangaraj',
			(int) 263 => 'Nava - 52 - NC:2024',
			(int) 264 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 265 => 'Kalaburagi',
			(int) 266 => 'Madhva',
			(int) 267 => 'State',
			(int) 268 => 'the Mysore Gazetteer',
			(int) 269 => 'Bombay Gazetteer',
			(int) 270 => 'Karnataka Tourism Dept',
			(int) 271 => 'Gazetteers',
			(int) 272 => 'Peetadhipathi of Shri',
			(int) 273 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 274 => 'Kalaburagi',
			(int) 275 => 'Surjanarayan Das',
			(int) 276 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 277 => 'ABL International Ltd.',
			(int) 278 => 'Export Credit Guarantee Corpn',
			(int) 279 => 'India Ltd.3',
			(int) 280 => 'Court',
			(int) 281 => 'Court',
			(int) 282 => 'State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd.',
			(int) 283 => 'Court',
			(int) 284 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 285 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 286 => 'Court',
			(int) 287 => 'Court',
			(int) 288 => 'The High Court',
			(int) 289 => 'State',
			(int) 290 => 'The High Court',
			(int) 291 => 'The High Court',
			(int) 292 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 293 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 294 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 295 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 296 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 297 => 'The High Court',
			(int) 298 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 299 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 300 => 'Court',
			(int) 301 => 'Mfg. Co. Ltd.',
			(int) 302 => 'Ulhasnagar Municipal Council',
			(int) 303 => 'Court',
			(int) 304 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 305 => 'Court',
			(int) 306 => 'Court',
			(int) 307 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 308 => 'SCC769 this Court',
			(int) 309 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 310 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 311 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 312 => 'M.B.) & Collector4',
			(int) 313 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 314 => 'Civil Court',
			(int) 315 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 316 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 317 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 318 => 'Court',
			(int) 319 => 'Court',
			(int) 320 => 'Sales Tax Officer',
			(int) 321 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 322 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 323 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 324 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 325 => 'Nirupa',
			(int) 326 => 'Peetadhipathi',
			(int) 327 => 'Peetadhipathi',
			(int) 328 => 'Peetadhipati',
			(int) 329 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 330 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 331 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 332 => 'Mutt',
			(int) 333 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 334 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 335 => 'the Peetadhipathi of Shri',
			(int) 336 => 'Peetadhipathi',
			(int) 337 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 338 => 'the Karnataka Toursim Gazetteer',
			(int) 339 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 340 => 'Kalaburagi',
			(int) 341 => 'The Bombay Gazetteer',
			(int) 342 => 'The Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer',
			(int) 343 => 'the Gazetteer of India',
			(int) 344 => 'Karnataka State Gazetteer, Government of Karnataka',
			(int) 345 => 'Kalaburagi',
			(int) 346 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 347 => 'Malkhed,',
			(int) 348 => 'Kalaburagi',
			(int) 349 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 350 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 351 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 352 => 'Court',
			(int) 353 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 354 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 355 => 'Sodi Mutt, Udupi',
			(int) 356 => 'Nava brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 357 => 'History of Dvaita School of Vedanta',
			(int) 358 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 359 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 360 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 361 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 362 => 'Teertharu',
			(int) 363 => 'Teertharu',
			(int) 364 => 'Peetadhipathi of Shri',
			(int) 365 => 'Nava brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 366 => 'a Civil Court',
			(int) 367 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 368 => 'RSA No.100446/2015',
			(int) 369 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 370 => 'State of T.N.',
			(int) 371 => 'T.N.',
			(int) 372 => 'State of T.N.',
			(int) 373 => 'S.P. Mittal v. Union of India',
			(int) 374 => 'Church',
			(int) 375 => 'Church',
			(int) 376 => 'Mittal',
			(int) 377 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 378 => 'Church',
			(int) 379 => 'Explanation',
			(int) 380 => 'Digambari',
			(int) 381 => 'Jain',
			(int) 382 => 'Chakshus',
			(int) 383 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 384 => 'The Catholicate of the East',
			(int) 385 => 'Malankara Association',
			(int) 386 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 387 => 'the Appellate Court of',
			(int) 388 => 'the Royal Court',
			(int) 389 => 'Court',
			(int) 390 => 'the Syrian Orthodox Church',
			(int) 391 => 'Churches',
			(int) 392 => 'Catholicate at Malankara',
			(int) 393 => 'Evangelistic Association',
			(int) 394 => 'the Malankara Association',
			(int) 395 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 396 => 'Court',
			(int) 397 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 398 => 'the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act',
			(int) 399 => 'Satyadeo Prasad -v- Smt',
			(int) 400 => 'AIR1996PATNA110-',
			(int) 401 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 402 => 'Hardeo',
			(int) 403 => 'Ext.-',
			(int) 404 => 'C/W WP No.103994 of',
			(int) 405 => 'Kamta Prasad',
			(int) 406 => 'Hardeo',
			(int) 407 => 'Kamta',
			(int) 408 => 'Hardeo and Jagarnath',
			(int) 409 => 'Hardeo',
			(int) 410 => 'Navadagi',
			(int) 411 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 412 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 413 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 414 => 'Aradhana',
			(int) 415 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 416 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 417 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 418 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 419 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 420 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde, Shri',
			(int) 421 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
			(int) 422 => 'the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC',
			(int) 423 => 'Gangavathi',
			(int) 424 => 'Vyasaraja Mutt',
			(int) 425 => 'Reliefs',
			(int) 426 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 427 => 'Declare',
			(int) 428 => 'the Moola Brindavana of Sri',
			(int) 429 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi Anegundi Village',
			(int) 430 => 'Gangavathi Taluk',
			(int) 431 => 'Nava Brundavana Gaddi',
			(int) 432 => 'Gangavathi Taluk',
			(int) 433 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 434 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 435 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
			(int) 436 => 'Court',
			(int) 437 => 'C/W WP No.103994'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2',
			(int) 1 => '6',
			(int) 2 => '7',
			(int) 3 => '12TH',
			(int) 4 => '12TH',
			(int) 5 => '1',
			(int) 6 => '11.RAM',
			(int) 7 => '12.VASUKI',
			(int) 8 => '13.RAGHUNTH',
			(int) 9 => '9TH',
			(int) 10 => '14.AMEETH',
			(int) 11 => '5TH',
			(int) 12 => '15.PRABHANJAN',
			(int) 13 => '1ST',
			(int) 14 => '1ST',
			(int) 15 => '51',
			(int) 16 => '5TH',
			(int) 17 => '5',
			(int) 18 => '2',
			(int) 19 => 'R4',
			(int) 20 => '24',
			(int) 21 => '27-06-2023',
			(int) 22 => '6',
			(int) 23 => 'No.4',
			(int) 24 => '27.06.2023',
			(int) 25 => '04.07.2023 to 10.07.2023',
			(int) 26 => 'No.4',
			(int) 27 => '1 to 4',
			(int) 28 => 'Mag:101:2023-24',
			(int) 29 => '27.06.2023',
			(int) 30 => '3',
			(int) 31 => '1.',
			(int) 32 => '3.2',
			(int) 33 => 'an - 8',
			(int) 34 => 'one',
			(int) 35 => '3.3',
			(int) 36 => '3.4',
			(int) 37 => '9',
			(int) 38 => '3.5',
			(int) 39 => '3.6',
			(int) 40 => '10',
			(int) 41 => '3.7',
			(int) 42 => '1/3rd',
			(int) 43 => '2/3rd',
			(int) 44 => '11',
			(int) 45 => '3.8',
			(int) 46 => '3.9',
			(int) 47 => '12',
			(int) 48 => '3.10',
			(int) 49 => '5.06.2023',
			(int) 50 => '227',
			(int) 51 => '2023',
			(int) 52 => '3.11',
			(int) 53 => '3.12',
			(int) 54 => '14',
			(int) 55 => '10.07.2023',
			(int) 56 => '3.13',
			(int) 57 => 'No.4',
			(int) 58 => '27.06.2023',
			(int) 59 => '1.',
			(int) 60 => 'No.3',
			(int) 61 => 'No.4',
			(int) 62 => '4.2',
			(int) 63 => '15',
			(int) 64 => '2023',
			(int) 65 => '4.3',
			(int) 66 => 'nine',
			(int) 67 => '16',
			(int) 68 => 'one',
			(int) 69 => '7',
			(int) 70 => '4.4',
			(int) 71 => 'three',
			(int) 72 => 'one',
			(int) 73 => '24.06.2024',
			(int) 74 => '17',
			(int) 75 => '4.6',
			(int) 76 => '26',
			(int) 77 => '18',
			(int) 78 => 'No.2',
			(int) 79 => '4:5',
			(int) 80 => '1',
			(int) 81 => 'No.2 to',
			(int) 82 => '4',
			(int) 83 => '15.07.2022',
			(int) 84 => '9',
			(int) 85 => 'two',
			(int) 86 => '19',
			(int) 87 => '2023',
			(int) 88 => 'only three',
			(int) 89 => 'three',
			(int) 90 => '227',
			(int) 91 => '20',
			(int) 92 => '30.05.2023',
			(int) 93 => '30.05.2023',
			(int) 94 => '30.05.2023',
			(int) 95 => '30.05.2023',
			(int) 96 => 'No.3',
			(int) 97 => 'No.3',
			(int) 98 => '21',
			(int) 99 => 'several thousands',
			(int) 100 => '5.3',
			(int) 101 => '27.06.2023',
			(int) 102 => '22',
			(int) 103 => '27.06.2023',
			(int) 104 => '2023',
			(int) 105 => '5.4',
			(int) 106 => '31.08.2023',
			(int) 107 => '31.08.2023',
			(int) 108 => '24',
			(int) 109 => '2023',
			(int) 110 => '25',
			(int) 111 => '4',
			(int) 112 => '26',
			(int) 113 => '8',
			(int) 114 => '6 to 15',
			(int) 115 => '6 to 15',
			(int) 116 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 117 => '9.1',
			(int) 118 => '27',
			(int) 119 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 120 => '9.3',
			(int) 121 => '9.4',
			(int) 122 => '28',
			(int) 123 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 124 => '9.6',
			(int) 125 => '6 to 15',
			(int) 126 => '9.7',
			(int) 127 => 'No.1',
			(int) 128 => '6',
			(int) 129 => 'No.8 to 10',
			(int) 130 => 'nine',
			(int) 131 => '2',
			(int) 132 => '3',
			(int) 133 => '4',
			(int) 134 => '5',
			(int) 135 => '29',
			(int) 136 => '7',
			(int) 137 => '8',
			(int) 138 => '9',
			(int) 139 => '9.8',
			(int) 140 => '9.9',
			(int) 141 => '30',
			(int) 142 => '31',
			(int) 143 => '10.1',
			(int) 144 => '10.2',
			(int) 145 => 'only one',
			(int) 146 => '32',
			(int) 147 => '5.7.2023',
			(int) 148 => '10.3',
			(int) 149 => '10.4',
			(int) 150 => '15.07.2022',
			(int) 151 => '30.05.2023',
			(int) 152 => 'No.3',
			(int) 153 => 'No.3',
			(int) 154 => 'several thousands',
			(int) 155 => '34',
			(int) 156 => '10.5',
			(int) 157 => '10.6',
			(int) 158 => '10.7',
			(int) 159 => '31.08.2023',
			(int) 160 => '35',
			(int) 161 => '10.8',
			(int) 162 => '36',
			(int) 163 => '10.9',
			(int) 164 => '12.03.1959',
			(int) 165 => '192',
			(int) 166 => 'ಸಂ',
			(int) 167 => '1',
			(int) 168 => '2',
			(int) 169 => '3',
			(int) 170 => '3ಂ(cid:10)Hಂದಲೂ 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
			(int) 171 => '37',
			(int) 172 => '3',
			(int) 173 => '5(cid:16)ೕ',
			(int) 174 => '2ೆಸU(cid:12)ೆ',
			(int) 175 => '192',
			(int) 176 => '17-00',
			(int) 177 => '10.10',
			(int) 178 => '10.11',
			(int) 179 => 'No.2',
			(int) 180 => 'No.3',
			(int) 181 => '4',
			(int) 182 => '7',
			(int) 183 => '39',
			(int) 184 => '2',
			(int) 185 => '10.12',
			(int) 186 => '10.13',
			(int) 187 => '1',
			(int) 188 => '2',
			(int) 189 => '9',
			(int) 190 => '40',
			(int) 191 => 'nine',
			(int) 192 => 'five',
			(int) 193 => '2',
			(int) 194 => 'three',
			(int) 195 => '1',
			(int) 196 => '2',
			(int) 197 => '1',
			(int) 198 => '2',
			(int) 199 => 'No.4',
			(int) 200 => '41',
			(int) 201 => '1',
			(int) 202 => '2',
			(int) 203 => '8',
			(int) 204 => '1',
			(int) 205 => '2',
			(int) 206 => '9',
			(int) 207 => '1',
			(int) 208 => '2',
			(int) 209 => '42',
			(int) 210 => '1',
			(int) 211 => '2.1',
			(int) 212 => '11.60',
			(int) 213 => '10.14',
			(int) 214 => 'nine',
			(int) 215 => '43',
			(int) 216 => '2023',
			(int) 217 => '10.15',
			(int) 218 => 'three',
			(int) 219 => 'three',
			(int) 220 => 'nine',
			(int) 221 => '11',
			(int) 222 => '12',
			(int) 223 => '13',
			(int) 224 => '14',
			(int) 225 => '15',
			(int) 226 => '17',
			(int) 227 => '18',
			(int) 228 => '44',
			(int) 229 => 'three',
			(int) 230 => '10.17',
			(int) 231 => '45',
			(int) 232 => '10.19',
			(int) 233 => '10.20',
			(int) 234 => '10.21',
			(int) 235 => '46',
			(int) 236 => 'one',
			(int) 237 => '10.22',
			(int) 238 => '10.23',
			(int) 239 => '47',
			(int) 240 => '10.24',
			(int) 241 => '48',
			(int) 242 => '10.26',
			(int) 243 => '49',
			(int) 244 => '50',
			(int) 245 => '10.29',
			(int) 246 => '51',
			(int) 247 => '51',
			(int) 248 => '2023',
			(int) 249 => '10.30',
			(int) 250 => '10.31',
			(int) 251 => '10.32',
			(int) 252 => '10.33',
			(int) 253 => '10.34',
			(int) 254 => '35',
			(int) 255 => '25',
			(int) 256 => '10.36',
			(int) 257 => '54',
			(int) 258 => '10.37',
			(int) 259 => '15 to 19',
			(int) 260 => '1 SCC216',
			(int) 261 => '218',
			(int) 262 => '7',
			(int) 263 => '3',
			(int) 264 => '55',
			(int) 265 => '3',
			(int) 266 => '774',
			(int) 267 => '14',
			(int) 268 => '14',
			(int) 269 => '56',
			(int) 270 => '2023',
			(int) 271 => '57',
			(int) 272 => '3',
			(int) 273 => '1',
			(int) 274 => '587',
			(int) 275 => '58',
			(int) 276 => '3',
			(int) 277 => '10.38',
			(int) 278 => '59',
			(int) 279 => '60',
			(int) 280 => '10',
			(int) 281 => '61',
			(int) 282 => '214',
			(int) 283 => '10.40',
			(int) 284 => '62',
			(int) 285 => '10.41',
			(int) 286 => '63',
			(int) 287 => '64',
			(int) 288 => '10.44',
			(int) 289 => '65',
			(int) 290 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 291 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 292 => '66',
			(int) 293 => '10.46',
			(int) 294 => '10.47',
			(int) 295 => '67',
			(int) 296 => '2023',
			(int) 297 => '2023',
			(int) 298 => 'two',
			(int) 299 => '11.1',
			(int) 300 => '69',
			(int) 301 => '11.2.',
			(int) 302 => '11.3',
			(int) 303 => 'one',
			(int) 304 => '70',
			(int) 305 => '11.5',
			(int) 306 => '11.6',
			(int) 307 => '11.7',
			(int) 308 => '71',
			(int) 309 => '11.8',
			(int) 310 => '11.9',
			(int) 311 => 'another - 72',
			(int) 312 => '11.10',
			(int) 313 => '11',
			(int) 314 => '37',
			(int) 315 => '89',
			(int) 316 => 'one',
			(int) 317 => '5',
			(int) 318 => '4',
			(int) 319 => '73',
			(int) 320 => '2',
			(int) 321 => '1',
			(int) 322 => '147',
			(int) 323 => '1',
			(int) 324 => '1',
			(int) 325 => '74',
			(int) 326 => '3',
			(int) 327 => '2',
			(int) 328 => '75',
			(int) 329 => 'are:1',
			(int) 330 => '26',
			(int) 331 => '76',
			(int) 332 => 'two',
			(int) 333 => '1934 Constitution',
			(int) 334 => '11.12',
			(int) 335 => '11.13',
			(int) 336 => '6',
			(int) 337 => 'one',
			(int) 338 => '78',
			(int) 339 => '2023',
			(int) 340 => '11.14',
			(int) 341 => '110',
			(int) 342 => '31',
			(int) 343 => 'two',
			(int) 344 => '79',
			(int) 345 => '2023',
			(int) 346 => '405',
			(int) 347 => '446',
			(int) 348 => 'No.2',
			(int) 349 => '80',
			(int) 350 => '11.15',
			(int) 351 => '11.16',
			(int) 352 => '81',
			(int) 353 => '2023',
			(int) 354 => '11.17',
			(int) 355 => '5.06.1985',
			(int) 356 => '82',
			(int) 357 => '11.18',
			(int) 358 => '83',
			(int) 359 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 360 => '12.1',
			(int) 361 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 362 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 363 => '84',
			(int) 364 => 'one',
			(int) 365 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 366 => '12.4',
			(int) 367 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 368 => '85',
			(int) 369 => '12.5',
			(int) 370 => '86',
			(int) 371 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 372 => 'No.6 to 15',
			(int) 373 => '12.6',
			(int) 374 => '87',
			(int) 375 => '12.7',
			(int) 376 => '5',
			(int) 377 => '5.1',
			(int) 378 => '5.2',
			(int) 379 => '5.3',
			(int) 380 => '6',
			(int) 381 => '5.1',
			(int) 382 => '5.2'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '60',
			(int) 1 => '1/138A',
			(int) 2 => '3RD STAGE',
			(int) 3 => '5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
			(int) 4 => '5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'ST',
			(int) 1 => 'TQ.GANGAVATI',
			(int) 2 => 'J.M.',
			(int) 3 => 'W.P.No.103982/2023',
			(int) 4 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 5 => 'Ashtottara',
			(int) 6 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 7 => 'W.P.No.103994/2023',
			(int) 8 => 'Sedam',
			(int) 9 => 'Anegundi village',
			(int) 10 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 11 => 'Anegundi village',
			(int) 12 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 13 => 'India',
			(int) 14 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 15 => 'Aradhanas',
			(int) 16 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 17 => 'Cr',
			(int) 18 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 19 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 20 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 21 => 'No.103994/2023',
			(int) 22 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 23 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 24 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 25 => 'Ashtottara',
			(int) 26 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 27 => 'O.S.',
			(int) 28 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 29 => 'O.S.',
			(int) 30 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 31 => 'Cr',
			(int) 32 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 33 => 'W.A. No.100390/2023',
			(int) 34 => 'Gangavati',
			(int) 35 => 'ಾಡುKಾ1&ೆ',
			(int) 36 => 'ಇ(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:31)ೆ3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ',
			(int) 37 => 'Mutts',
			(int) 38 => 'Anegundi village',
			(int) 39 => 'Pujas',
			(int) 40 => 'Aradhanas',
			(int) 41 => 'Holiness',
			(int) 42 => 'Holiness',
			(int) 43 => 'Kannada',
			(int) 44 => 'Anegundi',
			(int) 45 => 'Anegundi village',
			(int) 46 => 'Malkhed',
			(int) 47 => 'Gulbarga',
			(int) 48 => 'Gazetteer',
			(int) 49 => 'India',
			(int) 50 => 'Karnataka State',
			(int) 51 => 'Karnataka',
			(int) 52 => 'O.S.',
			(int) 53 => 'Nava Brindavana - 53 - NC:2024',
			(int) 54 => 'Municipality',
			(int) 55 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 56 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 57 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 58 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 59 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 60 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 61 => 'Madhwa',
			(int) 62 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 63 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 64 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 65 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 66 => 'Shri.-',
			(int) 67 => 'Gulbarga Region',
			(int) 68 => 'Karnataka',
			(int) 69 => 'Gulbarga Region',
			(int) 70 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 71 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 72 => 'W.P.No.103982/2023',
			(int) 73 => 'Karnataka',
			(int) 74 => 'O.S.',
			(int) 75 => 'Ugamsingh',
			(int) 76 => 'Paroli',
			(int) 77 => 'Kalash',
			(int) 78 => 'worship.89',
			(int) 79 => 'India',
			(int) 80 => 'Act.3',
			(int) 81 => 'Malankara',
			(int) 82 => 'the Patriarch of Antioch',
			(int) 83 => 'Simhasana',
			(int) 84 => 'St. Mary',
			(int) 85 => 'Ramanand',
			(int) 86 => 'Ramanand',
			(int) 87 => 'Peetadhipati',
			(int) 88 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 89 => 'Brindavana',
			(int) 90 => 'O.S.',
			(int) 91 => 'Karnataka'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'BANGALORE-560085',
			(int) 1 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
			(int) 2 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 3 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
			(int) 4 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 5 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 6 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 7 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 8 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 9 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 10 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 11 => 'Tungabhadra',
			(int) 12 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 13 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 14 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
			(int) 15 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 16 => 'Kaveendra Teertharu',
			(int) 17 => 'Malkhed',
			(int) 18 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 19 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 20 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 21 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 22 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
			(int) 23 => 'Holy Brindavans',
			(int) 24 => 'Nasim',
			(int) 25 => 'Nasim',
			(int) 26 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 27 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 28 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 29 => 'Shri Raghuvaryaya',
			(int) 30 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 31 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 32 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 33 => 'Swetamberi',
			(int) 34 => 'Catholicos',
			(int) 35 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 36 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'ISLAND',
			(int) 1 => 'Tungabhadra river',
			(int) 2 => 'W.P. No.103994/2023',
			(int) 3 => 'Shri Jaya Theertharu',
			(int) 4 => 'Single',
			(int) 5 => 'Single',
			(int) 6 => 'Single',
			(int) 7 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
			(int) 8 => 'Shri Jaya',
			(int) 9 => 'Shri Jaya',
			(int) 10 => 'Single',
			(int) 11 => 'Single',
			(int) 12 => 'Shri',
			(int) 13 => 'Malkhed',
			(int) 14 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
			(int) 15 => 'Malkhed',
			(int) 16 => 'Sanskrit',
			(int) 17 => 'Single',
			(int) 18 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
			(int) 19 => 'the Brindavana of Sri',
			(int) 20 => 'the Brindavana of Sri Jaya Teertharu'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Shri',
			(int) 1 => 'Shri',
			(int) 2 => 'Shri',
			(int) 3 => 'Shri Madhvacharya',
			(int) 4 => 'Articles 25',
			(int) 5 => 'Brindavanas',
			(int) 6 => 'Brindavanas',
			(int) 7 => 'Shri Madhwacharya',
			(int) 8 => 'Bench',
			(int) 9 => 'Vageesha Teertharu',
			(int) 10 => 'Shri Jaya',
			(int) 11 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 12 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 13 => 'Shri',
			(int) 14 => 'Shri Madhwacharya',
			(int) 15 => '1 ಮ2ಾಮ3ಮರ',
			(int) 16 => 'F',
			(int) 17 => 'Shri',
			(int) 18 => 'No.1 being Shri',
			(int) 19 => 'No.1',
			(int) 20 => 'Vageesha',
			(int) 21 => 'Shri',
			(int) 22 => 'Judgment',
			(int) 23 => 'Shri',
			(int) 24 => 'Shri',
			(int) 25 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
			(int) 26 => 'Shri',
			(int) 27 => 'M.P. Cases',
			(int) 28 => 'Shri',
			(int) 29 => 'Shri',
			(int) 30 => 'No.5-Shri',
			(int) 31 => 'Shri',
			(int) 32 => 'Shri',
			(int) 33 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 34 => 'Metropolitan',
			(int) 35 => 'Articles 25',
			(int) 36 => 'P.W. 24',
			(int) 37 => 'Shri',
			(int) 38 => 'Shri',
			(int) 39 => 'The Single Bench'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Holy Moola Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 1 => 'the Brindavana of Sri',
			(int) 2 => 'the Navabrindavan Gadde',
			(int) 3 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 4 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 5 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 6 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 7 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 8 => 'Koppal District',
			(int) 9 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 10 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 11 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 12 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 13 => 'the Nava Brindavan Gadde',
			(int) 14 => 'the Nava Brindavan Gadde',
			(int) 15 => 'the Nava Brindavan Gadde',
			(int) 16 => 'the Navabrindavana Gaddi',
			(int) 17 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde.',
			(int) 18 => 'the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
			(int) 19 => 'the Navabrindavana Gadde',
			(int) 20 => 'the Single Bench',
			(int) 21 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 22 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 23 => 'Sinappa Achar',
			(int) 24 => 'the Navabrindavana Gaddi',
			(int) 25 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde.',
			(int) 26 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 27 => 'Munsiff',
			(int) 28 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 29 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 30 => 'the Moola Brindavana of Shri Vyasaraja Matt, Shri',
			(int) 31 => 'the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu',
			(int) 32 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 33 => 'Nava Brindavana',
			(int) 34 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 35 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 36 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 37 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 38 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 39 => 'Nava Brindavana',
			(int) 40 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 41 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 42 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadi',
			(int) 43 => 'SCC831',
			(int) 44 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
			(int) 45 => 'Koppal District',
			(int) 46 => 'Koppal District'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'second',
			(int) 1 => 'seventh',
			(int) 2 => 'seventh',
			(int) 3 => 'first',
			(int) 4 => 'first',
			(int) 5 => 'third',
			(int) 6 => '1st'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu',
			(int) 1 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 2 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 3 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy',
			(int) 4 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 5 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 6 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 7 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 8 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 9 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 10 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 11 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 12 => 'Shri Jayateertharu',
			(int) 13 => 'Teertharu or Shri Jayateertharu',
			(int) 14 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 15 => 'Shri Jayateertharu',
			(int) 16 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 17 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 18 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 19 => 'Shri Jayateertharu',
			(int) 20 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt and',
			(int) 21 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			(int) 22 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 23 => 'The Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 24 => 'The Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 25 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 26 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 27 => 'The Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 28 => 'another Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 29 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
			(int) 30 => 'The Hudaya Canon',
			(int) 31 => 'Nirupa',
			(int) 32 => 'Peetadhipati',
			(int) 33 => 'the Poojas of Shri'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '14 acres',
			(int) 1 => '5(cid:16)ೕ ಮ6ಾ78ಾಯ(cid:27)ರ ಮುಖ(cid:20',
			(int) 2 => '4. ಸುBೕಂದ(cid:16',
			(int) 3 => '14 acres'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Peetadhipati of Shri'
		),
		'LANGUAGE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'English'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1232793',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'WP 103982/2023',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt Vs. The State Of Karnataka',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Karnataka Dharwad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2024-06-05',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'SURAJ GOVINDARAJ',
			'judgement' => '<p>- 1 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, R DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE5H DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION No.103982 OF2023(GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.103994 OF2023(GM-RES) IN W.P.NO.103982/2023 BETWEEN SHRI UTTARADI MUTT RPRESENTED BY ITS HOLY PONTIFF SHRI SHRI1008SHRI SATYATMA TIRTHA SWAMIJI THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER R/O SHRI UTTARADI MUTT BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU56002 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. SATISH S RAICHUR & SHRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI., ADVOCATES) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU56000 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DISTRICT KOPPAL3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - 2 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 KOPPAL, DISTRICT KOPPAL4 THE TAHASILDAR ANEGUNDI TALUKA GANGAVATHI DISTRICT KOPPAL5 SHRI NANJANGUDA RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT THROUGH ITS PONTIFF MANTRALAYHA KURNOOL DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH STATE -5 6. GOPAL KRISHNA S/O DR. H.K. RAM RAO AGED ABOUT55YEARS R/O11-110, WARD NO.1 PAMPANAGAR, GANGAVATI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583227 7. VENKATESH G.N. S/O NAGARAJ ACHAR G. AGED ABOUT53YEARS, R/O #60, 12TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN ROAD BEHIND RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT, SRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE SOUTH KARNATAKA-560050.</p><p>8. KISHAN RAO S/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO AGED ABOUT64YEARS R/O #1/138A, GHORKAL MANVI TQ. RAICHUR DIST-584203.</p><p>9. K MARUTHI GURUPRASAD S/O K. BHEEMASENA RAO AGED ABOUT50YEARS R/O FLAT102 SHIVA PRADISE, 1 APARTMENT, MUNISWAMY LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE, BEHIND SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION BANGALORE SOUTH, KARNATAKA-560061 - 3 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.D. NARASINGA RAO S/O D. KISHAN RAO AGED ABOUT64YEARS R/O ANUGRAHA NILAYA JAYANAGAR, 3RD STAGE NEAR ST. PAULS SCHOOL GANGAVATI-583227. 11.RAM KUMAR AGED ABOUT49YEARS S/O N. SUBRAMANYAM977A/9 13TH MAIN8H CROSS, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560050. 12.VASUKI PRASANNA DESAI W/O PRASANNA DESAI AGED ABOUT48YEARS R/O MR26NEXT SHANTINIKETAN SCHOOL BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560056. 13.RAGHUNTH BADRINATH SOSALE S/O BADRINATH S.P. AGED ABOUT55YEARS No.41, 9TH CROSS, KENDRIYA NAGAR BSK6H STAGE, SOMAPURA EXIT HOSAHALLI, THALAGHATTAPURA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560062. 14.AMEETH BHARADWAJ S/O SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT35YEARS No.1077, 5TH MAIN, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560050. 15.PRABHANJAN MUTTAGI S/O M.L. NARAYANACHAR AGED ABOUT47YEARS, R/O No.12 PAYONIDHI, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, MANJUNATH NAGAR, ITTAMADU, BANGALORE-560085. (R6 TO R15 ARE AMENDMENT - 4 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 CARRIED OUT AS PER </p>ORDER<p> DATED2102.2024) …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. GANGADHAR J.M. AAG A/W SHRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SHRI. C.V. NAGESH., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. H.R. DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE FOR R6-R15) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE </p>ORDER<p> PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED2706-2023, IN FILE NO.SAM/KAM/MAG.101.2023-24, IN SO FAR AS THE REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY SHRI. UTTARADI MUTT REQUESTING TO DEPUTE SUFFICIENT POLICE PERSONNEL DURING THE CELEBRATION OF SHRI RAGHUVARYA TEERTHARA MAHIMOTSAVA FROM0407- 2023 TO1007-2023 AT THE HOLY MOOLA BRINDAVANA OF SHRI RAGHUVARYA TEERTHA, SITUATED IN THE ISLAND NAMED NAVA BRINDAVANA GADDE, BEARING SY.NO.192 OF ANEGUNDI, TQ.GANGAVATI, DIST.KOPPAL, THE ORIGINAL </p>ORDER<p> BEARING AT ANNEXURE-A, AND ETC ***** IN W.P.NO.103994/2023 BETWEEN SHRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT REPRESENTED BY ITS HOLINESS SHRI SUBUDHENDRA THEERATHARU BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SHRI. R.K. VADEENDRA S/O R.KRISHNACHAR AGE. 51 YEARS SHRI. NANJANGUD RAGHAVENDRA SWAMYMUTT NO.524, 5TH BLOCK , 11TH MAIN45H CROSS, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. ARUN NEELOPANT. .,ADVOCATE) AND - 5 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF REVENUE REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VIDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. TAHSILDAR GANGAVATHI O/F PAMPA NAGAR, KOPPAL SH-130, KANAKAGIRI GANGAVATHI MUNIRABAD ROAD, TQ. GANGAVATHI DIST. KOPPA-583227 3. SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE BT PATIL NAGAR, ASHOK CIRCLE, KOPPAL-583231 4. SHRI. UTTARADI MUTT REP. BY ITS PEETADHIPATHI SHRI. SATYATMATEERTHSWAMIJI UTTARADI MUTT BASVANGUDI, NEAR NATIONAL COLLEGE BANGALORE-560085 …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG A/W SHRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SHRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. SATISH S. RAICHUR & SHRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI., ADVOCATES FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT BY QUASHING THE </p>ORDER<p> BEARING No.KOM.MAG.101.2023- 24 DATED. 27-06-2023 OF SECOND RESPONDENT WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR </p>ORDER<p>S AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR </p>ORDER<p>S ON2703.2024, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 </p>ORDER<p>S1 Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, the petitioner in W.P.No.103982/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs. a. Quash the order passed by the respondent No.4 dated 27.06.2023, in file No.SAM/KAM/MAG:101:2023-24, in so far as the rejection of the application filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt requesting to depute sufficient police personnel during the celebration of Shri. Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava from 04.07.2023 to 10.07.2023 at the Holy Moola Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertha, situated in the island named Nava Brindavana Gadde, bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal, the Original order being at Annexure-A and, b. Consequently, direct the respondent No.4 authority to allow the application filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt dated 08.06.2023, the copy of which is at Annexure-N, and b(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent nos. 1 to 4 to prevent Respondent no.5, including its followers , agents and office bearers and anybody claiming through or under Respondent No.5 from offering prayers or conducting any religious activity in any form including Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the name of Sri. Jayateertharu at the Brindavana of Sri. Raghuvarya Teertharu at the Navabrindavan Gadde situated on the island named ‘NavaBrindavana Gadde’, bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal; and c. Grant any other appropriate order, writ or direction as may be necessary in the facts and - 7 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.</p><p>2. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the petitioner in W.P.No.103994/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs. i. Issue appropriate writ by quashing the order bearing No.Kom.Mag:101:2023-24 dated 27.06.2023 of second respondent which is produced at Annexure-A; ii. Direct Respondent No.1 to 3 to provide police protection during Aradhana of Shri. Jayateertharu which is scheduled to take place on 6th July 2023, 7th July 2023 and 8th July 2023. iii. Grant such other relief’s as is deemed fit.</p><p>3. Facts in W.P.No.103982/2023 filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt:</p><p>3. 1. The Petitioner Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, claims to be the main pontifical Mutt in the lineage of the great saint Shri. Madhvacharya. 3.2. Shri Uttaradi Mutt claims to be the owner of the land in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi being an island situate in Tungabhadra river which is known as Nava Brindavana Gadde (Gadde meaning an - 8 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 island). It is contended that several previous pontiffs’ brindavana is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde, one of them being that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu who was the predecessor/Peetadhipati of Shri Uttaradi Mutt. 3.3. It is contended that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, taluka Sedam, District Kalaburagi which is acknowledged by the general public. It is contended that there is no dispute as regards the said brindavana but now the dispute has been raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as regards the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu by contending that it is not of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu but of Shri Jaya Teertharu. 3.4. Various averments have been made as regards the ownership of the said land which is not relevant for the purpose of this matter since ownership dispute is not being considered in - 9 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the present matter which is part of another proceeding. 3.5. It is contended that there has been an admission on part of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde, there was never any claim made that the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is situate in Nava Brindavana Gadde. Off late Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has been raising disputes and or coming in the way of Shri Uttaradi Mutt performing aradhana and pooja of its gurus which was never in question. 3.6. Historically it is contended that in the year 1959 Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt trying to assert title over the land in Sy.No.192 belonging to Shri Uttaradi Mutt on the basis of more number of brindavanas in the Nava Brindavana Gadde are that of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt.-. 10 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 However, in the very same representation made by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, it is clearly stated that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde which resulted in the said claim being challenged by Shri Uttaradi Mutt in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 which is decreed in favour of Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Reference is made to the written statement filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in said proceedings, as also the evidence led by earlier pontiff in the said proceedings. On that basis, it is contended that there is an admission made on the existence of the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 3.7. In terms of the decree, name of Shri Uttaradi Mutt which was already entered in respect of 1/3rd of the land, the entry made in the name of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in respect of the balance 2/3rd of the land was deleted, - 11 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 therefore recognising the sole ownership of the entire island to be that of Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Insofar as the claim of ownership of the land, there are certain other proceedings which are pending. 3.8. In the present matter what is in question is as regards the admitted facts and it is in that background it is contended that this court ought to come to the rescue of Shri Uttaradi Mutt so as to permit the peaceful celebration of aradhana and pooja of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, as regards which police protection was sought for on account of the disturbance on part of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 3.9. Shri Uttaradi Mutt having performed the aradhana, pooja, etc., of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu for centuries, Shri Uttaradi Mutt made a request to jurisdictional police authorities to provide police protection which - 12 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 came to be rejected by the impugned order. It is in that background that Shri Uttaradi Mutt is before this Court challenging the said order. 3.10. Once earlier this Court vide order dated 5.06.2023 in W.P. No.103449/2023 had permitted such aradhana and pooja to be performed. The Aradhana and poojas being required to be performed on a regular basis, this court ought to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and grant the relief sought for by directing the police to depute requisite number of police personnel at the brindavana so as to protect peace and tranquillity on account of the disturbance sought to be created by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt despite Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt having categorically admitted the existence of brindavana of Shri - 13 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 3.11. The dispute in the present matter relates to the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. The contention of Shri Uttaradi Mutt is that in terms of the accepted facts and history, the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated at Navabrindavana Gadde in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District. 3.12. The said Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu belonging to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, it is for Shri Uttaradi Mutt to carry out necessary ceremonies relating to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at the said brindavana, it is in pursuance thereof Shri Uttaradi Mutt had submitted an application to the concerned authorities to depute sufficient police personnel during the celebration of Shri Raghuvarya Thirtha Mahimotsava from - 14 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 4.07.2023 to 10.07.2023 at the holy moola Brindavan of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. 3.13. The said application came to be rejected by respondent No.4-Tahsildar vide its order dated 27.06.2023, it is challenging the same that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt had approached this Court.</p><p>4. Facts in W.P. No.103994/2023 filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt:</p><p>4. 1. This petition has been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt against the State of Karnataka -respondent No.1, Tahsildar- respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police- respondent No.3 and Shri Uttaradi Mutt- respondent No.4 seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4.2. It is stated that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed an application with the Tahsildar seeking for police protection for performing aradhana of Shri Jaya Theertharu at the - 15 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 brindavana located at Nava Brindavana Gadde on 6th, 7th and 8th July 2023. This application having been rejected, the present petition has been filed. 4.3. It is stated that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is a Moola Maha Samsthana established by Shri Madhvacharya amongst other Mutts established by him. It is contended that the Nava Brindavana Gadde is a tiny island formed in Tungabhadra river in Anegundi village. This is called so since there are nine brindavanas of saints of Shri Madhva Parampara located there. The disputes in respect of certain brindavanas of Shri Padmabha Teertharu, Shri Kavindra Teertharu and Shri Vageesha Teertharu is pending consideration in RSA No.100446/2015. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had also filed W.P. No.111125/2014 as regards the land claimed to be owned by Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Shri Uttaradi Mutt claiming to have purchased the - 16 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 same from one Vakeel Krishna Rao in the year *1916. The sale deed does not mention the total extent. The entire land had been forfeited by Nizams for non-payment of revenue. Shri Uttaradi Mutt made a request to the Raja of Anegundi to regrant 14 acres 7 guntas of land. Accordingly, the same was regranted on the condition that Shri Uttaradi Mutt would not prevent the other Mutts and devotees visiting the Nava Brindavana Gadde and performance of aradhana. 4.4. It is contended that apart from the aforesaid three brindavanas, one other brindavana is of Shri Jaya Teertharu which is wrongly claimed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt to be that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is claimed that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is performing aradhana of Shri Jaya Theetharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde and in this regard certain paper clippings are sought to be placed on *Corrected vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 17 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 record which are relating to the year 1988-89, 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2008-09 and 2009-10. 4.5. It is claimed that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers wanting to perform aradhana of Shri Jaya Theetharu, Shri Uttaradi Mutt with a malicious intent has sought to interfere with the same by falsely claiming that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. 4.6. The application filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt for police protection has been rejected on the ground that there is likelihood of breach of peace which is not permissible. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is entitled under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India to perform the aradhana of its pontiff Shri Jaya Theetharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde which cannot be denied by executive action.-. 18 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 5. OBJECTIONS BY RESPONDENTS No.2 to 4:</p><p>5. 1. Respondents No.2 to 4-State had filed its objections contending that there have been disputes from the year 2022 which have been raised by both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had sought for police protection for conducting aradhana and pooja in the month of July 2022 which came to be rejected by the police authorities, as regards which W.P. No.102614/2022 came to be filed which came to be disposed of on 15.07.2022 with the following observations: “9. Having heard the learned senior counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there is nothing on record which would show that earlier such Aradhana of Sri Jaya Theertharu was conducted or permitted to be conducted by the petitioner-Mutt at the Nava Brindavan Gadde. When it is an admitted fact that a dispute in respect of the Brindavanas are pending consideration at the hands of this Court in R.S.A. No.100446/2015 and several interim orders are passed by this Court to ensure that some arrangement is made permitting the two Mutts to conduct Aradhanas and more particularly in - 19 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 respect of only three Brindavanas, the petitioner Mutt could not have ventured to take a unilateral decision to conduct Aradhana without permission of this Court in R.S.A. No.100446/2015. The petitioner-Mutt was required to approach this Court by filing appropriate application seeking permission of the Court to conduct Aradhana at the Nava Brindavan Gadde. The question as to whether the dispute in R.S.A. No.100446/2015 is restricted only to three Brindavanas or it spreads across the entire island is something which cannot be gone into by this Court in this writ proceedings.</p><p>10. Moreover, in this writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 what is required to be considered is whether there is any impropriety in the impugned orders enforcing Section 144 in the Nava Brindavan Gadde during the days mentioned therein. The District administration is well within its powers to impose the sanction contained under Section 144 Cr.P.C. to ensure public peace and tranquility. When the authorities have found that conducting of the Ardahana in such a situation has all the potential of disturbing the public peace, the authorities are well within their powers to impose sanction under Section 144 of Cr.P.C.</p><p>11. For the reasons stated above, this Court is convinced that there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly.</p><p>5.2. Since the said petition had been dismissed, Shri Uttaradi Mutt continued to perform aradhana and pooja. In the year 2023 once again Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt made similar - 20 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 application. This time an application was made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt also seeking for police protection. The Asst. Commissioner called for a meeting on 30.05.2023 since no consensus were arrived at, the Asst. Commissioner by order dated 30.05.2023 issued an endorsement that both the Mutts should seek necessary orders from the Court. The said order dated 30.05.2023 came to be challenged before this Court in W.P. No.103449/2023 which came to be disposed of by order dated 5.06.2023 with the following directions: i)The writ petition is allowed in part. ii) Order dated 30.05.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 in File No.Kom/Devasthana/2023-24 is quashed to the extent of directing the petitioner to approach this Court to obtain order to perform the religious rituals. iii) The Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 shall provide suitable protection for maintenance of public peace and tranquility and would be at liberty to impose or pass an order for maintenance of public peace and tranquility including issuance of an order under section 144 of Cr.P.C. to permit the petitioner to conduct the rituals only with - 21 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 regard to conducting of Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, on fifth, sixth and seventh of June, 2023, at the Holy site of Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu in the island of Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy. No.192 of Anegundi. iv) It is however made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter including other issues in dispute other than conducting Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. v) This Court also does not express any opinion with regard to the question of rights of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu or rights of Shri Jayateertharu in the Navabrindavana Gaddi. This aspect would have to be decided in the pending proceedings between the parties to the lis, if any. vi) This Court further observes that in view of the fact that both the parties are claiming lineage of the great saint Shri Madhwacharya and adored by several thousands of people, this Court hopes that both the parties would maintain public peace and tranquility for the religious rituals of Aradhana and Shraddha being conducted in the said Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu of the Nava Brindavana Gadde. vii) All rights of the parties are kept open. 5.3. Subsequently, the Tahsildar made an order on 27.06.2023 stating that it was difficult to permit both the Mutts to perform aradhana and pooja which has been challenged before this court in - 22 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the above writ petitions. This Court vide common order dated 5.07.2023 passed the following order: </p>ORDER<p> (i) The writ petitions are allowed in part with following directions: (ii) The impugned order dated 27.06.2023 passed by the Tahashildar vide Annexure- is quashed. (iii) The petitioners in Writ Petition No.103982/2023 namely Shree Uttaradi Mutt shall be entitled to celebrate Shree Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava from 4th July to 7th July, 2023 (both days inclusive) at the Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Taluka- Gangavati, District-Koppal. (iv) The petitioners No.103994/2023 in Writ Petition namely Shree Raghavendraswamy Mutt shall be entitled to perform Aradhana of Shree Jayateertharu for a period from 8th July to 10th July 2023 (both days inclusive) at the Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Taluka- Gangavati, District-Koppal. (v) The respondent/State shall provide suitable Police assistance and protection for the purpose of maintaining public peace, morality, tranquility and would be at liberty to impose the suitable orders to maintain the public peace and tranquility or discipline încluding issuance of an order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C during the said period mentioned hereinabove. (vi) It is made clear that this Court has not touched upon the merits and demerits of the case, existence or otherwise of either Shree Raghuvarya - 23 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Teertharu or Shri Jayateertharu in Navabrindavana Gaddi which is being agitated before the RSA Court as disputed question of fact and law are involved. (vii) It is also made clear by virtue of this Court granting reliefs to both parties, this order would not in any way create a precedent for the litigations if any arise between the parties as the same will have to be adverted in the RSA proceedings, wherein the larger issue between the parties are pending consideration. (viii) The directions issued to the respondent/State shall be followed in stricto sensu, without any violation and breach. Proper protection shall be given to both parties devotees, followers for the relevant dates mentioned hereinabove, failing which, authorities will face serious repercussion from this Court. 5.4. The said order dated 5.07.2023 having been challenged in W.A. Nos.100390/2023 and 100391/2023, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.2023 has been set-aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. The order dated 31.08.2023 reads as under: </p>ORDER<p> i) Both the writ appeals in WA No.100390/2023 and WA No.100391/2023 are hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed in W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023 is hereby set- aside.-. 24 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 iii) The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant as well as respondent No.5 to produce additional documents in support of their respective claims including additional documents produced by the appellant along with I.A. No.5/2023. v) Liberty is also reserved to the parties to file objections, additional pleadings, counter affidavits etc., in support of their vi) respective claims. The parties are also at liberty to file interlocutory application(s) in the Writ Petition and seek suitable reliefs and also request the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal of the matter. vii) All rival contention between the parties on all aspects of the matter including the several contentions noted above are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.</p><p>5.5. The submission made is that since both the Mutts are seeking for permission to conduct aradhana and pooja on the very same date or same set of dates, it is difficult for the administration to provide necessary protection for the same day or set of dates and as such, the administration will abide by any orders passed by this Court.-. 25 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 6. A co-ordinate bench of this court having partly allowed the Writ Petitions filed by both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt permitting both the Mutts to perform their respective poojas at different dates. The said order was taken on appeal before the Division Bench by Shri Uttaradi Mutt, no appeal having been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the Division Bench had remanded the matter and hence, the petition is taken up for consideration afresh.</p><p>7. Post the remand, Shri Uttaradi Mutt filed an application seeking an amendment, which came to be allowed, and in terms of the amendment petition, the prayer sought is as follows: b1) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent nos.1 to 4 to prevent Respondent No 5, including its followers, agents and office bearers and anybody claiming through or under Respondent No.5 from offering prayers or conducting any religious activity in any form including Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the - 26 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 name of Shri Jayateertharu at the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at the Navabrindavana Gadde situated on the island named ‘NavaBrindavana Gadde”, bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal; 8. Subsequently, respondents Nos. 6 to 15 sought to be impleaded in the present matter. The application was rejected by the Single Bench. An appeal having been filed before the Division Bench, the Division Bench allowed the said application. Hence, an amendment was carried out, bringing on record respondents Nos. 6 to 15, who also filed their statement of objections and addressed their arguments opposing the petition.</p><p>9. Respondents No.6 to 15 have filed their objections contending that, 9.1. The writ petitions have become infructuous since the prayer sought for originally do not survive for consideration and the amended relief at prayer B(i) is not tenable or sustainable; - 27 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 9.2. That relief sought for can only be granted by the Civil Court in a properly instituted suit, respondents No.6 to 15 have filed a suit in O.S. No.35/2024 before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati, who would consider the issue. 9.3. There is a civil dispute between the parties on account of the filing of the suit. There being a dispute as regards the identity of the brindavana, evidence has to be led and adjudication has to be made. They reiterate the contentions of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu and not Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. 9.4. The so-called admission made by previous pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is a rebuttable one. The entire gazetteers have not been produced, hence they cannot be relied upon. There is discrepancy in the date of death of Shri Jaya Teertharu, therefore the contents cannot be believed.-. 28 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 9.5. Any order which is passed in the present proceedings would affect respondents No.6 to 15 who have filed the suit and rights of private parties are required to be adjudicated in a civil proceedings and not a public remedy like a writ petition. 9.6. A suit in O.S. No.35/2024 is filed by Respondents 6 to 15 before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati. 9.7. In the said plaint, it is contended that the plaintiffs No.1 to 6 are the disciples of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, plaintiff No.7 is the disciple of Shri Uttaradi Mutt, plaintiff No.8 to 10 are disciples of Shri Vyasaraya Mutt. They contend that in the Nava Brindavana Gadde there are nine brindavanas as under:</p><p>1. Shri Padmanabha Teertharu (1324) 2. Shri Jaya Teertharu (1388) 3. Shri Kaveendra Teertharu (1398) 4. Shri Vageesha Teertharu (1406) 5. Shri Govinda Odeyar (1534) - 29 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 6. Shri Vysararaj Teertharu (1539) 7. Shri Srinivas Teertharu (1564) 8. Shri Rama Teertharu (1584) 9. Shri Sudheendra Teertharu (1683) 9.8. Based on the above, it is contended that there is no brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and that brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 9.9. It is contended that the dispute as regards the brindavana of Shri Padmanabha Teertharu, Kaveendra Teertharu and Vageesha Teertharu in a separate proceeding. They deny that Shri Uttaradi Mutt is carrying on uninterrupted parampara of Shri Madhwacharyaru. References are made as regards the dates on which aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu are to be conducted. There are certain averments made and references made to certain books to lay a claim that the brindavana is that of Shri Jaya Teertharu.-. 30 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 9.10. That the brindavanas located in Malkhed are though of Shri Akshobhya Teertharu and Shri Jaya Teertharu, they are Mrutika brindavanas. They admit that the claim was made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt for permitting to worship at the said brindavanas and the said application came to be rejected on account of the same being under the control of Smt.Bhageerathi Bai, Sinappa Achar and Raghappa Achar, however subsequently in the year 1958 the same was granted to Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Insofar as the cause of action is concerned, it was contended cause of action arose in the year 2022 when Shri Uttaradi Mutt tried to prevent the aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu by the plaintiffs and it was contended by Shri Uttaradi Mutt that the Mahimotsava of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu would be conducted therein and it is in that background seek the reliefs as sought for.-. 31 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10. Shri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Shri Uttaradi Mutt in WP No.103982/2023 would submit that; 10.1. Respondent No.5- Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has sought to prevent Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, from carrying out the celebration of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Mahimotsava as also carrying out aradhana puja, offering prayers, etc., to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu requiring Shri Uttaradi Mutt to approach the jurisdictional authorities for police protection, which application having been rejected Shri Uttaradi Mutt is before this Court. 10.2. This is more so for the reason that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had indicated that they would conduct the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at the same brindavana as that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. There being only one person who could occupy the brindavana. Shri Uttaradi Mutt claiming that brindavana is - 32 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu which is so from time immemorial and all the poojas being conducted as regards the said brindavana on the basis that brindavana was of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu had filed an application with the revenue officials for grant of necessary police protection for carrying out aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu from 5.7.2023 to 7.07.2023. 10.3. There is an earlier round of litigation between the parties in as much as Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed W.P. No.102614/2022 and Shri Uttaradi Mutt had filed W.P. No.103449/2023. 10.4. He submits that vide order dated 15.07.2022 and 5.06.2023, respectively, both the above writ petitions came to be disposed of. In W.P. No.103449/2023, the following directions were issued: Order - 33 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 i) The writ petition is allowed in part. ii) Order dated 30.05.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 in File No.Kom/Devasthana/2023-24 is quashed to the extent of directing Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to approach this Court to obtain order to perform the religious rituals. iii) The Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 shall provide suitable protection for maintenance of public peace and tranquility and would be at liberty to impose or pass an order for maintenance of public peace and tranquility including issuance of an order under section 144 of Cr.P.C. to permit Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to conduct the rituals only with regard to conducting of Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, on fifth, sixth and seventh of June, 2023, at the Holy site of Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu in the island of Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi. iv) It is however made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter including other issues in dispute other than conducting Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. v) This Court also does not express any opinion with regard to the question of rights of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu or rights of Shri Jayateertharu in the Navabrindavana Gaddi. This aspect would have to be decided in the pending proceedings between the parties to the lis, if any. vi) This Court further observes that in view of the fact that both the parties are claiming lineage of the great saint Shri Madhwacharya and adored by several thousands of people, this Court hopes that both the parties would maintain public peace and tranquility for the religious rituals of Aradhana and Shraddha being conducted in the said - 34 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu of the Nava Brindavana Gadde. vii) All rights of the parties are kept open. 10.5. In furtherance of the above orders, Shri Uttaradi Mutt performed the poojas for Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 10.6. It is thereafter that once again the present issue has arisen which resulted in both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt filing the present Petitions. These Petitions were earlier disposed by a co-ordinate bench on 5.07.2023 passed the order which is extracted hereinabove. 10.7. Writ appeals being filed in W.A. No.100390/2023 and 100391/2023, the Division Bench vide its order 31.08.2023 disposed of both the writ appeals as under: </p>ORDER<p> i. Both the writ appeals in WA No.100390/2023 and WA No.100391/2023 are hereby allowed.-. 35 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 ii. The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed in W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023 is hereby set-aside. iii. The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. iv. Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant as well as respondent No.5 to produce additional documents in support of their respective claims including additional documents produced by the appellant along with I.A. No.5/2023. v. Liberty is also reserved to the parties to file objections, additional pleadings, counter affidavits etc., in support of their respective claims. vi. The parties are also at liberty to file interlocutory application(s) in the Writ Petition and seek suitable reliefs and also request the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal of the matter. vii. All rival contention between the parties on all aspects of the matter including the several contentions noted above are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. 10.8. It is in the above background that the Amendment was sought by Shri Uttaradi Mutt to include prayer b(1); Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has not filed any application for - 36 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 amendment or otherwise as permitted by the Hon’ble division bench. 10.9. Tracing the history of the dispute he submits that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed an application before the Munsiff, Gangavati on 12.03.1959 categorically stating as under: (cid:1)ಷಯ:- ಆ(cid:5)ೆಗುಂ(cid:10)ಯ ತುಂ(cid:12)ಾಭದ(cid:16) ನ(cid:10)ಯ ಮಧ(cid:20)ದ(cid:21)ರ(cid:22) ುವ ಸ(cid:26)ೆ(cid:27) ನಂಬ(cid:29) 192 ನವ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನ ಗ ಯನು! "ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄUÀrØ" ಎಂದು ¥ÀmÁÖ $ಾಡುವ (cid:1)ಷಯದ(cid:21).(cid:22) $ಾನ(cid:20)&ೇ ಆ(cid:5)ೆಗುಂ(cid:10)ಯ ತುಂ(cid:12)ಾಭದ(cid:16) ಪ(cid:16)(cid:26)ಾಹದ ಮಧ(cid:20)ದ(cid:21) (cid:22) ಸ(cid:26)ೆ(cid:27) ನಂಬ(cid:29)192 AiÀÄ ಕ&ೆ 14-7ರ(cid:21)((cid:22) ನವ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನ ಗ ಯ(cid:21)(cid:22)) ªÀiÁzsÀé ಸಂಪ(cid:16)(cid:31)ಾಯದ ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄಗಳ ,ೕ-ಾ(cid:10)ಪ.ಗಳ/ ಒಂಬತು 1 ಮ2ಾಮ3ಮರ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಗಳ/ ಇ(cid:26)ೆ. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಮ6ಾ78ಾಯ(cid:27)ರ ಮುಖ(cid:20) ಸಂ:ಾ;ನ(cid:26)ಾದ ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) ¸Áé«ÄUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ¦ÃoÁ¢ü¥ÀwUÀ¼ÁwzÀÄÝ 1. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಪದ?.(cid:5)ಾಭ .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 2. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಕ(cid:1)ೕಂದ(cid:16) .ೕಥ(cid:27) 3. 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:12)ೇA .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 2ಾಗು 4. ಸುBೕಂದ(cid:16) .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ (cid:5)ಾಲುD ಜನ ಮ2ಾಮ3ಮರು ಇ(cid:21) (cid:22) ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಸ;&ಾE(cid:31)ಾF&ೆ ಈ (cid:5)ಾಲುD AiÀÄwUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ಆ&ಾಧ(cid:5)ೆ 2ಾಗು ಈ ತರ ವ(cid:20)ವ:ೆ;ಗಳನು! 3ಂ(cid:10)Hಂದಲೂ 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ ,ೕ-ಾBಪ.ಗJೇ $ಾಡುKಾ1&ೆ. :ೋಸLೆ5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜ ಮ-ಾBೕಶ&ಾEದ F (cid:1)ಜಯನಗರದ ರತ!Nಂ2ಾಸ(cid:5)ಾBೕಶ&ಾEಕೃಷO(cid:31)ೇವ&ಾಯನ ಕುಲ ಗುರುಗJಾEದF1 - 37 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 5(cid:16)ೕ(cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರು 2. 5(cid:16)ೕ 5(cid:16)ೕH(cid:26)ಾಸ .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 2ಾಗು 3. 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಮಚಂದ(cid:16) .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ ಮೂರು ಜನ ಮ2ಾನುQಾವರು ಇ(cid:21) (cid:22) ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಸ;&ಾE(cid:31)ಾF&ೆ ಇ(cid:21)(cid:22)ಯ Rಾವತು1 ವ(cid:20)ವ:ೆ; 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಯರ ಮಠTೆD :ೇU(cid:31)ಾFE(cid:31)ೆ. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಉತ1&ಾ(cid:10) ಮಠದ 5(cid:16)ೕ ರಘW .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನವX ಇ(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:31)ೆ3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ ಮಠ ಮತು1 :ೋಸLೆ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರ ಮಠದ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಗJೇ ಇ(cid:21) (cid:22) 2ೆಚುY ಇದು ಅ(cid:5)ಾ(cid:10)Tಾಲ(cid:10)ಂದಲೂ ಈ ಸ;ಳವX5cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ 2ಾಗು 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರ ಮಠTೆD :ೇU(cid:31)ಾFE(cid:31)ೆ ಅ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:20)ಗು ಈಗ ಇದನು! ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄUÀrØ ಎಂದು ¥ÀmÁÖ $ಾ N ಮೂರು ಮಠಗಳ :ಾ7Iತ(cid:20)ದ(cid:21)(cid:22)ಡಲು ಇ[YಸುKೆ1ೕ(cid:26)ೆ. ಅದTಾDE ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ ಮಠ :ೋಸLೆ 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರ ಮಠ 2ಾಗು 5(cid:16)ೕ ಉತ1&ಾ(cid:10) ಮಠ 3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ ಮೂರು ಮಠಗಳ 2ೆಸU(cid:12)ೆ ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄUÀrØ ಎಂದು ಸ(cid:26)ೆ(cid:27) ನಂಬ(cid:29) 192 AiÀÄಕ&ೆ 14-7 ರೂ\ಾ]. 17-00 ಆTಾರªÀżÀî ನವ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನ ಗ ಯನು! ¥ÀmÁÖ $ಾಡ^ೇTೆಂದು ^ೇ Tೆ. ಗಂ(cid:12)ಾವ. ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳ/ ಮಠದ ಪರ(cid:26)ಾE ಸ3 ಜಯ&ಾಂ ಸರ _ೋ‘ 10.10. He submits that even in this representation there is no claim made by Shri Raghavendra - 38 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Swamy Mutt that the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at the Nava Brindavana Gadde, more importantly he submits that there is an admission that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvara Teertharu is at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 10.11. It is in view of the above representation that the Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was constrained to file a suit in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 against defendant No.1 being Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, defendant No.2 being Shri. Vyasarayaru Mutt of Sosale, defendants No.3 and 4 being the representatives of the above Mutts. In the said suit, Shri Uttaradi Mutt had prayed for declaration to the effect that the Shri Uttaradi Mutt is the sole owner of the land in S.No.192 (Old S.No.239) measuring 14 acres 7 guntas, situated at Anegundi village and to enter the plaintiff-Shri Uttaradi Mutt’s name in the - 39 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 mutation register, revenue records by deleting the name of the defendants No.1 and 2. 10.12. His submission is that as per the representation made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt before the Munsiff, Gangavathi, it is clear that even as per Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s brindavana, is located in Sy.No.192, Anegundi. 10.13. In the said suit, a written statement came to be filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which reads as under: Copy of the Additional Written Statement In the Court of Munciff at Gangavathi in O.S.No.65/1 of 1959-60 H.S. Stya Pramooda Teertharu……… Pltf vs H.H. Suyanendra Tirtharu & others.... Defts. In the above case the defendants 1 and 2 submit their additional written statement as follows:- Under Order VIII R. 9 of CPC: - 40 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 1.- It is specifically denied that the plaintiff holiness has inherited the suit land through succession as he is put to strict proof of the same and further it is denied that he is the owner and possessor of the suit land.</p><p>2. That there are nine (9) holy Brindavanas among them the Moola Brindavana of Shri Vyasaraja Matt, Shri. Vyasarayaru is situated. Including Moola Brindavana there are five Brindavanas of Shri Vyasaraya Mutt i.e, Vyasarayaru, Srinivas Tirtharu Rama Thirtharu, Govinda Tirtharu (Govinda Vadiyaru) and Padmanabha Tirtharu (Padmanabharu comes to the common i.e, D.1 and and 2). There are three Holi brindavanas belonging to Deft. No.1's Mutt they are Ravindra Tirtharu, Vageesha Tirtharu and Sudhendra Tirtharu. The plaintiff with mala fide intention has preferred to mention in the rejoinder para No.7 that the Holy Brindavans are not in the possession of the defendants 1 and 2. On the contrary the plaintiff. has never been in possession of the same. Since time immemorial the defendants 1 and 2 are in possession of the Holy Brindavans by performing Pujas and Aradhanas as owners and possessors till to this day.</p><p>3. That the plaintiff ought to have submitted the records at the time of filing the suit. But the late production of the documents at the time of rejoinder and further no proper reasons are shown for their late production, hence they are liable to be rejected.</p><p>4. That the orders passed by the Nasim samsthan Anegundi in the year 1351 F. is conclusive and the same is in consonance with the law and procedure, which not be deemed to be set aside under law. The subsequent orders. of Nasim as allege in para No.4 of rejoinder passed in the year 1355 F. to which these defendants deny is without jurisdiction - 41 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 as the said order had been passed ignoring the law of limitation and procedure prevailent then.. Further the order of Rajasab and restoration of patta as alleged do not stand in the eye of law, and hence denied specifically.</p><p>5. That these defendants 1 and 2 specifically deny the right and title of the plaintiff over the suit land and the plaintiff bound to prove all the allegations made in para 8 of the rejoinder. That the factum of purchase by H.H. Satya Dhanaru is false and hence denied. The plaintiff is not entitled to lead secondary evidence. The peshkar Krishn Rao as alleged in the sale deed was not a owner and possessor of the suit land and hence denied.</p><p>6. That the rejoinder has not been signed either by the plaintiff's holiness or by his authorised agent hence the same is liable to be rejected.</p><p>7. That the defendants 1 and 2 have appointed D. 3 and D.4 as their respective agents as such they are entitled to appear and allegation in para 9 rejoinder is vague. Hence it is prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs. Defendants 1 and 2..</p><p>1. His Holiness Suyamendra Thirtharu through Agent Jayaramachar Sir Joshi Sd/- in Hindi.</p><p>2. His Holiness Vidya Prasanna Theertharu through: Agent Hanumanthacharya Sir joshi. Sd/- in Kannada.-. 42 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 It is to certify on oath this day that the contents of additional W/s are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. Defendants 1 and 2.</p><p>1. His Holiness Suyamendra Thirtharu through agent Jayaramachar Sir Joshi Sd/- in Hindi.</p><p>2. His Holiness Vidya Prasanna Teertharu through Agent Hanmanthacharya Sir joshi. Sd/- in Kannada. Dt:</p><p>29. 11.60. Through: Sd/-Pleader. 10.14. Even in the written statement, it is clearly admitted by both Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Vyasaraya Mutt that there are nine holy brindavanas at Anegundi, the moola brindavana of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is situate there. Apart from moola brindavana of Shri. Srinivasa, Shri. Rama, Shri. Govinda (Govinda Wodeyaru) and Shri. Padmanabha Teertharu, as also Shri. Raveendra, Shri. Vageesha and Shri. Sudheendra Teertharu are situated - 43 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 therein. At no place in the written statement, a claim is made as regards the existence of the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 10.15. In the said suit, evidence of Shri. Sujayendra Teertharu, the Peetadhipati of Raghavendra Swamy Mutt was led on 24.12.1967. In his deposition, he stated that the island is the property of all three Mutts, and there are brindavanas in all three Mutts situated therein. The nine brindavanas are as follows:</p><p>10. Shri Padmanabha Teertharu 11. Shri Kavindra Teertharu 12. Shri Vagisha Teertharu 13. Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu 14. Shri Sudhindra Teertharu 15. Shri Vyasarayaru (Vysararaj Teertharu) 16. Shri Srinivas Teertharu 17. Shri Rama Teertharu 18. Shri Govindawadiyaru.-. 44 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.16. Out of the said brindavanas, Shri Padmanabha Teertharu is common to all the three Mutts, Shri Kaveendra and Shri Vageesha Teertharu are common to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is solely that of Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Sudheendra Teertharu is that of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Govinda Wodeyaru, Shri. Srinivasa and Shri. Rama Teertharu are exclusively that of Shri. Vyasaraya Mutt. 10.17. By relying on the above, Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande submits that even as per the Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in his deposition tendered on 24.12.1967 the moola brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu was located in Anegundi. Furthermore there is no claim made that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde.-. 45 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.18. The suit that was filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was decreed and Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was declared to be the sole and absolute owner of Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village vide Judgment and decree dated 13.03.1968. 10.19. Thus, his contention is that the entire property belongs to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, of course he submits that poojas could be performed by other Mutts of their respective predecessor Gurus. 10.20. An appeal having been filed against the decree, the appeal also came to be dismissed on 2.02.1972; thereafter, no challenge was made, and as such, it attained finality. 10.21. In the year 1991, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt sought to interfere with Shri. Uttaradi Mutt performing pooja and aradhana at Anegundi; hence, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was constrained to - 46 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 file one more suit seeking a permanent injunction against Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt from interfering with the aradhana of Shri. Padmanabha, Shri. Kaveendra and Shri. Vageesha Teertharu, which was defended by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt by filing written statement contending that they also have the right to perform aradhana of the said Teertharu. 10.22. His submission is that there is no mention made of Shri Jaya Teertharu in the written statement, nor is any claim made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that there is a brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu as regards whom they have to perform pooja and aradhana. 10.23. His submission is that in none of the above proceedings the dispute centered around the identity of the brindavana and never was there - 47 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 any assertion made that it belongs to Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 10.24. It is only now that a departure is sought to be made contending that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde, by wrongly contending that the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is that of Shri Jaya Teertharu which cannot be so made. It was always understood that the brindavana was that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is only now that an assertion is made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Therefore, it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish that brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu which it has failed to do so and until they do so, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt ought to be permitted to perform pooja and aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at his brindavana.-. 48 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.25. In the year 2022, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt filed W.P. No.102614/2022, and for the first time in a court proceeding, it was claimed that there is a brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu in Sy. No.192 of Anegundi, which is known as Nava Brindavana Gadde. This court, vide its order dated 15.07.1952, held that there is nothing to show on record that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had conducted aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde, which order has attained finality. 10.26. Shri. Uttaradi Mutt had filed W.P. No.103449/2023 wherein this court permitted Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to conduct aradhana of Shri Raghuvaryaya Teertharu which order has attained finality.-. 49 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.27. He submits that offerings of prayers to former gurus is an essential religious custom of Madhva community, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and its followers are bound to offer prayers to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu as regards whom they have been offering prayers for centuries. Merely because now Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is making a new claim without the establishment of such a claim, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt cannot be deprived of performing pooja which they have been doing for centuries. What Shri. Uttaradi Mutt have sought for in the present petition is only for police help to carry out the poojas as required and as done in the past and now due to the obstruction held out by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt necessary police help is sought for. If not for the said obstruction, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt would not have approached the authorities and on their refusal this court.-. 50 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.28. The brindavana being the final resting place of a saint belonging to Madhva community, there is only one saint who could be said to be in the said Brindavana and as per Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, it is Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s brindavana. The Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is near Malkhed, Kalaburagi where prayers are offered in his name. 10.29. He relies upon a Judgment in S.Rangaraj –v- P.Jagjeeva1 more particularly, para 51 thereof to contend that the State is required to protect fundamental rights. Para 51 thereof is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>51. We are amused yet troubled by the stand taken by the State Government with regard to the film which has received the National Award. We want to put the anguished question, what good is the protection of freedom of expression if the State does not take care to protect it?. If the film, is unobjectionable and cannot constitutionally be restricted under Article 19(2), freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of 1 1989(2) SCC574- 51 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 violence. That would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation. It is the duty of the State to protect the freedom of expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the State. The State cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to prevent it and protect the freedom of expression. 10.30. By relying on S.Rangaraj’s case, his submission is that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has a right to offer prayers at the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu. This right would be negated if the obstruction held out by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not dealt with in a proper and required manner by the jurisdictional police by offering necessary protection to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt. The right of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt will be frustrated if the authorities, including the police authorities, do not assist Shri. Uttaradi Mutt in asserting such a right. 10.31. In order to further establish that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is not at Nava - 52 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana Gadde, he submits that judicial notice could be taken under Section 56 of the Evidence Act that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, Kalaburagi which is recorded not only in the commentaries of Madhva faith but also in various gazetteers which have been published by the State. 10.32. In this regard he relies upon the Mysore Gazetteer, 1966, Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka Gazeteer, Dharwad District, publication of Karnataka Tourism Dept., Gulbarga district and Gazetteer of India, Karnataka State published by government of Karnataka. 10.33. These publications in the Gazetteers along with deposition of Peetadhipathi of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60, he submits is a conclusive proof that Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s brindavana is located in Nava Brindavana - 53 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Gadde, Anegundi and that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is located in Malkhed, Kalaburagi. 10.34. He relies upon the following decisions:</p><p>10. 35. In Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das v. Surjanarayan Das2, more particularly para 25 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>25. It is urged for the appellant that what is stated in the Gazetter cannot be treated as evidence. These statements in the Gazetter are not relied on as evidence of title but as providing historical material and the practice followed by the math and its head. The Gazetteer can be consulted on matters of public history. 10.36. Relying on the decision in Surjanarayan Das case, submission is that though what is stated in a gazetteer cannot be considered evidence but the statement made in the Gazetteer can be regarded as historical material and of public history. These aspects if taken into consideration, and judicial notice is taken under 2 1966 Supp SCR436- 54 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Section 56 of the Evidence Act, the Gazetteer would establish that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and not of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and any assertion made contrary thereto would have to be established by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 10.37. In ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.3, particularly paras 15 to 19 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>15. The learned counsel then contending that this Court will not entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC216 wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 218, para</p><p>7) “7. In our view, it is apparent that the order passed by the High Court is, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. It is true that many matters could be decided after referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be a ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of alleged breach of contract. Whether the alleged non- 3 (2004) 3 SCC553- 55 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 supply of road permits by the appellants would justify breach of contract by the respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and is not required to be decided or dealt with in a writ petition. Such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuing writs.</p><p>16. A perusal of this judgment though shows that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of facts which requires consideration of evidence which is not on record, will not normally be entertained by a court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This decision again, in our opinion, does not lay down an absolute rule that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact the parties should be relegated to a civil suit. In this view of ours, we are supported by a judgment of this Court in the case of Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda [(1969) 3 SCC769 where dealing with such a situation of disputed questions of fact in a writ petition this Court held: (SCC p. 774, paras 14-16) “14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit-in- reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to - 56 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.</p><p>15. From the averments made in the petition filed by the appellants it is clear that in proof of a large number of allegations the appellants relied upon documentary evidence and the only matter in respect of which conflict of facts may possibly arise related to the due publication of the notification under Section 4 by the Collector.</p><p>16. In the present case, in our judgment, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that it will not determine disputed question of fact. The High Court has jurisdiction to - 57 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 determine questions of fact, even if they are in dispute and the present, in our judgment, is a case in which in the interests of both the parties the High Court should have entertained the petition and called for an affidavit-in-reply from the respondents, and should have proceeded to try the petition instead of relegating the appellants to a separate suit.</p><p>17. The above judgment of Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC769 finds support from another judgment of this Court in the case of Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council [(1970) 1 SCC582 wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 587, para</p><p>13) “Merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit against a public body. The questions of fact raised by the petition in this case are elementary.</p><p>18. This observation of the Court was made while negating a contention advanced on behalf of the respondent Municipality which contended that the petition filed by the appellant Company therein apparently raised questions of fact which argument of the Municipality was accepted by the High Court holding that such disputed questions of fact cannot be tried in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But this Court held otherwise.</p><p>19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In the above case of - 58 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC769 this Court even went to the extent of holding that in a writ petition, if the facts require, even oral evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the writ court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact. 10.38. By relying on the decision in ABL International’s case, he submits that it is not in all cases where there are disputed questions of fact, would the writ court refuse to exercise jurisdiction. It is only disputed question of fact that require a trial to be held that the court could refuse to entertain jurisdiction. In the present matter, it is undisputed that Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu’s brindavana is at Anegundi which is admitted by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, it is only in the year 1985 that the former pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt on his deathbed had - 59 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 indicated that he was mistaken to believe the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu to be that of Shri. Raghuvara Teetharu, and as such, he had instructed his disciples to perform the aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. His submission is that until the year 1985 there was no dispute and even the pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and the Mutt by itself had accepted and asserted that the said Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu. If that be so, for the first time an assertion being made in the year 1985 to the contrary it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish the assertion in a suit to be filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, it cannot therefore be contended that it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file such a suit.-. 60 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.39. In Tejraj-President, Jain Sangh v. State (M.B.) & Collector4, particularly para 10 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>19. The Supreme Court then, after indicating the question involved in the case, said that all those questions should be decided in a properly constituted suit in a Civil Court rather than in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is thus clear that the power under Article 226 ought not to be exercised if the right which the Petitioner is seeking to enforce depends on facts which are complex and disputed and which have to be established. The dispute as to the facts persuading the High Court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution must, however, be real and substantial. It must be with regard to perception of facts as distinguished from their evaluation. The rule that the High Court should not in an application under Article 226 embark on an investigation into the disputed facts and materials for determining whether the Petitioner Mutt has the right which he is seeking to enforce, cannot apply where the doubt or dispute is as to the construction of a document or a judicial order or as to the effect and meaning of a record. Again, the mere statement of the opponent in a petition under Article 226 challenging the correctness of the facts averred by the suppliant and saying that he is in possession of documents and materials to contradict the statements made by the Petitioner is not sufficient for holding that the case is of the type in which facts have to be established. If such a statement is accepted as sufficient to decline to exercise power under 4 1957 SCC OnLine MP81- 61 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Article 226 then the opponent in a petition under Article 226 and not the Court would be the arbiter of the question whether the case is of a type where questions of facts have to be established. The opponent is under an obligation to produce sufficient material to satisfy the Court that there does exist a real and serious dispute as to the facts on which the Petitioner concerned bases his rights sought to be enforced. As will be shown presently, in this case there is no such dispute as to the material facts. When the right sought to be enforced is clear and undisputable and is a fundamental right, the Petitioner cannot be directed to avail himself of the remedy of a suit (see Himmatlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR1954SC403]. and Mahabir Prasad v. B.S. Gupta, Sales Tax Officer, Indore [1957 M.P. Cases 214.]. 10.40. By relying on Jain Sangh’s case, he submits that a dispute has been raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt subsequently, and the dispute is not on account of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt. Accepted facts which were admitted by the pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt was that the brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu. It is only after 1985 that the said aspect has been disputed and recently that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has - 62 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 obstructed Shri. Uttaradi Mutt offering pooja, aradhana, etc. for Shri. Raghuvarya Rayaru contending that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 10.41. On the basis of the above, he submits that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt itself has admitted at an undisputed point of time that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has now only with the intention of creating problems and obstacles in Shri. Uttaradi Mutt performing required poojas is contending that the brindavana is that of Shri Jaya Teertharu requiring Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to approach Courts of law for protection being a law abiding entity. If not for the obstructions held out by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt would not have approached this court.-. 63 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.42. The Brindavana where aradhana and puja was being performed for the last several centuries is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and it is only now that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has sought to contend that the said Brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. It is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish the same by cogent evidence and it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to seek for a declaration in a properly instituted suit that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. The status-quo as prevalent now is that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and as such, it does not now lie for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to contend that it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to establish the Brindavana to be of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu.-. 64 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.43. His submission is that it is only in the Nirupa issued by the Peetadhipathi that the Peetadhipathi has stated that he was under mistaken belief that the Brindavana is that of the Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu when in actuality it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. This alleged mistaken belief having been acted upon for at last four hundred and more years and the aradhana being performed as that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is only in the year 1985 that the Nirupa was issued just prior to the death of the Peetadhipati. This cannot be a ground for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to contend that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 10.44. For centuries, these prayers being offered at the Brindavana to Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and their followers who have impleaded themselves - 65 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 as respondents No.6 to 15 to establish it, to the contrary. The suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, until a decision is rendered in the said suit, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt ought to be permitted to offer prayers for Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu in Navabrindavana Gadde. 10.45. The offering of prayers to the former gurus and saints is a fundamental religious practice of the Madhwa community, as such, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt whose saint is Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is the bounden duty of all followers of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to offer prayers to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu during the important events of his lifetime, and if such poojas are not offered, it would amount to disrespect to that saint, which is not in the interest of the Mutt and/or the followers of the Mutt. The poojas having been offered for centuries to Shri.-. 66 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghuvarya Teertharu, the followers of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt having followed and implemented, the belief that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is also a bounden duty on the part of the said followers to see to it that the said Brindavana is not treated as that of anyone else and that only pooja of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is offered in the said Brindavana. 10.46. The Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu, being situated in Navabrindavana Gadde, is established by the evidence of the Peetadhipathi of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in O.S.No.65/1/1959-60 wherein the name of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu has been mentioned by the said Peetadhipathi. 10.47. Even in O.S.No.193/1992, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, in its evidence, has categorically stated that the Brindavana is that of Shri.-. 67 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghuvarya Teertharu. This aspect is reflected in the Karnataka Toursim Gazetteer, Gulbarga Region (Anegundi). Similarly, it is also established by the very same documents that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is not at Navabrindavana Gadde. The Mysore State Gazetteer published in the year 1966 indicates and establishes that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, Kalaburagi. The Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka, Dharwad District also speaks of the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu being situated in Malkhed. The Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga Region as also the Gazetteer of India, Karnataka State Gazetteer, Government of Karnataka indicates that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s Brindavana is at Malkhed, Kalaburagi. The Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu being at Nava Brindavana Gadde cannot be disputed. Once it is established that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s - 68 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana is situated at Malkhed, Kalaburagi, there cannot be another Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Navabrindavana Gadde. Furthermore, it cannot be contended by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu since there cannot be two saints who occupy the same Brindavana. On the basis of the above, the submission of Sri.Amit Kumar Deshpande is that the writ petition filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt has to be allowed and the writ petition filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has to be dismissed.</p><p>11. Shri. Prabhuling Navadgi, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.5-Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would submit that, 11.1. It is only the amended prayer B(i) in W.P.No.103982/2023 which is required to be considered by this Court. Other prayers having - 69 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 been rendered infructuous due to the passage of time, he submits that interim prayer and final prayer, being one and the same, cannot be granted. 11.2. He denies that there is any admission made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as regards the existence of the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Navabrindavana Gadde and submits that there is a lot of research which has happened which would indicate otherwise. 11.3. Shri. Vadirajaru, a pontiff of Sodi Mutt, Udupi, had written a book indicating the existence of the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava brindavana Gadde, one Shri. BNK Sharma, scholar in his treatise History of Dvaita School of Vedanta and his literature, also recognised that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde.-. 70 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 11.4. Another researcher M.R.Anantha Padmanabha Rao also recognizes that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 11.5. Shri. Sannur Bheema Bhat has translated the Sanskrit work of Shri. Vadirajaru mentioned earlier into Kannada which records the existence of Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s Brindavana at Navabrindavana Gadde. 11.6. It is further claimed that Shri. T.K.Venugopala Dasaru who has done research on Dasa Parampara has also written a booklet on Srimad Jaya Theerta Moola Brindavana which is stated to be situate at Navabrindavana Gadde. 11.7. The government of Karnataka while celebrating Anegundi Utsava had also published a souvenir authored by Sharana Basappa Kolkar that Shri.-. 71 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana is at Nava Brindavana Gadde, hence, his submission is that in the light of these scholars having written and having published works indicating Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana being located at Nava Brindavana Gadi, the so-called admission on part of the then Peetadhipathi of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt cannot be the basis for the claim of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt. 11.8. His submission is that there being a dispute as regards whose brindavana is located at Nava brindavana Gadde, it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file a suit in relation thereto and only on a determination of the matter by a Civil Court, could the matter be laid to rest and a claim made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt be considered. 11.9. The aspect of whether Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is the owner of Sy.No.192; he submits that another - 72 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 matter is pending consideration before this court, in RSA No.100446/2015, which would have to decide on that aspect. He submits that the suit in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60 has no relevance for this case. 11.10. He relies upon the following decisions:</p><p>11. 11. In Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma5, particularly paragraphs 37 and 89 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>37. It was vehemently urged that declaration of the character of a church, viz., whether it was autocephalous was solely dependent upon the canonical laws and it necessarily involved an adjudication of what was the applicable canon, what was its interpretation and what are the religious beliefs, practices, customs and usage in the church which pertained to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the civil courts could not embark on such an enquiry. This is the farthest or the highest stand that could be taken by the appellant. The answer is twofold, one Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and other Article 25 of the Constitution. The latter guarantees constitutionally freedom of conscience and the right freely to 5 1995 Supp (4) SCC286- 73 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 profess, practise and propagate religion to every person. Its reach has been explained in various decisions. In His Holiness Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami v. State of T.N. [Seshammal v. State of T.N., (1972) 2 SCC11sub nom His Holiness Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami v. State of T.N., AIR1972SC1586 it was held that this article guarantees freedom to practise rituals and ceremonies which are integral parts of a religion. In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P. [(1977) 1 SCC677:</p><p>1977. SCC (Cri) 147 : AIR1977SC908 it was held that right to practise and propagate not only matters of faith or belief but all those rituals and practices which are regarded as integral parts of a religion by the followers of a doctrine. In S.P. Mittal v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC51: AIR1983SC1 it was held that freedom or right involving the conscience must naturally receive a wide interpretation. The suit filed was thus maintainable. The injunction and prohibition sought from interfering in administration of Church are certainly matters which pertain to the religious office. Even the declaration that the Church is episcopal is covered in the expansive expression of religion as explained in Mittal case [(1983) 1 SCC51: AIR1983SC1 . The word ‘episcopal’ means “of or pertaining to bishops, having a government vested in bishop”. A suit for declaration of such a right would be maintainable under Section 9. Not only because it is claim to an office but also because there is no other forum where such dispute can be resolved. If a dispute arises whether a particular religious shrine has ceased to be so due to its anti-religion activities then the followers of that religion or belief and faith cannot be denied the right to approach the court. Explanation I is not restrictive of the right or matters pertaining to religion. It only removes the doubt to enable the courts to entertain suits where dispute about religious office is involved. The right - 74 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 to religion having become fundamental right, it would include the right to seek declaration that the Church was episcopal. But the court may refrain from adjudicating upon purely religious matters as it may be handicapped to enter into the hazardous hemisphere of religion. Maintainability of the suit should not be confused with exercise of jurisdiction. Nor is there any merit in the submission that Explanation I could not save suits where the right to property or to an office was not contested or where the said right depended on decisions of questions as to religious faith, belief, doctrine or creed. The emphasis on the expression “is contested” used in Explanation I is not of any consequence. It widens the ambit of the Explanation and includes in its fold any right which is contested to be a right of civil nature even though such right may depend on decisions of questions relating to religious rights or ceremonies. But from that it cannot be inferred that where the right to office or property is not contested it would cease to be a suit cognizable under Section 9. The argument is not available on facts but that shall be adverted to later. Suffice it to mention that in Ugamsingh [(1970) 3 SCC831: (1971) 2 SCR836 the plaintiff's claim was that they were entitled to worship without interference of the idol of Adeshwarji in the temple named after him at Paroli according to tenets observed by the Digambari sect of the Jain religion. It was held that from the pleadings and the controversy between the parties it was clear that the issue was not one which was confined merely to rites and rituals but one which effected the rights of worship. If the Digambaris have a right to worship at the temple, the attempt of the Swetamberis to put Chakshus or to place Dhwajadand or Kalash in accordance with their tenets and to claim that the idol is a Swetamberi idol was to preclude the Digambaris from exercising their right to worship at the temple, with respect to - 75 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 which a civil suit is maintainable under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The scope of the section was thus expanded to include even right to worship.</p><p>89. The conclusions thus reached are:</p><p>1. (a) The civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and suits. (b) The expression ‘civil nature’ used in Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is wider than even civil proceedings, and thus extends to such religious matters which have civil consequence. (c) Section 9 is very wide. In absence of any ecclesiastical courts any religious dispute is cognizable, except in very rare cases where the declaration sought may be what constitutes religious rite.</p><p>2. Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not debar those cases where declaration is sought for a period prior to the Act came into force or for enforcement of right which was recognised before coming into force of the Act.</p><p>3. The following findings in Moran Mar Basselios (supra) have become final and operate as res judicata: (a) The Catholicate of the East was created in Malankara in 1912. (b) The Constitution framed in 1934 by Malankara Association is valid. (c) The Catholicos were not heretics nor they had established separate church.-. 76 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 (d) The meeting held by Patriarch group in 1935 was invalid.</p><p>4. (a) The effect of the two judgments rendered by the Appellate Court of the Royal Court and in Moran Mar Basselios (supra) by this Court is that both Catholicos and Patriarch groups continue to be members of the Syrian Orthodox Church. (b) The Patriarch of Antioch has no temporal powers over the Churches. (c) Effect of the creation of Catholicate at Malankara and 1934 Constitution is that the Patriarch can exercise spiritual powers subject to the Constitution. (d) The spiritual powers of the Patriarch of Antioch can be exercised by the Catholico in accordance with the Constitution.</p><p>5. (a) The Hudaya Canon produced by the Patriarch is not the authentic version. (b) There is no power in the Hudaya Canon to excommunicate Catholicos.</p><p>6. The excommunication of the Catholicos by the Patriarch was invalid.</p><p>7. All churches, except those which are of Evangelistic Association or Simhasana or St. Mary are under spiritual and temporal control of the Malankara Association in accordance with 1934 Constitution. 11.12. By relying on Moran Mar Marthoma’s case, he submits that it is only a civil court which can - 77 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 entertain jurisdiction in the matter and not this court since there are disputed questions of facts which have to be adjudicated. This court ought not to embark to see such a finding on disputed questions of fact in a writ proceeding when it could only be done so by a trial Court. Any right, even under Article 25 of the Constitution, could be pressed into service by filing a suit and not by filing a writ petition is the submission. 11.13. In Basant Singh -v- Janki Singh AIR1967SC341 particularly para 6 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>6. The explanation of Janki Singh and Kailashpati Singh that the plaint was drafted by their lawyer Ramanand Singh at the instance of the panchas including one Ramanand and they signed and verified the plaint without understanding its contents cannot be accepted. There is positive evidence on the record that the plaint was drafted at the instance of Janki Singh and was filed under his instructions. The plaint was signed not only by Janki Singh and Kailashpati Singh but also by their lawyer, Ramanand Singh. Neither Ramanand Singh nor the panch Ramanand was called as a - 78 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 witness. Even in this litigation, Ramanand Singh was acting as a lawyer on behalf of some of the defendants. Kailashpati Singh is a Homeopathic medical practitioner and knows English. The plaint was read over to Janki Singh. Both Janki Singh and Kailashpati Singh signed the plaint after understanding its contents and verified all the statements made in it as true to their knowledge. They then well knew that Ramyad Singh had died in 1939 after the passing of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act. It is not shown that the admission in the plaint as to the date of death of Ramyad Singh is not true or that it was made under some error or misapprehension. This admission must be regarded as a strong piece of evidence in this suit with regard to the date of death of Ramyad Singh. 11.14. In the case of Satyadeo Prasad -v- Smt.Chanderjoti Debi and others6 AIR1996Patna 110, particularly para 31 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>31. Section 21 of the Evidence Act states that admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the persons who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in certain cases with which we are not concerned for the present. Section 31 lays down that admissions “are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained”. On a reading of the two 6 AIR1996PATNA110- 79 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 sections together, the law on the point appears to be clear that an admission of a person is admissible in evidence as against him and though, under certain circumstances, it operates as estoppel against him, it is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted and it can be explained away by the maker thereof or the person against whom it is sought to be proved. For example, a person against whom it is sought to be used may prove that it was made without his knowledge or in ignorance of facts admitted, or under such other circumstances; but there is no doubt about its admissibility in evidence against the maker thereof. The above view gains support from a Single Judge decision of this court in Jairam Mahaton v. Lokenath Mahaton, AIR1930Pat 405, wherein it was held that, in a title suit the proceedings in a previous title suit between the present defendants and a third person were relevant under S. 19 and the pleadings of the defendants were admissible as admission of the defendants under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. In S.T. Chendikamba v. K.I. Viswanathamayya, AIR1939Mad 446; it was pointed out that what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so, but the party making the admission may give evidence to rebut this presumption, and unless and until that is satisfactorily done the fact admitted must be taken to be established. It was further pointed out that the same principle will apply to an admission in a signed pleading, and that, so far as Indian Law is concerned, there can be no doubt that under the provisions of the Evidence Act, an admission contained in a plaint or written statement or an affidavit or any sworn deposition given by a party in a prior litigation will be regarded as an admission in a subsequent action, though it is capable of rebuttal. The statement of Hardeo (defendant No.2) in his written statement in the previous partition suit (Ext.-. 80 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023</p><p>6) is, therefore, admissible in evidence, and unless any evidence in rebuttal has been given by him, that will be a very valuable piece of evidence against his contention in the present suit. Unfortunately, no explanation has been given by him with regard to the statements made in the above written statement, and all that he has said in his evidence is that he did not know the contents of that written statement, as it had been drafted at the instructions of Kamta Prasad. Kamta Prasad, who has been examined as P.W. 24, has, no doubt, admitted in his examination-in-chief that he had also come when Hardeo filed the written statement in that suit. But the stand taken by the defendants in cross- examining this witness is to the effect that the written statement was not written in his (Kamta's) presence. A suggestion had been put to him that the written statement was not written in his presence, and he stated that it is not a fact that the written statements of Hardeo and Jagarnath were not written in his presence. Thus, the explanation offered by Hardeo is not convincing and cannot be accepted. That being so, the admissions made in the above written statement are admissible against him. 11.15. Though several other judgments have been annexed to the memo, he does not refer to or rely on any of those judgments. 11.16. The submission of Shri. Prabhuling Navadagi, learned Senior counsel is that the dispute being - 81 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 civil in nature, the civil court would have to decide the dispute. The deposition of Peetadhipati is not relevant since subsequently, the said Peetadhipati had issued a Nirupa wherein he had categorically stated that he was under a misapprehension that the brindavana located in Navabrindavana Gadde was that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. After having read various treatises, he has now come to a conclusion that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and has called upon his disciples to treat the said brindavana as that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and go ahead with the prayers to him therein. 11.17. On enquiry as to when this Nirupa was issued, he submits that the Nirupa was recorded by the disciples of the erstwhile Peetadhipati on 5.06.1985. On enquiry as to whether any pooja or aradhana has been performed after - 82 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 5.06.1985 of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and if any document could be placed in support thereof, though he submits that the pooja and aradhana has been carried out, there is no particular document that is placed on record in relation to the Aradhana having been performed but some pamphlets relating to the announcement of the aradhana are placed on record. 11.18. Based on the above, he submits that from the time Nirupa was issued, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has been performing aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde and as such, the application filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt for protection ought not to have been rejected. Based on the above, he submits that the writ petition filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt is required to be dismissed and that filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt be allowed.-. 83 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12. Shri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 15 who are impleaded, subsequently submits that; 12.1. The respondents No.6 to 15 are followers and devotees of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, their rights would be affected by any orders that may be passed in the present matter in as much as it is respondents No.6 to 15 who are going to be performing the pooja and any order against Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would affect them adversely. 12.2. At the outset Shri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel submits that he would be adopting the submissions made by and on behalf of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt by Shri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi learned senior counsel.-. 84 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.3. In addition, he submits not only in support of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt but as also on behalf of the devotees that the dispute in the present matter is as regard the identity of one Brindavana in Navabrindavana Gadde, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt claiming it to be that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and the very same Brindavana is claimed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and respondents No.6 to 15 as that Shri Jaya Teertharu. 12.4. Subsequent to the impleading application filed in the present matter, respondents No.6 to 15 have also filed a representative suit in OS No.35/2024 before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Gangavathi seeking for declarative and injunctive relief against Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Vyasaraja Mutt. The Reliefs as sought for are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: - 85 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 i. To Declare that the Moola Brindavana of Sri. Jaya Teertharu is at Navabrindavana Gaddi Anegundi Village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District and further to declare the claim of the 1st defendant that it is the Brindavana of Sri. Raghuvaryaru is untenable and illegal. ii. Injunct the 1st defendant and their henchmen, workers and their followers or any one claiming under them not to worship by conducting daily pujas and aradhana or Mahimotsava to the Brindavana of Sri Jaya Teertharu as that of Sri. Raghavaryaru at Nava Brundavana Gaddi, Anegundi Village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District. iii. Grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble court deems fit grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 12.5. The Single Bench, having rejected the impleading application on an appeal filed in Writ Appeal No.100023/2024, the Division Bench has categorically concluded that any order passed in the writ petition would affect or would have a bearing on the suit that the impleading applicants have filed and, as such they cannot be said not to have any interest, in the subject matter of the writ petition. Whether the claim - 86 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 or independent right is claimed through Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is proper or not is to be decided in the suit where both Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt are parties. Respondents No.6 to 15 cannot be considered to be ordinary devotees since they have initiated a suit in O.S. No.35/2024. Though they are not necessary parties, they would be proper parties. Thus, he submits that any order passed in the present matter would have a direct bearing on respondents No.6 to 15. 12.6. As regards the maintainability of the writ petition, he submits that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is seeking a direction to the authorities to prevent Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt from performing the Poojas of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Navabrindavana Gadde. There has been no determination of this aspect by any court of law - 87 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 till now. Without declaration of the civil right, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt cannot seek such a direction to be issued against respondent-State as regards undeclared civil rights. 12.7. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri. Althaf Ahamed v. State of Karnataka and others7 more particularly paras 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference.</p><p>5. The weighty aspect which dissuades the court from exercising the writ jurisdiction is that the dispute between the parties is essentially in relation to validity of the gift deed. This dispute involves civil rights. In the ultimate analysis, what is to be adjudicated is whether respondent Nos.5 and 6 have got valid title over the property or not and whether the Will referred to by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and alleged to have been executed fraudulently and by misrepresentation is valid or not. 5.1 It is in light of these aspects that the assertion of the appellant that he is the absolute owner of the property will have to be examined. Decision on all issues would require leading of evidence and determination of civil rights amongst the parties. It involves adjudication into titular rights of the parties. It is a trite principle that the 7 WA No.713/2023 dated 11.3.2024 - 88 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 dispute regarding property rights cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction. The parties have to take recourse to civil court. 5.2 The contested property rights cannot be dealt with in writ jurisdiction. The writ court can at the best take notice of the property rights of the parties which are already established rights. When a party is claiming under the disputed Will, the writ court would not be able to adjudicate it, for, it is a matter of leading evidence. In the same way when the gift deed is the derivative document, whereunder the parties claim their respective title rights and dispute one another’s claims, the adjudication has to be done by the civil court. The remedy before the civil court would be proper remedy in such circumstances. 5.3 This is reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sohan Lal vs. Union of India and Another (AIR1957SC529 observing thus, “We do not propose to enquire into the merits of the rival claims of title to the property in dispute set up by the appellant and Jagan Nath. If we were to do so, we would be entering into a field of investigation which is more appropriate for a Civil Court in a properly constituted suit to do rather than for a Court exercising the prerogative of issuing writs. These are questions of fact and law which are in dispute requiring determination before the respective claims of the parties to this appeal can be decided. Before the property in dispute can be restored to Jagan Nath it will be necessary to declare that he had title in that property and was entitled to recover possession of it. This would in effect amount to passing a decree in his favour. In the circumstances to be mentioned hereafter, it is a matter for serious consideration whether in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution such a declaration ought to be made and restoration of the property to Jagan Nath be ordered.” (para</p><p>5) - 89 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.8. Relying on the aforesaid paragraphs in Althaf Ahamed’s case, he submits that when the alleged admissions in the Gazetteer are seriously disputed by respondents, the writ Court cannot adjudicate the undeclared rights. Whenever parties claim their own respective title and dispute the others’ claims, adjudication has to be done by a Civil Court and not by a writ petition. The injunctory relief which Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is seeking for against Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt cannot be so granted in a writ proceeding; such a relief cannot be dehors the ordinary civil remedies which are available under the general law of land before a Civil Court. Respondents No.6 to 15 have filed a comprehensive suit before the civil Court, which would decide the matter. Till then, this Court ought not to intercede in the matter or grant the orders sought by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt.-. 90 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.9. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T.8 more particularly para 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 14. These questions, in our view, were pure questions of fact and could be answered one way or the other only by the civil court in a properly constituted civil suit and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court.</p><p>15. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria [Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC61 and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal 8 AIR2019SC659- 91 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 [Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC230 .) 16. In our view, the writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) in the civil court.</p><p>17. We cannot, therefore, concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court when it unnecessarily went into all the questions of fact arising in the case on the basis of factual pleadings in detail (43 pages) and recorded a factual finding that it was Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) who was in possession of the flat and, therefore, he be restored with his possession of the flat by the appellant.</p><p>18. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, while so directing exceeded its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. Indeed, the High Court in granting such relief, had virtually converted the writ petition into a civil suit and itself to a civil court. In our view, it was not permissible. 12.10. By relying on Roshina’s case, he submits that disputes relating to rights and liabilities of the private individuals must be adjudicated by the civil Courts and not in a writ jurisdiction. The private law dispute cannot be adjudicated in a public law remedy of writ petition, a private law dispute can only be adjudicated in a civil suit.-. 92 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.11. He relies upon the decision of the hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes9 more particularly a portion of para 7 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>7. …….. the jurisdiction of the High Court was bypassed, the appellants moved the High Court challenging the competence of the Provincial Legislature to extend the concept of sale, and invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and sought to reopen the decision of the Taxing Authorities on question of fact. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary : it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self- imposed limitations. Resort that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by 9 AIR1964SC1419- 93 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. 12.12. By relying on Thansingh Nathmal’s case, he submits that when Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has an alternative efficacious remedy the writ court ought not to entertain a writ petition under Article 266. It is open to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to move Civil court or tribunal, this court should direct Shri Uttaradi Mutt to move such court or a tribunal and not entertain a claim made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt before this Court. 12.13. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal10 more particularly a portion of para 36 thereof, which is reproduced here under for easy reference; 10 AIR2003SC2686- 94 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 36. ……. The High Court derives its jurisdiction in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if an occasion arises therefor, to make judicial review of the order passed by a statutory authority. It is beyond any cavil that no writ can be issued if the disputes involve private law character. The writ court has also no jurisdiction to determine an issue on private dispute over a property or right under a partnership. ……. 12.14. By relying on Dwarka Prasad Agarwal’s case he submits that no writ can be issued when the dispute involves private law, a writ court can only deal with public law. 12.15. As regards the admission of the deponent in OS No.65/1/1959-60 he submits that the said admission can only bind Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and the person succeeding to the office of the said deponent it cannot be binding on respondent no.6 to 15 who have an independent right. This independent right has been recognized by the Division Bench while allowing writ appeal filed by respondents No.6 to 15 as regards the rejection of the impleading - 95 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 application by the single judge. Thus, this right having been upheld as regards respondents No.6 to 15 which is independent of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the statement of the deponent in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60 will not be binding on respondent no.6-15, nor are they claiming under Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 12.16. He submits that the suit in OS No.65/1/1959-60 was filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt seeking for relief of declaration that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is the owner of 14 acres 7 guntas and for deletion of the entry made in the name of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. There was no issue in the said suit as regards the existence or otherwise of the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvara Teertharu or Shri Jaya Teertharu. Therefore, the admission made in a suit where the existence or otherwise of the Brindavana was - 96 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 not in question will not be binding on anybody in so far as the present dispute is concerned. 12.17. He relies upon the decision of the hon'ble Apex court in the case of Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil11 more particularly para 13 thereof which is reproduced here under for easy reference; 13. The first infirmity in regard to this admission is that whatever was said by the respondent in regard to Survey No.201/2 is irrelevant and inadmissible in the deposition of the respondent in that case. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act states that “An admission is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned”. In regard to dispute between the appellant and the respondent arising out of Surveys Nos. 194/15 and 200/29, Survey No.s Nos. 201/2 and 194/13 were neither issues in fact nor relevant fact. 12.18. By relying on the Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case he submits that admission, if any made in such a suit can only be read in regard to and in reference to a dispute in the said suit and not 11 AIR1977SCC1712- 97 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 beyond the dispute in the said suit. Therefore, admission cannot apply in the present case. There is no issue raised in the said suit as regards the existence or not of the Brindavana. Therefore, the alleged admission would not be binding on respondents No.6 to 15. 12.19. He again relies on para 16 of Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case (supra) which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>16. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent even though not confronted with the admission would be bound by his admissions and the appellant would be entitled to rely on the admissions as admissible. There is the observation in the very next sentence in the aforesaid decision of this Court that “the purpose of contradicting the witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act is very much different from the purpose of proving the admission”. It, therefore, follows that admission is relevant and it has to be proved before it becomes evidence. 12.20. Relying on the above, he submits that an opportunity has to be given to put the admission across to the person who has made - 98 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the admission, permitting him to tender his explanation, merely because admission is made cannot be held against him. 12.21. He reiterates that an admission is not conclusive proof; admission can be explained, in this regard he relies upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Basant Singh vs. Janki Singh and other12 more particularly a portion of para 5 thereof which is reproduced here under for easy reference:</p><p>5. ….Under the Indian law, an admission made by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him in other suits. In other suits, this admission cannot be regarded as conclusive, and it is open to the party to show that it is not true…… 12.22. He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal13 more particularly para 30 12 AIR1967SC34113 AIR1979(4) SCC790- 99 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 thereof, which is reproduced here under for easy reference:</p><p>30. In the face of this evidence reinforced by the oral evidence on the record, the learned Judge of the High Court concluded that the Math and the temple in this case are a public religious Trust and not the personal property of the defendant. We do not find any reason to take a different view. 12.23. By relying on Avadh Kishore Das’s case he submits that the present Peetadhipati can also in the civil suit filed by respondents No.6-15 depose that the statement of the earlier Peetadhipati to be incorrect or not on the basis of cogent evidence which is also available in terms of various books and documents which have been produced. 12.24. The deponent in OS No.65/1/1959-60 also issued a Nirupa in which he who was the earlier Peetadhipati has stated that he had consulted various scholars, writers, researchers, etc., and - 100 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 thereafter concluded that the earlier statement made by him was not correct; therefore, the said explanation would have to be considered by this Court. 12.25. In so far as Gazetteers are concerned, he submits that the same lacks credence since there is a statement made in the Bombay Gazetteer that Shri. Jaya Teertharu expired in 1269 AD and the Gulbarga Gazetteer it is stated that he expired in 1389 AD. There being a gap of more than 100 years it cannot be accepted that the location of the Brindavana as stated therein to be genuine, the discrepancy going to the root of the matter. 12.26. He relies upon the decision in Triyambak Shivarudra vs. State of Bombay14 more particularly para 8 thereof which is reproduced here under for easy reference:</p><p>14. 1950 Crl.LJ1372- 101 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 8. Section 81, Evidence Act, provides that Courts shall presume the genuineness of every document referred to therein. Official Gazettes are amongst the documents included in that section. It is therefore dear that we must raise an initial presumption that 0.</p><p>0. 8 which is published in the Gazette of India dated 26th January I960 is a genuine document. The presumption enacted by Section 81 is, however, a rebuttable one. That is a clear from the definition of the words "shall presume" which is a given in Section 4, Evidence Act. According to that section: Whenever it is directed by this Act that, the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved. 12.27. Relying on Triyambak Shivarudra’s case, he submits that the Gazetteers by themselves are not conclusive evidence but are rebuttable pieces of evidence which can be rebutted before the civil court. On the basis of the wrong statement or mistake in the statements made in the Gazetteer, the same already stands rebutted even before this Court and, as such, cannot be relied upon. 12.28. He relies upon the decision of Calcutta high court in the decision of Kali Prosanna vs.-. 102 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Nagendra Nath 44 (CWN) Calcutta weekly notes which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; “Reports and gazetteers ae not strictly evidence of the truth of all the statements contained in them, although they may be read for what they are worth.</p><p>12.29. Relying on Kali Prosanna’s case, he submits that reports and Gazetteer are not strictly evidence of truth. In that background, he submits that even the Gazetteers relied upon by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt cannot be accepted by this court. All these aspects would have to be decided in the suit filed by respondents Nos. 6 to 15, and on that basis, he submits that the above writ petition is required to be dismissed.</p><p>13. Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior counsel in reply would submit as under: - 103 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 13.1. Insofar as the reliance placed by both Shri. Prabhuling Navadgi and Shri. C.V. Nagesh learned Senior Counsels on the work of one Dr B.N.K.Sharma published in 1986; he submits that this, though it is a scholarly work, would not have the same value as a gazetteer, which is recognised under Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act. It can only be a scholarly work, which will have to be established in the course of trial before the trial Court in the suit filed by respondents No.6 to 15, and the same cannot be a basis for claiming the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu to be that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu in the present writ petition. 13.2. As regards the judgments relied upon in Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case, Basant Singh’s case and Nagindar Ramdas’s case [referred to supra]., by the respondents to contend that admissions are not conclusive on account of the - 104 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 possibility of they being proved wrong, he submits that the said proposition would not apply to the present facts. The admission has never been established to be wrong. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt itself has been of a consistent opinion of the identity of nine Brindavanas in Nava Brindavana Gadde for centuries. Evidence in this regard was led in the suit filed in the year 1959 as also in the year 1992. There is nothing on record to show that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has conducted or was permitted to conduct the Aaradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at the Navabrindavana Gadde as observed in the judgment dated 15.07.2022 in WP No.102614/2022. 13.3. Neither Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt nor Respondents 6 to 15 have been able to explain the admissions pertaining to the identity of the Brindavana in Navabrindavana Gadde except to - 105 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 lay a claim on the Nirupa issued by the former Peetadhipati (which in a manner amounts to resiling from the earlier admission) and the publication made by Dr.B.N.K.Sharma as also by the Pontiff of Sosale Mutt. These are all aspects which have come into being in recent times and cannot upset the facts which have been accepted by all concerned for centuries. 13.4. Insofar as the contention of the respondents that the writ court cannot decide the disputed question of fact, he submits that this Court can assess the veracity of facts which can be so ascertained on the basis of the documents produced. The dispute having been raised as regards established facts of over centuries only recently in the year 1985, the established facts prior to the dispute being that the Brindavana belonged to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, this aspect would have to be taken into - 106 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 consideration by this Court and there would be no disputed question which this Court would be addressing itself to. 13.5. By relying on ABL International Ltd’s case (referred to supra), he contends that the adjudication in the instant case does not require detailed evidence or trial to be conducted. The entire evidence in the form of documents which are uncontroverted and are reliable are already on record, which this Court can take cognisance of. Since Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Respondents 6 to 15 have now sought to deny and/or controvert the established facts; it is for them to establish the same in the suit filed. Admittedly, no suit has been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt but has been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, who were, according to him, acting at the behest of Shri Raghavendra - 107 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Swamy Mutt to only try and derail these proceedings. 13.6. He submits that the brindavana where aradhanas and poojas were being performed for the last several centuries is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and it is only now that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has sought to contend that the said brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. It is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish the same by cogent evidence and it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to seek a declaration in a properly instituted suit that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. The status quo as prevalent now is that the brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu, and as such, it does not now lie for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt or respondents No.6 to 15 to contend that it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to establish the - 108 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. His submission is that it is only in the Nirupa issued by the Peetadhipati that the Peetadhipati has stated that he was under a mistaken belief that brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu when in actuality it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Assuming the contentions of shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Respondents 6 to 15 to be true, this alleged mistaken belief having been acted upon for last 400 and more years and the aradhana being performed as that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is only in the year 1985 that Nirupa was issued just prior to the death of Peetadhipati, this cannot be a ground for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to contend that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 13.7. For centuries, prayers have been offered at the brindavana to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is - 109 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers who have impleaded themselves as respondents No.6 to 15 to establish to the contrary. The suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, until a decision is rendered in the suit, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt ought to be permitted to offer prayers for Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu in the Nava brindavana Gadde, without any interference from Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt or its followers. 13.8. The offering of prayers to the former gurus and saints is a fundamental religious practice of the Madhva community; as such, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, whose saint is Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, has a bounden duty as also all followers of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt have a bounden duty to offer prayers to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu during the important events of his life, and if poojas are not offered, it will amount - 110 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 to disrespect to the saint, which is not in the interest of Shri Uttaradi Mutt and the followers of the Shri Uttaradi Mutt. 13.9. The poojas having been offered for centuries to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, the followers of Shri Uttaradi Mutt having followed and implemented the belief that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is also a bounden duty of the said followers to see to it that the said brindavana is not treated as that of anyone else and that only poojas of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is offered in the said brindavana. 13.10. The brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, being situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde, is established by the evidence of Peetadhipati of Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60, wherein the name of Shri.-. 111 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu has been mentioned by the said Peetadhipati. Even in O.S. No.193/1995, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, in its evidence, has categorically stated that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. This aspect is also reflected in the Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga region (Anegundi). 13.11. Similarly, it is also established by the very same document that brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is not at Nava Brindavana Gadde. The Mysore State Gazetteer, published in the year 1966, indicates and establishes that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is at Malked, Gulbarga. The Bombay Gazetteer Karnataka, Dharwad district also speaks of brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu to be situated at Malkhed. The Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga region, as also the Gazetteer of India Karnataka - 112 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 State Gazetteer, Government of Karnataka, indicate that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana is at Malked, Kalburagi. The brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being at Nava brindavana Gadde cannot be disputed. Once it is established that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana is situated at Malked, Kalaburagi; there cannot be another brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava brindavana Gadde. Furthermore, it cannot be contended by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu since there cannot be two saints who occupy the same brindavana. 13.12. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, not having chosen to file any suit to establish its claim, merely because respondents No.6 to 15 have filed a suit, would not make the fact a disputed fact.-. 113 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 13.13. By relying on Jain Sangh’s case, he reiterates that the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has categorically held that objections as to disputed question of fact raised, when raised for the sake of raising will not deviate from the established facts. 13.14. As regards the decision in Triyambak Shivarudra’s case relied upon by respondents he submits that there is no material which has been placed on record showing that any fact recorded therein is wrongly recorded in the gazetteer and as such, the said judgment would not apply in the present case and in the above background, he submits that the writ petition filed by Uttaradi Mutt is required to be allowed.</p><p>14. Shri Gangadhar J.M, Learned Additional Advocate General, would submit that it is only on account of a possible law and order issue that could be created - 114 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that the requests made by both the Mutts have been rejected. The state would adhere to any direction issued by this court.</p><p>15. Heard Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Satish S Raichur and Sri. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, learned counsel for Petitioner and Sri. Gangadhar J.M. learned AAG a/w Sri. Praveen Uppar, AGA for Respondents No.1 to 4, Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadagi, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Arun L. Neelopant for Respondent No.5, Sri. C.V. Nagesh Senior Counsel for Sri. H.R. Deshpande for Respondents No.6 to 15 in W.P.No.103982/2023, Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadagi, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Arun Neelopant for Petitioner and Sri. Gangadhar J.M. AAG a/w Sri. Praveen Uppar, for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Satish S. Raichur and Sri. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, learned - 115 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 counsel for Respondents No.4 in W.P.No.103994/2023. Perused papers.</p><p>16. Based on the above arguments the points that arise for determination in this matter are:</p><p>1. Whether this court cannot entertain the present petition and pass orders thereon on account of the contentions raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, on the one hand, and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as also its followers Respondents 6 to 15 on the other being disputed?.</p><p>2. Whether the contention raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as well as its followers Respondents 6 to 15, can, in fact, be said to be disputed questions of fact.</p><p>3. Despite a suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, is the present petition maintainable?.</p><p>4. Would the admission made by former Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt be binding on Shri. Raghavendra - 116 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Swamy Mutt and its followers Respondents 6 to 15?.</p><p>5. Whether the Gazetteers produced by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, now at this stage, can be relied upon by this Court?.</p><p>6. Whether at this juncture, it can be said that the Brindavana at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu or Shri. Raghuvara Rayaru?.</p><p>7. What order?.</p><p>17. I answer the above points as under:</p><p>18. Insofar as the history of litigation as regards the present matter is concerned, originally, both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed petitions in W.P. No.103994/2023 and 102614/2022 respectively. Shri Uttaradi Mutt wanted to perform the Mahimotsava of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at his Brindavana in Nava - 117 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana Gaddi from 4.07.2023 to 10.07.2023. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt also wanted to perform Aradhana of Jaya Teertharu at his Brindavana in Nava Brindavana Gaddi, from 5.07.2023 to 7.07.2023.</p><p>19. It is clear that for the first time, both the Mutts wanting to celebrate the Aradhana of their respective Gurus during the same period of time. Apprehending interference, both the mutts filed applications before the tahsildar for police protection, but both applications were rejected. In view thereof, the above writ petitions are filed.</p><p>20. A coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petitions by permitting both the Mutts to perform the Aradhana on different sets of dates. Aggrieved by the same, Shri Uttaradi Mutt filed a Writ Appeal, but Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt did not.-. 118 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 21. In the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench allowed the same by setting aside the orders of the coordinate Bench and remanded the same for adjudication by taking on record the additional documents filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt. The Division Bench afforded an opportunity to both the Mutts to file amended petitions and additional documents and seek additional reliefs.</p><p>22. An amendment was filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt, but no amendment has been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt; only objections have been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. Thus, it is clear that insofar as the writ petition by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as regards the dates mentioned in the said writ petition and the prayers, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt does not intend to press or prosecute the said petitions since the dates mentioned have already passed and the said writ petition therefore - 119 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 rendered infructuous. It is also clear that only Shri Uttaradi Mutt, has been prosecuting the matter, agitating its legal rights.</p><p>23. In the above background history of the matter, I would have to consider the points raised.</p><p>24. ANSWER TO POINTS NO.1, 2 AND3 1. Whether this court cannot entertain the present petition and pass orders thereon on account of the contentions raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, on the one hand, and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as also its followers Respondents 6 to 15 on the other being disputed?.</p><p>2. Whether the contention raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as well as its followers Respondents 6 to 15, can, in fact, be said to be disputed questions of fact.</p><p>3. Despite a suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, is the present petition maintainable?. - 120 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.1. Points 1,2 and 3 being related to each other are considered together. 24.2. The submission of Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi., learned senior counsel appearing for Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and that of Shri. C.V. Nagesh., learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023 is that the writ petition filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt is not maintainable since the questions which have arisen out of said writ petition are disputed questions of fact which this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot decide. 24.3. The additional submission of Shri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel is that respondents No.6 to 15, having filed a suit for declaration until the determination of the dispute raised in the - 121 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 said suit, this Court ought not to pass any orders and, as a necessary corollary ought to leave it to the civil Court to determine the disputed question of facts. 24.4. Shri. C.V. Nagesh., learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Roshina’s case, Thansingh Nathmal’s case, Dwarka Prasad Agarwal’s case, Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case, Avadh Kishore Dass’ case, Triyambak Shivarudra’s case and Kali Prosanna’s case for the same purpose. 24.5. The submission of Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande., learned senior counsel appearing for Shri Uttaradi Mutt is that there is no disputed question of fact which requires trial, in so far as Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt’s dispute. Respondents No.6 to 15 having filed a suit, the same would be defended. Shri - 122 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has not filed any suit; the claim made by its followers is on the basis of the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, which has created confusion. The Nirupa having been issued in the year 1985, there is no dispute prior to 1985 of the aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being performed at the Nava Brindavana Gadde and no aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu was performed there. Even during the lifetime of the earlier pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the said pontiff, in the evidence led in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60, has categorically admitted that it is the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu which is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde. Neither in the written statement nor the evidence has the earlier pontiff ever claimed that the Brindavana of - 123 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Shri. Jaya Teertharu was located in Nava Brindavana Gadde. 24.6. For over 400 years the aradhana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu having been performed at Nava Brindavana Gadde, it cannot be now contended that there is a dispute of fact requiring trial in so far as the existence of the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu in Nava Brindavana Gadde. His further submission is that the aradhana and other ceremonies in so far as Shri. Jaya Teertharu has been performed for last few centuries at Malkhed, Kalaburagi district and continue to be performed there even today. Thus, the contention of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and/or respondents No.6 to 15 that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde subsequent to the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt will - 124 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 not make it a disputed question of facts requiring trial. 24.7. In this regard, he relies upon the decision in ABL International Ltd. Case and submits that the writ court would also have jurisdiction to try issues both fact and law even if they are in dispute, when the same does not require a detailed trial this Court can determine the issues and pass necessary judgment on the basis of the documents available on record. 24.8. The dispute having been raised by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers post 1985, it is the assertion now made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which is required to be established in a Court of law and not that of Shri Uttaradi Mutt who has been performing the aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde for over a century.-. 125 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.9. He also relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Tejraj- President Jain Sangh's case. In view thereof submission is made that this Court can and would have to decide the above issue. 24.10. It is therefore in the background of the above submissions that this court would have to decide the above issues. 24.11. It is trite law that this Court exercising writ jurisdiction would ordinarily not cause an enquiry into disputed question of facts and would normally relegate the parties to a civil suit. It is also trite law that this Court would not countenance any contention on the part of the respondents that there are disputed questions of fact when there are in fact no such disputed questions of fact and/or that the respondents - 126 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 have raised the disputed question of fact and/or brought into dispute certain admitted facts to try and prevent orders being passed in the Writ Petition, which in my considered opinion would also amount to abuse of the process of court. 24.12. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Moran Mar Marthoma case’s and principles laid down therein cannot be disputed; the said decision dealt with and was rendered in respect of the jurisdiction of a civil Court to decide a claim under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. In the said judgment, there is no reference, nor is any issue dealt with as regards a writ Court not having jurisdiction. Thus, the said decision will not be a touchstone to decide on whether this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction in the present case or not. 24.13. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Roshina’s case was one relating to a claim of - 127 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 property rights which were disputed and it is in that background that the Hon’ble Apex Court came to a conclusion that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to convert a writ petition into a civil suit. The said decision also would not apply to the present case since there are no property rights which are required to be decided upon or adjudicated by this Court. The dispute, essentially in Roshina’s case, was a property dispute which was inter se the parties, and as such, the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the opinion that those disputes would have to be adjudicated by the Civil Court and not by a writ court. Since this is a private law dispute which cannot be decided in a public law remedy. 24.14. Again the decision in Thansingh Nathmal’s case was one relating to the exercise of - 128 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 jurisdiction by the High Court where an alternative remedy was available and where the Court came to a conclusion that there was an elaborate examination of evidence required in order to establish or enforce a right as regard which a writ was filed and it is in that background that the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the opinion that an elaborate examination of evidence cannot be made by a writ Court. These judgments in my considered opinion would not help the cause of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and/or respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023. 24.15. Per contra the decision relied upon by Shri. Ameet Kumar Kumar Deshpande., learned counsel appearing for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt in ABL International Ltd. Case would be of relevance since the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the High Court could - 129 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 exercise jurisdiction to determine the question of fact even if they are in dispute and those could be determined on the basis of the affidavits and reply rather than relegate the parties to a separate suit. This jurisdiction needs to be exercised at the discretion of the Court. 24.16. Thus, it is clear that there is no specific bar for a writ Court to exercise jurisdiction merely because respondents were to contend that the facts are disputed, it is left to the discretion of the Court. 24.17. It is not in dispute that the aradhana and other functions in so far as Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is concerned has been performed at Nava Brindavana Gadde for more than four centuries, it is only after a Nirupa was issued by the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati in the year 1985 - 130 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that the existence of the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu has been brought into question. 24.18. In the year 1959, Shri Uttaradi Mutt had filed a suit in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 claiming proprietary rights over the land in Sy.No.192 (old Sy.No.239) situate at Anegundi Village in which the Nava Brindavana Gadde is situated. 24.19. In the written statement filed more so at para 2 Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt contended that the Brindavana’s of the Gurus of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Vyasaraya Mutt are situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 24.20. It was contended that five Brindavana’s belonging to Shri Vyasaraja Mutt are situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde namely that of; 1. Shri Vyasarayaru (Vysararaj Teertharu) - 131 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 2. Shri Sinivas Teertharu 3. Shri Rama Teertharu 4. Shri Govinda Teertharu (Govindawadiyaru) 5. Shri Padmanabha Teertharu 24.21. It was contended that three Brindavana’s belonging to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt are situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde namely that of:</p><p>1. Shri Ravindra Teertharu, 2. Shri Vageesh Teertharu and 3. Shri Sudhendra Teertharu. 24.22. Though the details of the ninth Brindavana is not mentioned in the written statement what is required to be appreciated by this Court is that even among the eight out of nine names mentioned the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Theertharu who is claimed to belong to Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not mentioned in the written statement.-. 132 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.23. In the evidence led by the earlier pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt namely his holiness Shri. *Sujeendra Teertharu, it has been stated that nine Brindavana’s are that of; 1. Padmanabha Tirtha 2. Kavindra Tirtha 3. Vagisha Tirtha 4. Raghuvarya Tirtha 5. Sudhindra Tirtha 6. Vyasarayaru (Vysararaj Tirtha) 7. Sinivas Tirtha 8. Rama Tirtha 9. Govindawadiyaru. 24.24. Thus, Shri *Sujeendra Teertharu who was the earlier Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in his evidence has categorically admitted that the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde. In the said evidence led by him, there is no mention made of Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Theertharu. *Corrected vide Court Order dated 24.06.2024 - 133 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.25. In the evidence it is further stated that the aforesaid Brindavana’s belong to all three Mutt namely, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri Sosale Vyasarayaru Mutt. 24.26. Shri. Kavindra Theertharu and Shri Vagisha Theertharu being common to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being solely belonging to Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri. Sudhendra Teertharu being solely belonging to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Govindawadiyaru, Shri Sinivas Teertharu and Shri. Rama Teertharu exclusively belonging to Shri. Sosale Vyasarayaru Mutt. 24.27. Thus, from the evidence led it is clear that Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Brindavana is categorically admitted to be located at Nava - 134 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana Gadde and the same solely belongs to Shri Uttaradi Mutt. 24.28. Though all three Mutts follow Shri. Madhavcharya’s philosophy it appears that there are some disputes between these three Mutts which ought not to have occurred and the earlier pontiff having accepted that Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Brindavana solely belongs to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and situate in Nava Brindavana Gadde, now it is sought to be contended that such Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is not situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde and that the said Brindavana belongs to that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Though it is admitted that Shri Raghuvara Teertharu was a Guru of the Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, and there is denial made of the existence of his brindavana at Nava Brindavana Gadde, there is - 135 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 no assertion made as to where his Brindavana is, if not at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 24.29. This assertion which has been made is only post the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff in the year 1985, there being no such claim or assertion made prior to 1985. Thus, merely post 1985 such an assertion having been made would not make the practice followed for four centuries earlier of offering pooja and aradhana to the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde a disputed one. Thus, on the face of it, by sheer extent of time it cannot at this stage be said that there are disputed questions of facts requiring this Court not to exercise jurisdiction. 24.30. Furthermore, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt also has filed WP No.103994/2023 seeking similar reliefs as that sought for by Shri - 136 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Uttaradi Mutt in WP No.103982/2023. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt itself having approached this Court seeking for the more or less identical reliefs as that sought for by Shri Uttaradi Mutt and not filing a suit in that regards till date, also indicates the double standards adopted. Though the prayer sought for by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt have been rendered infructuous, the fact remains that even according to Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt this Court could exercise jurisdiction to decide the matters in issue and it is for that reason that this court has been approached vide a writ petition by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, if not then it would amount to the said Mutt abusing the process of court since the writ petition is filed knowing fully well that this court would not have jurisdiction. Even for this reason I am therefore - 137 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 unable to agree with the submissions made that this court has no jurisdiction. 24.31. It is trite law that jurisdiction to a Court cannot be conferred by consent, thus, it is not only on the basis of the writ petition filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that I come to the conclusion that this Court has jurisdiction but also on the grounds aforesaid i.e., there is no disputed question of fact which can be said to come in the way of this Court exercising its jurisdiction. 24.32. A suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023 and no suit having been filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in that regard even if it is assumed that respondents No.6 to 15 are acting at the instance of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the assertion now made by respondents No.6 to 15 - 138 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 would have to be determined by that Court, such suit pending determination by the Civil Court would not come in the way of this Court exercising jurisdiction. Of course, the determination by the Court would be binding on the parties. Merely, because of the said subsequent suit being pending it is not required for this Court not to decide the present matter. It would also be open for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to seek for such reliefs that they are entitled to in the said suit. 24.33. As regards the performance of the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde, certain documents are sought to be relied upon, viz., paper publications/Pamphlets from the year 1989 onwards. The same would not amount to evidence of the Poojas and Aradhanas being performed at Nava Brindavana - 139 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Gadde for Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Be that as it may there is nothing on record prior to 1989 indicating that the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu was performed at the Nava Brindavana Gadde, in fact, in an earlier Writ Petition in W.P. No.102614/2022 filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, this court vide its order dated 15.07.2022 while dismissing the said writ petition has categorically come to a conclusion that there was nothing on record to show that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had conducted or was permitted to conduct the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. The said observation and judgment have not been challenged, attaining finality and the said observation is binding on this Court. 24.34. In W.P. No.102614/2022 relating to the performance of Aradhana in the year 2022, - 140 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 again in the year 2023, another dispute arose when the performance of aradhana by Shri Uttaradi Mutt of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu was resisted by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt constraining Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file writ petition in W.P. No.103499/2023. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the coordinate Bench of this Court permitting Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to carry out the Aradhana in furtherance of which Aradhana was in fact carried out, no challenge being made to the said order of the coordinate Bench, thus attaining finality. 24.35. Therefore, evidence and records available indicate that Shri. Uttarathus attainingied out pooja, Aradhana and other ceremonies concerning its Guru Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu for more than 400 years, as also in the recent past at Nava Brindavana Gadde.-. 141 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.36. There is no believable document placed on record by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as regards the conduct of pooja, aradhana and other ceremonies relating to Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde, either in the past or present. 24.37. One of the writ petitions filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has been dismissed with an observation that there is nothing on record to indicate such performance of pooja or aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. In that background, it cannot be said that the contention now taken by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is one which gives rise to disputed questions of fact requiring the trial court to decide the matter in a properly constituted suit. It is only in the recent past that the disputes have arisen, more particularly in the last three years.-. 142 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.38. Though the contention of Shri C.V.Nagesh learned Senior Counsel is that there is no determination or adjudication of the claim of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, I’am of the considered opinion that when the dispute has been raised by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and it is asserted and claimed that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu, when in fact all records indicate otherwise, it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to file necessary proceedings for declaration of the assertion and claim, now made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. It would not be for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file any such suit or proceedings. Merely because a party were to make a claim, the party against whom such claim is made need not be driven to court, it is for the party making a claim to approach the jurisdictional and - 143 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 competent court, seeking for adjudication of its claim. 24.39. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that this Court can entertain the writ petition in WP No.103982 of 2023 and pass orders thereon, despite the contentions raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and respondents 6 to 15 contending that there are alleged disputed question of fact, when in fact there are none. 24.40. I answer point No.2 by holding that the contention raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and respondents 6 to 15 cannot in fact be said to be disputed questions of fact considering that Shri Uttaradi Mutt has been offering poojas and performing aradhana’s of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu for over 400 years at Nava Brindavana Gadde and there are admissions made in this regard by Shri.Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. The aspect of admission has also been separately considered hereinbelow.-. 144 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.41. I answer point No.3 by holding that the suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023 no suit having been filed by the Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt , respondents No.6 to 15 being disciples and or followers of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt who claim that Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde and claim of respondents No.6 to 15 being yet to be adjudicated, the same shall not come in way of this Court exercising jurisdiction. Since I have come to the conclusion that as on today the undisputed fact is that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu.</p><p>25. Answer to point No.4: Would the admission made by former Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt be binding on Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers Respondents 6 to 15?. 25.1. As referred to in answer to points No.1 to 3 the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had in the written statement in - 145 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 O.S. No.65/1/59-60 as also in the evidence categorically stated that Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Brindavana is located in Nava Brindavana Gadde. There was no mention made in either the written statement or in evidence that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu was located in Nava Brindavana Gadde. 25.2. The contention of Sri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel for respondents No.6 to 15 is that such an admission made by the earlier pontiff does not bind respondents No.6 to 15. They have an independent right, they can always negate any admission made by the earlier pontiff. In this regard, he relies upon the decision in Dwarka Prasad Agarwal’s case as also Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case his submission is that in the suit in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 there was no dispute as regards the existence or otherwise of the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and Shri. Jaya - 146 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Teertharu in the absence of such a dispute the admission made by the earlier pontiff cannot be binding. If an admission has to be relied upon, the admission should be put across to the person against whom the admission is sought to be relied upon for him to offer an explanation. 25.3. By relying on Basant Singh’s case his contention is that the admissions made in another suit cannot be regarded as conclusive its open to a party to the other suit to prove otherwise. By relying on Avadh Kishore Das’s case his submission is that, in the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati, the said pontiff/Peetadhipati has explained the admissions by stating that he was under a mistaken belief, now it having been brought to his notice various Articles, Research, Publications that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s - 147 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde, a Nirupa has been issued by the earlier pontiff, this Nirupa would negate the so-called admission made in the aforesaid suit. 25.4. The submission that an opportunity would have to be granted to a person who has made an admission to explain the same, in my considered opinion, cannot be so done in the present case since the earlier pontiff has expired long ago in the year 1985 and therefore the admission made by him cannot be put across to him. In this regard the submission made by Sri.C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel is that the successor to the earlier pontiff, i.e., the present pontiff, can explain the admission in the view of the Nirupa. 25.5. The Nirupa as issued is extracted hereinbelow for easy reference - 148 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 “²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ªÉƺÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà UÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgÀ ªÉƺÀj£À°è” ²æà gÁªÉÆ ¨sÁw¸ÀªÁå¸À ²æà ªÀÄzsÁé¸ÁÜ£À ¸ÀA¹ÜvÉÊB²æà gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÀzÀéA±ÉÊB ¨sÀĪÀ£ÉÃAzÉæ’ÊB ²æà AiÀiÁaðvÀ JAzÀÄ EzÉ. ¸Àé¹Ü²æà «dAiÀƨsÀÄåzÀAiÀÄUÀvÀ ±Á°ÃªÁºÀ£À ±ÀPÀ 1907 £Éà ²æà PÉÆæÃzsÀ£ÁªÀÄ ¸ÀAªÀvÀìgÀ eÉåõÀ× §ºÀļÀ ¨sÁ£ÀĪÁgÀzÀ®Æè 5-6-1905 ²æà ªÀÄvÀàgÀªÀĺÀA¸À ¥ÀjªÁædPÁZÁAiÀÄð ¥ÀzÀªÁPÀå ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÁgÁªÁgÀ ¥ÁgÀAUÀvÀ ¸ÀªÀðvÀAvÀæ ¸ÀévÀAvÀæ ²æà ªÀÄzÉé’ʵÀÚªÀ¹zÁÞAvÀ ¥ÀæwµÁ×¥À£ÁZÁAiÀÄð ²æà ªÀÄ£ÀÆð®gÀWÀÄ¥Àw ªÉÃzÀ’ªÁå¸ÀzÉêÀ ¢ªÀå ²æà ¥ÁzÀ¥ÀzÁägÁzÀPÀgÁzÀ dUÀzÀÄÎgÀÄ ²æà ªÀÄ£ÀäzÁéZÁAiÀÄðgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀA¸ÁÜ£Á¢üñÀégÀgÁzÀ £ÀAd£ÀUÀÆqÀÄ ²æà ªÀÄzÁæWÀªÉAzÀæ ¸Áé«ÄUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄoÀzÀ ªÉÃzÁAvÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁædå ¢VédAiÀÄ «zÁå¹AºÁ¸À£Á¢üñÀégÀgÁzÀ ²æà ªÀÄvï ¸ÀĪÀæwÃAzÀæ wÃxÀð ²æÃ¥ÁzÀAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ PÀgÀPÀªÀÄ® ¸ÀAeÁvÀgÁzÀ ²æà ²æà ªÀÄvÀÄìAiÀÄ«ÄÃAzÀæwÃxÀð ²æà ¥ÁzÀAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀPÀgÁzÀ ²²²²ææææÃÃÃà ªªªªÀÀÀÀÄÄÄÄvvvvÀÀÀÀÄÄÄÄììììdddd¬¬¬¬ÄÄÄÄÃÃÃÃAAAAzzzzÀÀÀÀææææ wwwwÃÃÃÃxxxxÀÀÀÀðððð ²²²²ææææÃÃÃà ¥¥¥¥ÁÁÁÁzzzzÀÀÀÀAAAAUUUUÀÀÀÀ¼¼¼¼ÀÀÀÀªªªªÀÀÀÀggggÀÀÀÀÄÄÄÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¦æAiÀÄ ²µÀåjUÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸ÀägÀuÉ. £ÁªÀÅ ²æà UÀÄgÀÄzÉêÀvÁ£ÀÄUÀæºÀ§®¢AzÀ ¸ÁߣÀ, d¥À, vÀ¥À, zÉêÀvÁ ¥ÀÇeÁ, ¥ÁoÀ¥ÀæªÀZÀ£À, ¹zÁÝAvÀ ¸ÁÜ¥À£Á¢ ¸ÁévÀªÉÆÃavÀ PÁAiÀiÁð£ÀĵÀÛ¤gÀvÀgÁV ¤ªÀÄUÉ ±ÉæÃAiÉÆéüªÀÈzsÀxÀðªÁV ²æà ªÀÄ£ÀÆä®gÀWÀÄ¥Àw ªÉÃzÀªÁå¸ÀzÉêÀgÀ ¥ÁæxÀð£À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ ªÀÄAvÁæ®AiÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄzÀ°èzÉÝêÉ. ¤ªÀÄä AiÉÆÃUÀPÉëêÀĪÀ£ÀÄß *Retyped and Replaced vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 149 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 §gɹ PÀ½¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. vÀgÀĪÁAiÀÄ F »AzÉ £ÁªÀÅ G¥À£Áå¸ÀUÀ¼À°è, £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄUÀ¼À°è, £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°è ²æà gÀWÀĪÀAiÀÄðwÃxÀðgÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÉݪÀÅ. E°èAiÀÄ vÀ£ÀPÀ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁVzÀÝ F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ²æêÀÄoÀzÀ D¸ÁÜ£À«zÁéA¸ÀgÀÄ, »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀPÀgÀÆ, ¯ÉÃRPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆ DzÀ ªÀiÁUÀr gÀAUÀ£ÁxÁZÁAiÀÄðgÀÆ, BNK ±ÀªÀÄð ªÉÆzÀ¯ÁzÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀ£Á, ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¸ÀAUÀæºÀ «ªÀıÀð ¯ÉÃR£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DªÀÄƯÁUÀæªÁV £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉÆøÀ¯É ªÁå¸ÀgÁd ªÀÄoÀzÀ ¦ÃoÁ¢ü¥ÀwUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æà «zÁå¥ÀAiÉÆä¢ü wÃxÀðgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ²æà gÀWÀĪÀAiÀÄðwÃxÀðgÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀgÀA¥ÀgÉAiÀÄ ²æà dAiÀÄwÃxÀðgÀ ªÀÄÆ® §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ RavÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ EzÉà ªÀµÀð £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°è £ÀqÉzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ²æà ¸ÀÄ¢üÃAzÀæwÃxÀðgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ²æà ªÁå¸ÀgÁdgÀ DgÁzsÀ£Á ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¥Á¯ÉÆÎAqÀ £Á«ÃªÀðgÀÆ ²æà dAiÀÄwÃxÀðgÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀPÉÌ £ÉqÀ¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¥ÀÇeÁgÁzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹gÀÄvÉÛêÉ. F PÁgÀt¢AzÀ £ÁªÀÅ F »AzÉ G¥À£Áå¸À ªÉÆzÀ¯ÁzÀªÀÅUÀ¼À°è ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖAvÉ £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÀÅ ²æà gÀWÀĪÀAiÀÄðgÀzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛêÉ. PÁgÀt ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ²µÀågÀÄ F DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ²æà dAiÀÄwÃxÀðgÀ ªÀÄÆ® §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÀÅ £ÀªÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà EzÉ JAzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀªÁV ¤±ÀéӬĹPÉÆAqÀÄ CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥ÀÇeÉ, DgÁzsÀ£É, G¥Á¸À£É, EvÁå¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÉÝAzÀÄ ªÀÄAvÁæ®AiÀÄ PÉëÃvÀæ¢AzÀ §gɹzÀ ¤gÀÆ¥À gÁAiÀĸÀ. *Retyped and Replaced vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 150 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Ew £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸ÀägÀuÉUÀ¼ÀÄ «zÁå ªÀÄoÀ PÀÄA¨sÀPÉÆÃt JA§ ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ aPÀÌ ªÉƺÀgÀÄ</p><p>25.6. The examination of the Nirupa would indicate that even according to the earlier pontiff, it was believed that the disputed Brindavana situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde is that belonging to Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. The said belief is now sought to be termed as mistaken belief in the Nirupa and a direction has been issued by the earlier pontiff to his disciples to conduct the pooja and aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at the said Brindavana, by indicating or contending that the said Brindavana is not of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu but it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. *Retyped and Replaced vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 151 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 25.7. Thus, even in the admitted Nirupa there is an admission made by the earlier pontiff that there was a belief of the Brindavana to be belonging to Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and that belief is now sought to be changed at the time of issuance of Nirupa in the year 1985 to contended that the Brindavana is not of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu but that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 25.8. Thus, the admission made in the suit is not denied in the Nirupa but is sought to be resiled from, this in my considered opinion cannot take away the admission made, the resiling from the admission made and a new claim being set up under the Nirupa it is required for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish this new claim. An explanation to an admission cannot be by way of resiling from the admission, a new - 152 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 case or claim being set up under the Nirupa, the same would have to be established in a court of law by anyone claiming the contents of the Nirupa to be true by filing a properly constituted suit before the Jurisdictional and Competent Court, which would also be the situation in respect of the Successor Pontiffs. 25.9. The said admission is made in a proceeding between the same party i.e., Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was the plaintiff therein, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt was the Defendant No.1 and Shri. Sosale Vyasarayaru Mutt was the defendant No.2, the dispute in the said suit was as regards the ownership of the property where the Nava Brindavana Gadde is situated. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the said proceedings and the present proceedings cannot be so different to contend that the admission made in the earlier proceedings - 153 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 would not be binding in the present proceedings. 25.10. Since Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has specifically pleaded and led evidence as regards the Brindavanas located in the Nava Brindavana Gadde. Hence, the decision in Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case would not be appliable. In so far as Basant Singh’s case is concerned wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that an admission can be explained by the concerned party, here the person who has made the said admission having expired his successor to office relying on the Nirupa issued by the person making the admission and the said Nirupa also clearly stating that there was an alleged mistaken belief that the Brindavana was of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu when it is in fact of Shri. Jaya Teertharu, I am of the considered opinion that these aspects would - 154 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 have to be independently established by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in a proceedings initiated in that regard by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 25.11. The admission has not been explained but is sought to be resiled from, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the admission made in O.S. No.65/1/59-60. 25.12. Hence, I answer point No.4 by holding that the admission made by former Peetadhipati of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would be binding on Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers.</p><p>26. ANSWER TO POINT NO.5: Whether the Gazetteers produced by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, now at this stage, can be relied upon by this Court?. 26.1. Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has produced several Gazetteers based on which the submission - 155 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 made by Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande is that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is recognized to be that in Nava Brindavana Gadde and that of Shri Jaya Teertharu is in Malkhed, Kalaburagi. Reliance is placed on the Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga Region (Anegundi) to contend that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is at Anegundi viz., Nava Brindavana Gadde. By relying on the very same document/publication, it is contended that the brindavana of Shri *Jaya Teertharu is not at Nava Brindavana Gadde since his name is not mentioned. 26.2. By relying on the Mysore State Gazetteer published in the year 1966, it is contended that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, Gulbarga, now Kalaburagi. By relying on Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka, Dharwad district, it is again contended that the *Corrected vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 156 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed. 26.3. The submission made by Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande is that in terms of Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is a presumption as to the contents of the Gazetteer and this Court would have to take the same into account to be genuine and accept the contents thereof. It is further contended that cognizance of the contents thereof could be taken in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act. 26.4. The submission of Sri. C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsel for respondents No.6 to 15 is that the Gazetteer cannot be taken to be or considered to be the gospel truth, the contents of the Gazetteer would have to be independently assessed on the available evidence, this Court cannot look into the same due to the contents of the Gazetteer being disputed, it would be better to let the Court - 157 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 seized of the suit now filed by respondents No.6 to 15 to decide on the same. 26.5. His submission is that in terms of Bombay Gazetteer Shri Jaya Teertharu is stated to have expired in the year 1269 and in terms of the Gulbarga Gazetteer, he is stated to have expired in the year 1389 there being difference of 100 years amongst these two Gazetteers. The year of expiry being wrongly mentioned, the contents of the Gazetteers cannot be considered to be true. In this regard reliance has been placed on Thriamak Shivarudra’s case to contend that the Gazetteers themselves are not conclusive evidence but are rebuttable pieces of evidence. Reliance is also placed on Kali Prasanna’s case to contend that Gazetteers are strictly not evidence of the truth of the matter.-. 158 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 26.6. Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act is extracted hereinbelow for easy reference:</p><p>81. Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of Parliament and other documents. The Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the London Gazette or [any official Gazette, or the Government Gazette]. [Substituted by A.O. 1937, for "the Gazette of India, or the Government Gazette of any L.G., or".]. of any colony, dependency or possession of the British Crown, or to be a newspaper or journal, or to be a copy of a private Act of Parliament [of the United Kingdom]. [Inserted by A.O. 1950.]. printed by the Queen's Printer and of every document purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such document is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody. 26.7. A perusal of Section 81 of Indian Evidence Act, extracted hereinabove, would indicate that the Court shall presume the genuineness of every document, be it official gazette or government gazette printed by the Queens printer, which - 159 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 would now have to be read as Government Press, thus, the Gazetteers having been produced there would be a presumption drawn by this Court. 26.8. The said presumption as contended by Sri.C.V.Nagesh is rebuttable except for pointing out the divergence in the year of death of Shri. Jaya Teertharu, nothing has been placed on record to disbelieve the Gazetteers, nor is any defect pointed out in the Gazetteers. Merely because the year of death of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is mentioned wrongly would not take away the assertion made in the Gazetteers that the brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde nor does it take away the fact that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated at Malkhed, Kalaburagi.-. 160 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 26.9. All the counsels having specifically asserted that a brindavana can relate to only one pontiff or Guru and that two pontiffs or two Gurus cannot be in the same brindavana. It cannot therefore be contended that the same brindavana is of a different pontiff than that of the pontiff which has been believed for the last several centuries. 26.10. The denial by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is based on one single contradiction. The existence of the Gazetteers and the publication thereof is not disputed. 26.11. The submission of Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsel in this regard is that in the Suit, the truth of the Gazetteers would come out. The fact remains that respondents No.6 to 15 are seeking to deny the veracity of the contents of the Gazetteers, as regards which, as of today, there is only a denial. The Gazetteers speak for themselves and have been published, - 161 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 admitted to be so published, the existence being admitted. At this stage, the said gazetteers would have to be considered by this Court. The request for non-consideration by respondents No.6 to 15 on the basis of their dispute, as regards the veracity, is yet to be established in the suit. 26.12. The veracity and authenticity of the gazetteers being established, I’am of the considered opinion that in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act, this court can take cognizance of, as also take judicial notice of the contents of the said gazetteers which give a history of people and places, which includes that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and Shri. Jaya Teertharu and their respective Brindavanas including location thereof. 26.13. Insofar as the books and treatises relied upon by Sri.C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior counsel, - 162 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 these books and treatises are private publications which are not ones which are recognized or be recognised under Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act. Without commenting on the veracity and or the authenticity of the said books, it can only be said that the contents of the said books and the statements made therein are the opinion of the authors concerned. If at all, they are required to be established during the trial in the suit filed by respondents No.6 to 15, the authors would have to be examined in the said suit. 26.14. Merely because there is a publication that would not bind this court. It is a trite law that newspaper publications or the like are not ones which can be taken to be established evidence without them being established in the manner known to law.-. 163 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 26.15. Merely because the said suit is pending and a claim is made contra to the existing state of affairs, it cannot be said that the said dispute will override the existing state of affairs, requiring the contents of the Gazetteers to be disbelieved. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the contents of the Gazetteers would have to be taken into consideration by this Court in terms of Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, as also in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act. 26.16. Thus, I answer Point No.5 by holding that the Gazetteers relied upon by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt can and/or to be believed by this Court for the purpose of ascertaining and passing necessary orders there being no rebuttable evidence placed on record contrary to the contents of the Gazetteers - 164 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 except the divergence pointed out in the year of death of Shri Jaya Teertharu.</p><p>27. ANSWER TO POINT NO.6: Whether at this juncture, it can be said that the Brindavana at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu or Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu?. 27.1. In view of my answer to points No.1 to 5 above, it is clear that until the year 1985 even Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its pontiffs believed that the brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde to be that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is only post the Nirupa which had been issued by earlier pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt based on certain publications that it is now sought to be asserted that the brindavana is of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and not of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. 27.2. As held above, there is nothing on record which would indicate that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy - 165 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Mutt is performing any pooja or aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde prior to 1985 and even after 1985 except for the pamphlets which have been produced there is nothing placed on record and coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 15.07.2022 in WP No.102614/2022 has come to a conclusion that there is nothing which is on record to establish that Shri.Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has conducted any aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 27.3. In the suit which had been filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, written statement having been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as also evidence having been led by the earlier pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, firstly there is no mention of the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu being existent at Nava Brindavana Gadde in the written statement.-. 166 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 27.4. In the evidence led by the pontiff, firstly it is categorically asserted that the brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde and secondly, nowhere it has been claimed that brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 27.5. It is also clear from the records that in the year 1985 when Nirupa was issued by earlier pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, for the first time it is contended that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde. In fact, the pontiff has categorically stated that he was under a mistaken belief that the brindavana was that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. This would indicate and categorically establish that even until 1985 both the pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt were of the opinion - 167 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that the brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and not Shri Jaya Teertharu. 27.6. Even thereafter there are no issues which arose until 2021-22 when the ceremony, pooja, aradhana sought to be performed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt was obstructed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which resulted in writ petition being filed for that year followed by subsequent years. The Nirupa having been issued on the basis of certain publication made by Sosale Vysaraya Mutt and now sought to be substantiated by relying on the publication by certain other researchers viz., Shri. M.R.Anantha Padmanabha, Shri. Sanur Bheema Bhat, Shri. T.K.Venugopala Dasaru, which are all private publications which would need to be established by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt by cogent evidence being led. These being - 168 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 private publications by individuals cannot be accepted to be the gospel truth or Veda Vakya, on the face of it. The authors would have to be examined and cross-examined, their assertions being contrary to the admission even made by the pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt cannot be a ground for this Court to disbelieve that the brindavana located at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu requiring this court to take judicial notice of the same in terms of Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act. 27.7. Be that as it may, these are all documents which have come into being post the admission made in the Suit on which basis the Nirupa has been issued and as such, the Nirupa being a assertion of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would have to be established by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt.-. 169 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 27.8. At this stage when Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has not sought for any further relief than that originally sought for in W.P. No.103994/2023, it is Shri Uttaradi Mutt who has persisted in prosecuting its writ petition by filing amendment and addressing arguments. This would give rise to unmistakable conclusion that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not interested in prosecuting W.P. No.103994/2023. 27.9. The arguments of Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi and Shri. C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsels has always been with an intent to find lacuna in the claim of Shri Uttaradi Mutt rather than establishing the claim of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not merely a Respondent in WP No.103982 of 2023 but is also a Petitioner in WP No.103994 of 2023. The only assertion made as regards - 170 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 establishing the claim of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt being reference to aforesaid publications and the Nirupa. 27.10. A suit has also been filed by respondents No.6 to 15 wherein petitioners No.1 to 6 claims to be the devotees and followers of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which has been filed after the filing of the present writ petition and those persons have also been impleaded in the present matter. The manner in which the said suit has been filed subsequent to filing of the writ petition, impleading application being filed and asserted that respondents No.6 to 15 will be affected if any order is passed and there being no suit which has been filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, I am of the considered opinion that the intention behind filing of the said suit is also suspect. Be that as it may the arguments of respondents 6 to 15 - 171 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 were heard in detail and all the submissions made on their behalf by Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel have been dealt with in the present order. 27.11. For all the above-mentioned reasons, I answer point No.6 by holding that at this juncture, I am of the considered opinion that the brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and not that of Shri Jaya Teertharu.</p><p>28. ANSWER TO POINT No.7: What order?. 28.1. I am of the considered opinion that it does not behoove the Mutts of the stature of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and/or Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to have such disputes in a court of law, they ought to have resolved the same among themselves they being guiding Mutts as regards - 172 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the Shri. Madhva philosophy which the common citizens look upto. 28.2. The mutts and their Peetadhipatis, being knowledgeable of worldly and other worldly affairs, are looked upon to offer solace to a common man. It is never advisable for such guiding Mutts, who are friends, philosophers and guides to the general public, to have such disputes. It is, in fact, for such Mutts to guide the general public, their devotees and followers in such a manner that there is no scope for any disputes to arise, if despite the same if any worldly or other worldly disputes were to arise to guide them in such a manner that they are resolved amicably. If the same are not so resolved, the Courts are always available to decide on the dispute raised. 28.3. It is there required for the Peetadhipatis of both the Mutts to resolve these disputes at the - 173 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 earliest, lest the followers and devotees would be dragged into the same, as can be seen by Respondents No.6 to 15 having been dragged in. 28.4. Considering that these disputes have recently arisen for the last three to four years leading to litigation before this Court, and this litigation arises every year when Aradhana is required to be performed, I am of the opinion that waiting for the Civil Court to decide the alleged dispute now raised which may take many years, would not be in the interest of both the Mutts and/or the followers of the Mutt. 28.5. This court would have to take into consideration the circumstances as existing and as also established as being followed to arrive at a conclusion rather than to wait for a decision of a Civil Court as regards the dispute raised only now based on the Nirupa issued by the former - 174 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, which Nirupa is also contrary to the statements made by the very same pontiff in a litigation before Courts of law. 28.6. In view of the above findings and observations, I pass the following: </p>ORDER<p> i. The Writ Petition in W.P. No.103994/2023 filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is dismissed. ii. The writ petition in W.P. No.103982/2023 filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is allowed. iii. A mandamus is issued directing official respondents No.1 to 4 to provide adequate protection, if and when necessary, for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to offer prayers, conducting pooja Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the name Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu at his Brindavana situated on the island named ‘Nava Brindavana Gadde”, - 175 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Gangavati Taluk, Koppal District; and iv. Respondents No.1 to 4 are also directed to ensure that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and/or its followers do not offer any prayers, conducting pooja Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc, in the name of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at any brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde. v. The above order shall, however, be subject to the Judgement and decree, if any, passed in OS No.35/2024, now pending before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Gangavathi. I place on record my appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Sri.Vinay Kudri, Law Clerk- cum-Research Assistant. Sd/- JUDGE LN, List No.:</p><p>19. Sl No.: 1</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State Of Karnataka',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1232793'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt Vs. The State Of Karnataka Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 1 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 2 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 144',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 144',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 144',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 144',
		(int) 7 => 'Amendment',
		(int) 8 => 'Article 19(2',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 56',
		(int) 10 => 'the Evidence Act',
		(int) 11 => 'the Evidence Act',
		(int) 12 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
		(int) 13 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 14 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 15 => 'Article 226 the High Court',
		(int) 16 => 'Section 4',
		(int) 17 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
		(int) 18 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
		(int) 19 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
		(int) 20 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 21 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
		(int) 22 => 'Article 226 embark',
		(int) 23 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 24 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 25 => 'Article 226',
		(int) 26 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 27 => 'Section 9',
		(int) 28 => 'Article 25 of the Constitution',
		(int) 29 => 'Section 9',
		(int) 30 => 'Section 9',
		(int) 31 => 'Section 9',
		(int) 32 => 'Section 9',
		(int) 33 => 'Section 9',
		(int) 34 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 35 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 36 => 'Article 25 of the Constitution',
		(int) 37 => 'Section 21 of the Evidence Act',
		(int) 38 => 'Section 31',
		(int) 39 => 'Section 21',
		(int) 40 => 'the Evidence Act',
		(int) 41 => 'the Evidence Act'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 1 => 'DESHPANDE.',
		(int) 2 => 'BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI',
		(int) 3 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 4 => 'KOPPAL5 SHRI NANJANGUDA RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT',
		(int) 5 => 'H.K. RAM RAO AGED ABOUT55YEARS R/O11-110',
		(int) 6 => 'KISHAN RAO S/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO AGED',
		(int) 7 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 8 => 'BTM LAYOUT',
		(int) 9 => 'BANGALORE-560056',
		(int) 10 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 11 => 'ARUN L. NEELOPANT',
		(int) 12 => 'H.R. DESHPANDE.',
		(int) 13 => 'RAGHUVARYA TEERTHA',
		(int) 14 => 'DIST.KOPPAL',
		(int) 15 => 'R.K. VADEENDRA S/O R.KRISHNACHAR AGE',
		(int) 16 => 'JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041',
		(int) 17 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 18 => 'KANAKAGIRI GANGAVATHI',
		(int) 19 => 'DESHPANDE',
		(int) 20 => 'BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI',
		(int) 21 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 22 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 23 => 'a. Quash',
		(int) 24 => 'Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava',
		(int) 25 => 'Raghuvarya Teertha',
		(int) 26 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 27 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 28 => 'Mahimotsava',
		(int) 29 => 'Sri',
		(int) 30 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 31 => 'c. Grant',
		(int) 32 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 33 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 34 => 'Shri',
		(int) 35 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 36 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 37 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 38 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 39 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 40 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 41 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 42 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 43 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 44 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 45 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 46 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 47 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 48 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 49 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 50 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 51 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 52 => 'Shri',
		(int) 53 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 54 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy',
		(int) 55 => 'Shri Uttaradi',
		(int) 56 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 57 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 58 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 59 => 'Shri Madhva Parampara',
		(int) 60 => 'Shri Kavindra Teertharu',
		(int) 61 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 62 => 'Krishna Rao',
		(int) 63 => 'Nizams',
		(int) 64 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 65 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 66 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 67 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 68 => 'Shri Jaya',
		(int) 69 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 70 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 71 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 72 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 73 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 74 => 'Ardahana',
		(int) 75 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 76 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 77 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 78 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 79 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 80 => 'Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 81 => 'Tahsildar',
		(int) 82 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 83 => 'Tahashildar',
		(int) 84 => 'Shree Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 85 => 'Shree Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava',
		(int) 86 => 'Shree Raghuvarya - 23 - NC:2024',
		(int) 87 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 88 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 89 => 'vii',
		(int) 90 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 91 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 92 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 93 => 'Mahimotsava',
		(int) 94 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 95 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 96 => 'Nos',
		(int) 97 => 'Nos',
		(int) 98 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 99 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 100 => 'No.7',
		(int) 101 => 'Govinda Odeyar',
		(int) 102 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 103 => 'Shri Vysararaj Teertharu',
		(int) 104 => 'Shri Srinivas Teertharu',
		(int) 105 => 'Shri Sudheendra Teertharu',
		(int) 106 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 107 => 'Shri Akshobhya Teertharu',
		(int) 108 => 'Bhageerathi Bai',
		(int) 109 => 'Raghappa Achar',
		(int) 110 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 111 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 112 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 113 => 'Kumar Deshpande',
		(int) 114 => 'Respondent No.5- Shri',
		(int) 115 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 116 => 'Shri',
		(int) 117 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 118 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 119 => 'Shri',
		(int) 120 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 121 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 122 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 123 => 'Shri',
		(int) 124 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 125 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 126 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 127 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 128 => 'v. Liberty',
		(int) 129 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 130 => 'b(1',
		(int) 131 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 132 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 133 => '¦ÃoÁ¢ü¥ÀwUÀ¼ÁwzÀÄÝ',
		(int) 134 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 135 => 'ಇ(cid:21',
		(int) 136 => 'ೇU(cid:31)ಾFE(cid:31)ೆ ಅ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:20)ಗು',
		(int) 137 => 'ÀmÁÖ',
		(int) 138 => 'ಾಡ^ೇTೆಂದು',
		(int) 139 => 'Shri Raghavendra - 38 - NC:2024',
		(int) 140 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 141 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 142 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 143 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 144 => 'Shri',
		(int) 145 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 146 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 147 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 148 => 'Shri',
		(int) 149 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 150 => 'H.S. Stya Pramooda',
		(int) 151 => 'Defts',
		(int) 152 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 153 => 'Brindavanas',
		(int) 154 => 'Moola Brindavana',
		(int) 155 => 'Srinivas Tirtharu Rama Thirtharu',
		(int) 156 => 'Holi',
		(int) 157 => 'Deft',
		(int) 158 => 'Vageesha Tirtharu',
		(int) 159 => 'Sudhendra Tirtharu',
		(int) 160 => 'para No.7',
		(int) 161 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 162 => 'Rajasab',
		(int) 163 => 'Krishn Rao',
		(int) 164 => 'Suyamendra Thirtharu',
		(int) 165 => 'Jayaramachar',
		(int) 166 => 'Joshi Sd/-',
		(int) 167 => 'Prasanna Theertharu',
		(int) 168 => 'Hanumanthacharya',
		(int) 169 => 'joshi',
		(int) 170 => 'Sd/-',
		(int) 171 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 172 => 'Suyamendra Thirtharu',
		(int) 173 => 'Jayaramachar',
		(int) 174 => 'Joshi Sd/-',
		(int) 175 => 'Prasanna Teertharu',
		(int) 176 => 'Hanmanthacharya',
		(int) 177 => 'joshi',
		(int) 178 => 'Sd/-',
		(int) 179 => 'Shri',
		(int) 180 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri',
		(int) 181 => 'Vyasaraya Mutt',
		(int) 182 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 183 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 184 => 'Shri',
		(int) 185 => 'Shri',
		(int) 186 => 'Padmanabha Teertharu',
		(int) 187 => 'Shri',
		(int) 188 => 'Raveendra',
		(int) 189 => 'Shri',
		(int) 190 => 'Sudheendra Teertharu',
		(int) 191 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 192 => 'Shri',
		(int) 193 => 'Sujayendra Teertharu',
		(int) 194 => 'Shri Kavindra',
		(int) 195 => 'Vysararaj Teertharu',
		(int) 196 => 'Shri Srinivas',
		(int) 197 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 198 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 199 => 'Shri Sudheendra Teertharu',
		(int) 200 => 'Shri',
		(int) 201 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri',
		(int) 202 => 'Govinda Wodeyaru',
		(int) 203 => 'Shri',
		(int) 204 => 'Shri',
		(int) 205 => 'Shri',
		(int) 206 => 'Vyasaraya Mutt',
		(int) 207 => 'Shri',
		(int) 208 => 'Kumar Deshpande',
		(int) 209 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 210 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 211 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 212 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 213 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 214 => 'Gurus',
		(int) 215 => 'Shri',
		(int) 216 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 217 => 'Shri',
		(int) 218 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 219 => 'Shri',
		(int) 220 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 221 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 222 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 223 => 'Shri',
		(int) 224 => 'Kaveendra',
		(int) 225 => 'Vageesha Teertharu',
		(int) 226 => 'Shri',
		(int) 227 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 228 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 229 => 'Shri',
		(int) 230 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 231 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 232 => 'Shri',
		(int) 233 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 234 => 'Shri',
		(int) 235 => 'Shri',
		(int) 236 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 237 => 'Shri',
		(int) 238 => 'Shri',
		(int) 239 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 240 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 241 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 242 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 243 => 'Shri',
		(int) 244 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 245 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 246 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 247 => 'Shri',
		(int) 248 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 249 => 'Shri',
		(int) 250 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 251 => 'Shri',
		(int) 252 => 'Shri',
		(int) 253 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 254 => 'Shri',
		(int) 255 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 256 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 257 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 258 => 'Para 51',
		(int) 259 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 260 => 'Shri',
		(int) 261 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 262 => 'Shri',
		(int) 263 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 264 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 265 => 'Karnataka Gazeteer',
		(int) 266 => 'Dharwad District',
		(int) 267 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 268 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 269 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 270 => 'Shri',
		(int) 271 => 'Srinivas Ramanuj Das v.',
		(int) 272 => 'Surjanarayan Das2',
		(int) 273 => 'Gazetteer',
		(int) 274 => 'Gazetteer',
		(int) 275 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 276 => 'Gazetteer',
		(int) 277 => 'Shri',
		(int) 278 => 'Shri',
		(int) 279 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 280 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 281 => 'Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee',
		(int) 282 => 'Bhatinda',
		(int) 283 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 284 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 285 => 'Gunwant Kaur',
		(int) 286 => 'Century Spg',
		(int) 287 => 'para13',
		(int) 288 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 289 => 'Shri',
		(int) 290 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 291 => 'Shri',
		(int) 292 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 293 => 'Shri',
		(int) 294 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 295 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 296 => 'Shri',
		(int) 297 => 'Raghuvara Teetharu',
		(int) 298 => 'Shri',
		(int) 299 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 300 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 301 => 'Shri',
		(int) 302 => 'Shri',
		(int) 303 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 304 => 'Shri',
		(int) 305 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 306 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 307 => 'Jain Sangh v. State',
		(int) 308 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 309 => 'Himmatlal',
		(int) 310 => 'Mahabir Prasad',
		(int) 311 => 'B.S. Gupta',
		(int) 312 => 'Jain Sangh’s',
		(int) 313 => 'Shri',
		(int) 314 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 315 => 'Shri',
		(int) 316 => 'Shri',
		(int) 317 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 318 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 319 => 'Raghuvarya Rayaru',
		(int) 320 => 'Shri',
		(int) 321 => 'Shri',
		(int) 322 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 323 => 'Shri',
		(int) 324 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 325 => 'Shri',
		(int) 326 => 'Shri',
		(int) 327 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri',
		(int) 328 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 329 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 330 => 'Shri',
		(int) 331 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 332 => 'Shri',
		(int) 333 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 334 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 335 => 'Shri',
		(int) 336 => 'Shri',
		(int) 337 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 338 => 'Shri',
		(int) 339 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 340 => 'Shri',
		(int) 341 => 'Shri',
		(int) 342 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 343 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 344 => 'Shri',
		(int) 345 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 346 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 347 => 'Shri',
		(int) 348 => 'Shri',
		(int) 349 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 350 => 'Nirupa',
		(int) 351 => 'Shri',
		(int) 352 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 353 => 'Shri',
		(int) 354 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 355 => 'Shri',
		(int) 356 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 357 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 358 => 'Shri',
		(int) 359 => 'Shri',
		(int) 360 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 361 => 'Shri',
		(int) 362 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 363 => 'Shri',
		(int) 364 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 365 => 'Shri',
		(int) 366 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 367 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 368 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 369 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 370 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 371 => 'O.S.No.193/1992',
		(int) 372 => 'Shri',
		(int) 373 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 374 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 375 => 'Dharwad District',
		(int) 376 => 'Shri',
		(int) 377 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 378 => 'Shri',
		(int) 379 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 380 => 'Shri',
		(int) 381 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 382 => 'Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 383 => 'Shri',
		(int) 384 => 'Sri',
		(int) 385 => 'Kumar Deshpande',
		(int) 386 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 387 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 388 => 'Shri',
		(int) 389 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 390 => 'BNK Sharma',
		(int) 391 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 392 => 'M.R.Anantha Padmanabha Rao',
		(int) 393 => 'Sannur Bheema Bhat',
		(int) 394 => 'Shri',
		(int) 395 => 'Kannada',
		(int) 396 => 'Shri',
		(int) 397 => 'Shri',
		(int) 398 => 'T.K.Venugopala Dasaru',
		(int) 399 => 'Dasa Parampara',
		(int) 400 => 'Srimad Jaya',
		(int) 401 => 'Anegundi Utsava',
		(int) 402 => 'Sharana Basappa Kolkar',
		(int) 403 => 'Shri.-',
		(int) 404 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 405 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 406 => 'Shri',
		(int) 407 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 408 => 'Shri',
		(int) 409 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 410 => 'Moran Mar',
		(int) 411 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 412 => 'Srimad Perarulala',
		(int) 413 => 'Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami',
		(int) 414 => 'Srimad Perarulala',
		(int) 415 => 'Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami',
		(int) 416 => 'Stainislaus v. State of M.P.',
		(int) 417 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 418 => 'Adeshwarji',
		(int) 419 => 'Swetamberis',
		(int) 420 => 'Dhwajadand',
		(int) 421 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 422 => 'Moran Mar Basselios',
		(int) 423 => 'Catholicos',
		(int) 424 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 425 => 'Moran Mar Basselios',
		(int) 426 => 'Catholicos',
		(int) 427 => 'Moran Mar Marthoma’s',
		(int) 428 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 429 => 'Basant Singh -v- Janki Singh',
		(int) 430 => 'Janki Singh',
		(int) 431 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
		(int) 432 => 'Ramanand Singh',
		(int) 433 => 'Janki Singh',
		(int) 434 => 'Janki Singh',
		(int) 435 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
		(int) 436 => 'Ramanand Singh',
		(int) 437 => 'Ramanand Singh',
		(int) 438 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 439 => 'Ramanand Singh',
		(int) 440 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
		(int) 441 => 'Homeopathic',
		(int) 442 => 'Janki Singh',
		(int) 443 => 'Janki Singh',
		(int) 444 => 'Kailashpati Singh',
		(int) 445 => 'Ramyad Singh',
		(int) 446 => 'Ramyad Singh',
		(int) 447 => 'Ramyad Singh',
		(int) 448 => 'Chanderjoti Debi',
		(int) 449 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 450 => 'Jairam Mahaton',
		(int) 451 => 'Lokenath Mahaton',
		(int) 452 => 'S.T. Chendikamba v. K.I. Viswanathamayya',
		(int) 453 => 'Indian Law',
		(int) 454 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 455 => 'Kamta Prasad',
		(int) 456 => 'Shri',
		(int) 457 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 458 => 'Peetadhipati',
		(int) 459 => 'Shri',
		(int) 460 => 'Shri',
		(int) 461 => 'Nirupa',
		(int) 462 => 'Nirupa',
		(int) 463 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 464 => 'Nirupa',
		(int) 465 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 466 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 467 => 'Shri',
		(int) 468 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 469 => 'Shri',
		(int) 470 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 471 => 'Shri',
		(int) 472 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 473 => 'Prabhuling K. Navadgi',
		(int) 474 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 475 => 'Shri',
		(int) 476 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 477 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 478 => 'Uttaradi Mutt, Shri',
		(int) 479 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri',
		(int) 480 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 481 => 'Mahimotsava',
		(int) 482 => 'Sri',
		(int) 483 => 'Anegundi Village',
		(int) 484 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 485 => 'Shri',
		(int) 486 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 487 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 488 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 489 => 'Shri',
		(int) 490 => 'Shri',
		(int) 491 => 'Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 492 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982',
		(int) 493 => 'Shri',
		(int) 494 => 'Shri',
		(int) 495 => 'Althaf Ahamed v. State',
		(int) 496 => 'Will',
		(int) 497 => 'Shri',
		(int) 498 => 'Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 499 => 'KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2023',
		(int) 1 => '2023',
		(int) 2 => '2024',
		(int) 3 => '2023',
		(int) 4 => '2023',
		(int) 5 => '2023',
		(int) 6 => '2023',
		(int) 7 => '2023',
		(int) 8 => '2023',
		(int) 9 => 'R6-R15',
		(int) 10 => '2023',
		(int) 11 => 'TO1007-2023',
		(int) 12 => '11TH MAIN45H',
		(int) 13 => '2023',
		(int) 14 => '2023 1',
		(int) 15 => 'THIS DAY',
		(int) 16 => '2023',
		(int) 17 => '2023',
		(int) 18 => '2023',
		(int) 19 => '2023',
		(int) 20 => '6th July 2023, 7th July 2023',
		(int) 21 => '8th July 2023',
		(int) 22 => '2023',
		(int) 23 => '2023',
		(int) 24 => '2023',
		(int) 25 => '2023',
		(int) 26 => 'the year 1959',
		(int) 27 => '2023',
		(int) 28 => '2023',
		(int) 29 => '2023',
		(int) 30 => '2023',
		(int) 31 => 'centuries',
		(int) 32 => '2023',
		(int) 33 => '2023',
		(int) 34 => '2023',
		(int) 35 => '2023',
		(int) 36 => '2023',
		(int) 37 => '2023',
		(int) 38 => '6th, 7th and',
		(int) 39 => '8th July 2023',
		(int) 40 => '2023',
		(int) 41 => '2023',
		(int) 42 => 'the year *1916',
		(int) 43 => '2023',
		(int) 44 => '2023',
		(int) 45 => 'the year 1988-89',
		(int) 46 => '2001-02',
		(int) 47 => '2003-04',
		(int) 48 => '2004-05',
		(int) 49 => '2008-09',
		(int) 50 => '2009-10',
		(int) 51 => '2023',
		(int) 52 => '2023 5',
		(int) 53 => 'the year 2022',
		(int) 54 => 'the month of July 2022',
		(int) 55 => '2023',
		(int) 56 => 'days',
		(int) 57 => 'the year 2023',
		(int) 58 => '2023',
		(int) 59 => '2023',
		(int) 60 => '2023',
		(int) 61 => '2023',
		(int) 62 => 'fifth, sixth',
		(int) 63 => 'June, 2023',
		(int) 64 => '2023',
		(int) 65 => '2023',
		(int) 66 => '4th July to 7th July, 2023',
		(int) 67 => 'both days',
		(int) 68 => '8th July to 10th July 2023',
		(int) 69 => 'both days',
		(int) 70 => '2023',
		(int) 71 => '100391/2023',
		(int) 72 => '2023',
		(int) 73 => 'the same day',
		(int) 74 => '2023',
		(int) 75 => '2023 6',
		(int) 76 => '2023',
		(int) 77 => '2023',
		(int) 78 => '2023',
		(int) 79 => '2023',
		(int) 80 => '2023',
		(int) 81 => '2023 9.5',
		(int) 82 => '1324',
		(int) 83 => '1388',
		(int) 84 => '1398',
		(int) 85 => '1406',
		(int) 86 => '1534',
		(int) 87 => '2023',
		(int) 88 => '2023 6',
		(int) 89 => '1539',
		(int) 90 => '1564',
		(int) 91 => '1584',
		(int) 92 => '1683',
		(int) 93 => '2023',
		(int) 94 => '2023 9.10',
		(int) 95 => 'the year 1958',
		(int) 96 => 'the year 2022',
		(int) 97 => '2023',
		(int) 98 => '2023 10',
		(int) 99 => '2023',
		(int) 100 => '2023',
		(int) 101 => '2023',
		(int) 102 => '2023',
		(int) 103 => 'fifth, sixth',
		(int) 104 => 'June, 2023',
		(int) 105 => '2023',
		(int) 106 => '2023',
		(int) 107 => '100391/2023',
		(int) 108 => '2023',
		(int) 109 => '2023 ii',
		(int) 110 => '2023',
		(int) 111 => '2023',
		(int) 112 => '14-7ರ(cid:21)((cid:22',
		(int) 113 => '2023',
		(int) 114 => '2023 5(cid:16)ೕ(cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರು 2',
		(int) 115 => '2023',
		(int) 116 => '2023',
		(int) 117 => '2023',
		(int) 118 => '2023',
		(int) 119 => '1959-60',
		(int) 120 => '2023',
		(int) 121 => '2023 1.-',
		(int) 122 => 'the year 1351',
		(int) 123 => 'the year 1355 F.',
		(int) 124 => '2023',
		(int) 125 => '2023',
		(int) 126 => '2023',
		(int) 127 => '2023',
		(int) 128 => 'this day',
		(int) 129 => '2023',
		(int) 130 => '24.12.1967',
		(int) 131 => '16',
		(int) 132 => '2023',
		(int) 133 => '2023 10.16',
		(int) 134 => '2023',
		(int) 135 => '2023 10.18',
		(int) 136 => '13.03.1968',
		(int) 137 => 'the year 1991',
		(int) 138 => '2023',
		(int) 139 => '2023',
		(int) 140 => '2023',
		(int) 141 => '2023',
		(int) 142 => '2023',
		(int) 143 => '2023 10.25',
		(int) 144 => 'the year 2022, Shri',
		(int) 145 => '15.07.1952',
		(int) 146 => '2023',
		(int) 147 => '2023 10.27',
		(int) 148 => 'centuries',
		(int) 149 => 'centuries',
		(int) 150 => '2023',
		(int) 151 => '2023 10.28',
		(int) 152 => '1 1989(2',
		(int) 153 => '2023',
		(int) 154 => '2023',
		(int) 155 => '2023',
		(int) 156 => '1966',
		(int) 157 => '2023',
		(int) 158 => '2023',
		(int) 159 => 'under 2 1966',
		(int) 160 => '2023',
		(int) 161 => '2023 Section 56',
		(int) 162 => '2002',
		(int) 163 => '3 (2004',
		(int) 164 => '2023',
		(int) 165 => '2023',
		(int) 166 => '1969',
		(int) 167 => '2023',
		(int) 168 => '2023',
		(int) 169 => '2023',
		(int) 170 => '1969',
		(int) 171 => '1970',
		(int) 172 => '2023',
		(int) 173 => '2023',
		(int) 174 => '1969',
		(int) 175 => 'the year 1985',
		(int) 176 => '2023',
		(int) 177 => '2023',
		(int) 178 => 'the year 1985',
		(int) 179 => 'the year 1985',
		(int) 180 => '2023',
		(int) 181 => '2023 10.39',
		(int) 182 => '2023',
		(int) 183 => '2023',
		(int) 184 => '1957',
		(int) 185 => '1985',
		(int) 186 => '2023',
		(int) 187 => '2023',
		(int) 188 => '2023',
		(int) 189 => '2023 10.42',
		(int) 190 => 'the last several centuries',
		(int) 191 => '2023',
		(int) 192 => '2023 10.43',
		(int) 193 => 'the year 1985',
		(int) 194 => 'centuries',
		(int) 195 => '2023',
		(int) 196 => '2023',
		(int) 197 => '10.45',
		(int) 198 => 'centuries',
		(int) 199 => '2023',
		(int) 200 => '2023',
		(int) 201 => '2023',
		(int) 202 => 'the year 1966',
		(int) 203 => '2023',
		(int) 204 => '2023',
		(int) 205 => '2023',
		(int) 206 => '2023',
		(int) 207 => '2023 11.4',
		(int) 208 => '2023',
		(int) 209 => '2023',
		(int) 210 => '2023',
		(int) 211 => '2023',
		(int) 212 => '1995',
		(int) 213 => '2023',
		(int) 214 => '2023',
		(int) 215 => '1972',
		(int) 216 => '1977',
		(int) 217 => '1983',
		(int) 218 => '1983',
		(int) 219 => '2023',
		(int) 220 => '2023',
		(int) 221 => '1970',
		(int) 222 => '1971',
		(int) 223 => '2023',
		(int) 224 => '2023',
		(int) 225 => '1991',
		(int) 226 => '1912',
		(int) 227 => '1934',
		(int) 228 => '2023',
		(int) 229 => '2023',
		(int) 230 => '1935',
		(int) 231 => '2023',
		(int) 232 => '2023',
		(int) 233 => '2023',
		(int) 234 => '1939',
		(int) 235 => '2023',
		(int) 236 => '2023',
		(int) 237 => '20236',
		(int) 238 => '2023',
		(int) 239 => '2023',
		(int) 240 => '2023 5.06.1985',
		(int) 241 => '2023',
		(int) 242 => '2023 12',
		(int) 243 => '2023',
		(int) 244 => '2023 12.3',
		(int) 245 => '2023',
		(int) 246 => '2023',
		(int) 247 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 248 => 'daily',
		(int) 249 => '2023',
		(int) 250 => '2023',
		(int) 251 => '2023',
		(int) 252 => '2023',
		(int) 253 => '11.3.2024 - 88 - NC:2024',
		(int) 254 => '2023',
		(int) 255 => '2023'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 1 => 'KARNATAKA',
		(int) 2 => 'C/W WRIT PETITION No.103994 OF2023(GM-RES',
		(int) 3 => 'SR',
		(int) 4 => 'SATISH S RAICHUR & SHRI',
		(int) 5 => 'ADVOCATES',
		(int) 6 => 'PRINCIPAL',
		(int) 7 => 'DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA',
		(int) 8 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 9 => 'GOPAL KRISHNA S/O DR',
		(int) 10 => 'CROSS',
		(int) 11 => 'MAIN',
		(int) 12 => 'SRINAGAR',
		(int) 13 => 'BANASHANKARI',
		(int) 14 => 'BANGALORE SOUTH KARNATAKA-560050.8',
		(int) 15 => 'K MARUTHI GURUPRASAD S/O K. BHEEMASENA RAO AGED ABOUT50YEARS R/',
		(int) 16 => 'UTTARAHALLI',
		(int) 17 => 'BANGALORE',
		(int) 18 => 'KARNATAKA-560061',
		(int) 19 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 20 => 'NARASINGA RAO S/O D. KISHAN RAO AGED ABOUT64YEARS R/O ANUGRAHA NILAYA JAYANAGAR',
		(int) 21 => 'SRINAGAR',
		(int) 22 => 'PRASANNA DESAI W/O PRASANNA DESAI AGED',
		(int) 23 => 'CROSS',
		(int) 24 => 'THALAGHATTAPURA',
		(int) 25 => 'BENGALURU',
		(int) 26 => 'KARNATAKA-560062',
		(int) 27 => 'No.1077',
		(int) 28 => 'MAIN',
		(int) 29 => 'SRINAGAR',
		(int) 30 => 'MUTTAGI S/O M.L. NARAYANACHAR AGED ABOUT47YEARS',
		(int) 31 => 'MAIN',
		(int) 32 => 'ITTAMADU',
		(int) 33 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 34 => 'J.M. AAG',
		(int) 35 => 'AGA',
		(int) 36 => 'SR',
		(int) 37 => 'C.V. NAGESH',
		(int) 38 => 'SR',
		(int) 39 => 'FILE NO.SAM/KAM',
		(int) 40 => 'NO.524',
		(int) 41 => 'SR',
		(int) 42 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 43 => 'KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF REVENUE REP',
		(int) 44 => 'PRINCIPAL',
		(int) 45 => 'AAG A/W SHRI',
		(int) 46 => 'AGA',
		(int) 47 => 'SR',
		(int) 48 => 'S. RAICHUR & SHRI',
		(int) 49 => 'DATED',
		(int) 50 => 'ETC',
		(int) 51 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 52 => 'Court',
		(int) 53 => 'Original',
		(int) 54 => 'Annexure-N',
		(int) 55 => 'Respondent no.5',
		(int) 56 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 57 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 58 => 'Court',
		(int) 59 => 'i. Issue',
		(int) 60 => 'Aradhana of Shri',
		(int) 61 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 62 => 'District Kalaburagi',
		(int) 63 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 64 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 65 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 66 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 67 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 68 => 'O.S. No.65/1/59-60',
		(int) 69 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 70 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 71 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 72 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 73 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 74 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 75 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 76 => 'Court',
		(int) 77 => 'Court',
		(int) 78 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
		(int) 79 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 80 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 81 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 82 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde in Sy',
		(int) 83 => 'Gangavathi Taluk',
		(int) 84 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 85 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 86 => 'the State of Karnataka -respondent No.1',
		(int) 87 => 'Tahsildar',
		(int) 88 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 89 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 90 => 'RSA No.100446/2015',
		(int) 91 => 'W.P. No.111125/2014',
		(int) 92 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 93 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 94 => 'the Raja of Anegundi',
		(int) 95 => 'Shri Jaya Theetharu',
		(int) 96 => 'Court',
		(int) 97 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 98 => 'Shri Jaya Theetharu',
		(int) 99 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 100 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 101 => 'W.P. No.102614/2022',
		(int) 102 => 'Court',
		(int) 103 => 'Court',
		(int) 104 => 'Court',
		(int) 105 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 106 => 'Brindavanas',
		(int) 107 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 108 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 109 => 'Court',
		(int) 110 => 'Court',
		(int) 111 => 'Court',
		(int) 112 => 'Court',
		(int) 113 => 'Court',
		(int) 114 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 115 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 116 => 'Asst',
		(int) 117 => 'Asst',
		(int) 118 => 'Court',
		(int) 119 => 'Court',
		(int) 120 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
		(int) 121 => 'Kom/Devasthana/2023-24',
		(int) 122 => 'Court',
		(int) 123 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 124 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 125 => 'Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 126 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
		(int) 127 => 'Court',
		(int) 128 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 129 => 'Court',
		(int) 130 => 'Court',
		(int) 131 => 'Court',
		(int) 132 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 133 => 'Shraddha',
		(int) 134 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 135 => 'Court',
		(int) 136 => 'Writ Petition No.103982/2023',
		(int) 137 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
		(int) 138 => 'Anegundi, Taluka-',
		(int) 139 => 'District-Koppal',
		(int) 140 => 'Shree Raghavendraswamy Mutt',
		(int) 141 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
		(int) 142 => 'Anegundi, Taluka-',
		(int) 143 => 'District-Koppal',
		(int) 144 => 'Court',
		(int) 145 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 146 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
		(int) 147 => 'the RSA Court',
		(int) 148 => 'Court',
		(int) 149 => 'RSA',
		(int) 150 => 'Court',
		(int) 151 => 'W.A. Nos.100390/2023',
		(int) 152 => 'WA No.100390/2023',
		(int) 153 => 'W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023',
		(int) 154 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 155 => 'I.A. No.5/2023. v) Liberty',
		(int) 156 => 'the Writ Petition',
		(int) 157 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 158 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 159 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 160 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 161 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 162 => 'the Civil Court',
		(int) 163 => 'JMFC',
		(int) 164 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 165 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 166 => 'believed.-',
		(int) 167 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 168 => 'JMFC',
		(int) 169 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 170 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 171 => 'Shri Madhwacharyaru',
		(int) 172 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 173 => 'Smt',
		(int) 174 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 175 => 'the Petitioner-Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 176 => 'WP No.103982/2023',
		(int) 177 => 'Court',
		(int) 178 => 'the Aradhana of Shri',
		(int) 179 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 180 => 'W.P. No.102614/2022',
		(int) 181 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 182 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
		(int) 183 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
		(int) 184 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 185 => 'Kom/Devasthana/2023-24',
		(int) 186 => 'Court',
		(int) 187 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 188 => 'Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 189 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi',
		(int) 190 => 'Court',
		(int) 191 => 'Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 192 => 'Court',
		(int) 193 => 'Court',
		(int) 194 => 'Court',
		(int) 195 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 196 => 'Shraddha',
		(int) 197 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 198 => 'Division Bench',
		(int) 199 => 'WA No.100390/2023',
		(int) 200 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 201 => 'W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023',
		(int) 202 => 'I.A. No.5/2023',
		(int) 203 => 'the Writ Petition',
		(int) 204 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 205 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 206 => 'AiÀÄ',
		(int) 207 => 'cid:5)ಾಲುD',
		(int) 208 => 'cid:5)ಾಲುD',
		(int) 209 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 210 => 'ಈ ಸ;ಳವX5cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
		(int) 211 => 'ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
		(int) 212 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 213 => 'O.S. No.65/1/59-60',
		(int) 214 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 215 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 216 => 'Munsiff',
		(int) 217 => 'Gangavathi',
		(int) 218 => 'the Court of Munciff at',
		(int) 219 => 'H.H. Suyanendra Tirtharu &',
		(int) 220 => 'CPC',
		(int) 221 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 222 => 'Brindavanas of Shri Vyasaraya Mutt',
		(int) 223 => 'Vyasarayaru',
		(int) 224 => 'Govinda Tirtharu',
		(int) 225 => 'Padmanabha Tirtharu',
		(int) 226 => 'Ravindra Tirtharu',
		(int) 227 => 'the Holy Brindavans',
		(int) 228 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 229 => 'H.H. Satya Dhanaru',
		(int) 230 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 231 => 'W/s',
		(int) 232 => 'Srinivasa',
		(int) 233 => 'Govinda',
		(int) 234 => 'Govinda Wodeyaru',
		(int) 235 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 236 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 237 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 238 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri',
		(int) 239 => 'Srinivasa',
		(int) 240 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 241 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 242 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 243 => 'Teertharu',
		(int) 244 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 245 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 246 => 'W.P. No.102614/2022',
		(int) 247 => 'W.P. No.103449/2023',
		(int) 248 => 'finality.-',
		(int) 249 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 250 => 'Madhva',
		(int) 251 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 252 => 'Madhva',
		(int) 253 => 'Kalaburagi',
		(int) 254 => 'State',
		(int) 255 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 256 => 'the National Award',
		(int) 257 => 'State',
		(int) 258 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 259 => 'State',
		(int) 260 => 'State',
		(int) 261 => 'State',
		(int) 262 => 'S.Rangaraj',
		(int) 263 => 'Nava - 52 - NC:2024',
		(int) 264 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 265 => 'Kalaburagi',
		(int) 266 => 'Madhva',
		(int) 267 => 'State',
		(int) 268 => 'the Mysore Gazetteer',
		(int) 269 => 'Bombay Gazetteer',
		(int) 270 => 'Karnataka Tourism Dept',
		(int) 271 => 'Gazetteers',
		(int) 272 => 'Peetadhipathi of Shri',
		(int) 273 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 274 => 'Kalaburagi',
		(int) 275 => 'Surjanarayan Das',
		(int) 276 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 277 => 'ABL International Ltd.',
		(int) 278 => 'Export Credit Guarantee Corpn',
		(int) 279 => 'India Ltd.3',
		(int) 280 => 'Court',
		(int) 281 => 'Court',
		(int) 282 => 'State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd.',
		(int) 283 => 'Court',
		(int) 284 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 285 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 286 => 'Court',
		(int) 287 => 'Court',
		(int) 288 => 'The High Court',
		(int) 289 => 'State',
		(int) 290 => 'The High Court',
		(int) 291 => 'The High Court',
		(int) 292 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 293 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 294 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 295 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 296 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 297 => 'The High Court',
		(int) 298 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 299 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 300 => 'Court',
		(int) 301 => 'Mfg. Co. Ltd.',
		(int) 302 => 'Ulhasnagar Municipal Council',
		(int) 303 => 'Court',
		(int) 304 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 305 => 'Court',
		(int) 306 => 'Court',
		(int) 307 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 308 => 'SCC769 this Court',
		(int) 309 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 310 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 311 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 312 => 'M.B.) & Collector4',
		(int) 313 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 314 => 'Civil Court',
		(int) 315 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 316 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 317 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 318 => 'Court',
		(int) 319 => 'Court',
		(int) 320 => 'Sales Tax Officer',
		(int) 321 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 322 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 323 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 324 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 325 => 'Nirupa',
		(int) 326 => 'Peetadhipathi',
		(int) 327 => 'Peetadhipathi',
		(int) 328 => 'Peetadhipati',
		(int) 329 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 330 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 331 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 332 => 'Mutt',
		(int) 333 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 334 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 335 => 'the Peetadhipathi of Shri',
		(int) 336 => 'Peetadhipathi',
		(int) 337 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 338 => 'the Karnataka Toursim Gazetteer',
		(int) 339 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 340 => 'Kalaburagi',
		(int) 341 => 'The Bombay Gazetteer',
		(int) 342 => 'The Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer',
		(int) 343 => 'the Gazetteer of India',
		(int) 344 => 'Karnataka State Gazetteer, Government of Karnataka',
		(int) 345 => 'Kalaburagi',
		(int) 346 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 347 => 'Malkhed,',
		(int) 348 => 'Kalaburagi',
		(int) 349 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 350 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 351 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 352 => 'Court',
		(int) 353 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 354 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 355 => 'Sodi Mutt, Udupi',
		(int) 356 => 'Nava brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 357 => 'History of Dvaita School of Vedanta',
		(int) 358 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 359 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 360 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 361 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 362 => 'Teertharu',
		(int) 363 => 'Teertharu',
		(int) 364 => 'Peetadhipathi of Shri',
		(int) 365 => 'Nava brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 366 => 'a Civil Court',
		(int) 367 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 368 => 'RSA No.100446/2015',
		(int) 369 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 370 => 'State of T.N.',
		(int) 371 => 'T.N.',
		(int) 372 => 'State of T.N.',
		(int) 373 => 'S.P. Mittal v. Union of India',
		(int) 374 => 'Church',
		(int) 375 => 'Church',
		(int) 376 => 'Mittal',
		(int) 377 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 378 => 'Church',
		(int) 379 => 'Explanation',
		(int) 380 => 'Digambari',
		(int) 381 => 'Jain',
		(int) 382 => 'Chakshus',
		(int) 383 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 384 => 'The Catholicate of the East',
		(int) 385 => 'Malankara Association',
		(int) 386 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 387 => 'the Appellate Court of',
		(int) 388 => 'the Royal Court',
		(int) 389 => 'Court',
		(int) 390 => 'the Syrian Orthodox Church',
		(int) 391 => 'Churches',
		(int) 392 => 'Catholicate at Malankara',
		(int) 393 => 'Evangelistic Association',
		(int) 394 => 'the Malankara Association',
		(int) 395 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 396 => 'Court',
		(int) 397 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 398 => 'the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act',
		(int) 399 => 'Satyadeo Prasad -v- Smt',
		(int) 400 => 'AIR1996PATNA110-',
		(int) 401 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 402 => 'Hardeo',
		(int) 403 => 'Ext.-',
		(int) 404 => 'C/W WP No.103994 of',
		(int) 405 => 'Kamta Prasad',
		(int) 406 => 'Hardeo',
		(int) 407 => 'Kamta',
		(int) 408 => 'Hardeo and Jagarnath',
		(int) 409 => 'Hardeo',
		(int) 410 => 'Navadagi',
		(int) 411 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 412 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 413 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 414 => 'Aradhana',
		(int) 415 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 416 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 417 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 418 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 419 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 420 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde, Shri',
		(int) 421 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt',
		(int) 422 => 'the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC',
		(int) 423 => 'Gangavathi',
		(int) 424 => 'Vyasaraja Mutt',
		(int) 425 => 'Reliefs',
		(int) 426 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 427 => 'Declare',
		(int) 428 => 'the Moola Brindavana of Sri',
		(int) 429 => 'Navabrindavana Gaddi Anegundi Village',
		(int) 430 => 'Gangavathi Taluk',
		(int) 431 => 'Nava Brundavana Gaddi',
		(int) 432 => 'Gangavathi Taluk',
		(int) 433 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 434 => 'Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 435 => 'C/W WP No.103994',
		(int) 436 => 'Court',
		(int) 437 => 'C/W WP No.103994'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2',
		(int) 1 => '6',
		(int) 2 => '7',
		(int) 3 => '12TH',
		(int) 4 => '12TH',
		(int) 5 => '1',
		(int) 6 => '11.RAM',
		(int) 7 => '12.VASUKI',
		(int) 8 => '13.RAGHUNTH',
		(int) 9 => '9TH',
		(int) 10 => '14.AMEETH',
		(int) 11 => '5TH',
		(int) 12 => '15.PRABHANJAN',
		(int) 13 => '1ST',
		(int) 14 => '1ST',
		(int) 15 => '51',
		(int) 16 => '5TH',
		(int) 17 => '5',
		(int) 18 => '2',
		(int) 19 => 'R4',
		(int) 20 => '24',
		(int) 21 => '27-06-2023',
		(int) 22 => '6',
		(int) 23 => 'No.4',
		(int) 24 => '27.06.2023',
		(int) 25 => '04.07.2023 to 10.07.2023',
		(int) 26 => 'No.4',
		(int) 27 => '1 to 4',
		(int) 28 => 'Mag:101:2023-24',
		(int) 29 => '27.06.2023',
		(int) 30 => '3',
		(int) 31 => '1.',
		(int) 32 => '3.2',
		(int) 33 => 'an - 8',
		(int) 34 => 'one',
		(int) 35 => '3.3',
		(int) 36 => '3.4',
		(int) 37 => '9',
		(int) 38 => '3.5',
		(int) 39 => '3.6',
		(int) 40 => '10',
		(int) 41 => '3.7',
		(int) 42 => '1/3rd',
		(int) 43 => '2/3rd',
		(int) 44 => '11',
		(int) 45 => '3.8',
		(int) 46 => '3.9',
		(int) 47 => '12',
		(int) 48 => '3.10',
		(int) 49 => '5.06.2023',
		(int) 50 => '227',
		(int) 51 => '2023',
		(int) 52 => '3.11',
		(int) 53 => '3.12',
		(int) 54 => '14',
		(int) 55 => '10.07.2023',
		(int) 56 => '3.13',
		(int) 57 => 'No.4',
		(int) 58 => '27.06.2023',
		(int) 59 => '1.',
		(int) 60 => 'No.3',
		(int) 61 => 'No.4',
		(int) 62 => '4.2',
		(int) 63 => '15',
		(int) 64 => '2023',
		(int) 65 => '4.3',
		(int) 66 => 'nine',
		(int) 67 => '16',
		(int) 68 => 'one',
		(int) 69 => '7',
		(int) 70 => '4.4',
		(int) 71 => 'three',
		(int) 72 => 'one',
		(int) 73 => '24.06.2024',
		(int) 74 => '17',
		(int) 75 => '4.6',
		(int) 76 => '26',
		(int) 77 => '18',
		(int) 78 => 'No.2',
		(int) 79 => '4:5',
		(int) 80 => '1',
		(int) 81 => 'No.2 to',
		(int) 82 => '4',
		(int) 83 => '15.07.2022',
		(int) 84 => '9',
		(int) 85 => 'two',
		(int) 86 => '19',
		(int) 87 => '2023',
		(int) 88 => 'only three',
		(int) 89 => 'three',
		(int) 90 => '227',
		(int) 91 => '20',
		(int) 92 => '30.05.2023',
		(int) 93 => '30.05.2023',
		(int) 94 => '30.05.2023',
		(int) 95 => '30.05.2023',
		(int) 96 => 'No.3',
		(int) 97 => 'No.3',
		(int) 98 => '21',
		(int) 99 => 'several thousands',
		(int) 100 => '5.3',
		(int) 101 => '27.06.2023',
		(int) 102 => '22',
		(int) 103 => '27.06.2023',
		(int) 104 => '2023',
		(int) 105 => '5.4',
		(int) 106 => '31.08.2023',
		(int) 107 => '31.08.2023',
		(int) 108 => '24',
		(int) 109 => '2023',
		(int) 110 => '25',
		(int) 111 => '4',
		(int) 112 => '26',
		(int) 113 => '8',
		(int) 114 => '6 to 15',
		(int) 115 => '6 to 15',
		(int) 116 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 117 => '9.1',
		(int) 118 => '27',
		(int) 119 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 120 => '9.3',
		(int) 121 => '9.4',
		(int) 122 => '28',
		(int) 123 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 124 => '9.6',
		(int) 125 => '6 to 15',
		(int) 126 => '9.7',
		(int) 127 => 'No.1',
		(int) 128 => '6',
		(int) 129 => 'No.8 to 10',
		(int) 130 => 'nine',
		(int) 131 => '2',
		(int) 132 => '3',
		(int) 133 => '4',
		(int) 134 => '5',
		(int) 135 => '29',
		(int) 136 => '7',
		(int) 137 => '8',
		(int) 138 => '9',
		(int) 139 => '9.8',
		(int) 140 => '9.9',
		(int) 141 => '30',
		(int) 142 => '31',
		(int) 143 => '10.1',
		(int) 144 => '10.2',
		(int) 145 => 'only one',
		(int) 146 => '32',
		(int) 147 => '5.7.2023',
		(int) 148 => '10.3',
		(int) 149 => '10.4',
		(int) 150 => '15.07.2022',
		(int) 151 => '30.05.2023',
		(int) 152 => 'No.3',
		(int) 153 => 'No.3',
		(int) 154 => 'several thousands',
		(int) 155 => '34',
		(int) 156 => '10.5',
		(int) 157 => '10.6',
		(int) 158 => '10.7',
		(int) 159 => '31.08.2023',
		(int) 160 => '35',
		(int) 161 => '10.8',
		(int) 162 => '36',
		(int) 163 => '10.9',
		(int) 164 => '12.03.1959',
		(int) 165 => '192',
		(int) 166 => 'ಸಂ',
		(int) 167 => '1',
		(int) 168 => '2',
		(int) 169 => '3',
		(int) 170 => '3ಂ(cid:10)Hಂದಲೂ 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
		(int) 171 => '37',
		(int) 172 => '3',
		(int) 173 => '5(cid:16)ೕ',
		(int) 174 => '2ೆಸU(cid:12)ೆ',
		(int) 175 => '192',
		(int) 176 => '17-00',
		(int) 177 => '10.10',
		(int) 178 => '10.11',
		(int) 179 => 'No.2',
		(int) 180 => 'No.3',
		(int) 181 => '4',
		(int) 182 => '7',
		(int) 183 => '39',
		(int) 184 => '2',
		(int) 185 => '10.12',
		(int) 186 => '10.13',
		(int) 187 => '1',
		(int) 188 => '2',
		(int) 189 => '9',
		(int) 190 => '40',
		(int) 191 => 'nine',
		(int) 192 => 'five',
		(int) 193 => '2',
		(int) 194 => 'three',
		(int) 195 => '1',
		(int) 196 => '2',
		(int) 197 => '1',
		(int) 198 => '2',
		(int) 199 => 'No.4',
		(int) 200 => '41',
		(int) 201 => '1',
		(int) 202 => '2',
		(int) 203 => '8',
		(int) 204 => '1',
		(int) 205 => '2',
		(int) 206 => '9',
		(int) 207 => '1',
		(int) 208 => '2',
		(int) 209 => '42',
		(int) 210 => '1',
		(int) 211 => '2.1',
		(int) 212 => '11.60',
		(int) 213 => '10.14',
		(int) 214 => 'nine',
		(int) 215 => '43',
		(int) 216 => '2023',
		(int) 217 => '10.15',
		(int) 218 => 'three',
		(int) 219 => 'three',
		(int) 220 => 'nine',
		(int) 221 => '11',
		(int) 222 => '12',
		(int) 223 => '13',
		(int) 224 => '14',
		(int) 225 => '15',
		(int) 226 => '17',
		(int) 227 => '18',
		(int) 228 => '44',
		(int) 229 => 'three',
		(int) 230 => '10.17',
		(int) 231 => '45',
		(int) 232 => '10.19',
		(int) 233 => '10.20',
		(int) 234 => '10.21',
		(int) 235 => '46',
		(int) 236 => 'one',
		(int) 237 => '10.22',
		(int) 238 => '10.23',
		(int) 239 => '47',
		(int) 240 => '10.24',
		(int) 241 => '48',
		(int) 242 => '10.26',
		(int) 243 => '49',
		(int) 244 => '50',
		(int) 245 => '10.29',
		(int) 246 => '51',
		(int) 247 => '51',
		(int) 248 => '2023',
		(int) 249 => '10.30',
		(int) 250 => '10.31',
		(int) 251 => '10.32',
		(int) 252 => '10.33',
		(int) 253 => '10.34',
		(int) 254 => '35',
		(int) 255 => '25',
		(int) 256 => '10.36',
		(int) 257 => '54',
		(int) 258 => '10.37',
		(int) 259 => '15 to 19',
		(int) 260 => '1 SCC216',
		(int) 261 => '218',
		(int) 262 => '7',
		(int) 263 => '3',
		(int) 264 => '55',
		(int) 265 => '3',
		(int) 266 => '774',
		(int) 267 => '14',
		(int) 268 => '14',
		(int) 269 => '56',
		(int) 270 => '2023',
		(int) 271 => '57',
		(int) 272 => '3',
		(int) 273 => '1',
		(int) 274 => '587',
		(int) 275 => '58',
		(int) 276 => '3',
		(int) 277 => '10.38',
		(int) 278 => '59',
		(int) 279 => '60',
		(int) 280 => '10',
		(int) 281 => '61',
		(int) 282 => '214',
		(int) 283 => '10.40',
		(int) 284 => '62',
		(int) 285 => '10.41',
		(int) 286 => '63',
		(int) 287 => '64',
		(int) 288 => '10.44',
		(int) 289 => '65',
		(int) 290 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 291 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 292 => '66',
		(int) 293 => '10.46',
		(int) 294 => '10.47',
		(int) 295 => '67',
		(int) 296 => '2023',
		(int) 297 => '2023',
		(int) 298 => 'two',
		(int) 299 => '11.1',
		(int) 300 => '69',
		(int) 301 => '11.2.',
		(int) 302 => '11.3',
		(int) 303 => 'one',
		(int) 304 => '70',
		(int) 305 => '11.5',
		(int) 306 => '11.6',
		(int) 307 => '11.7',
		(int) 308 => '71',
		(int) 309 => '11.8',
		(int) 310 => '11.9',
		(int) 311 => 'another - 72',
		(int) 312 => '11.10',
		(int) 313 => '11',
		(int) 314 => '37',
		(int) 315 => '89',
		(int) 316 => 'one',
		(int) 317 => '5',
		(int) 318 => '4',
		(int) 319 => '73',
		(int) 320 => '2',
		(int) 321 => '1',
		(int) 322 => '147',
		(int) 323 => '1',
		(int) 324 => '1',
		(int) 325 => '74',
		(int) 326 => '3',
		(int) 327 => '2',
		(int) 328 => '75',
		(int) 329 => 'are:1',
		(int) 330 => '26',
		(int) 331 => '76',
		(int) 332 => 'two',
		(int) 333 => '1934 Constitution',
		(int) 334 => '11.12',
		(int) 335 => '11.13',
		(int) 336 => '6',
		(int) 337 => 'one',
		(int) 338 => '78',
		(int) 339 => '2023',
		(int) 340 => '11.14',
		(int) 341 => '110',
		(int) 342 => '31',
		(int) 343 => 'two',
		(int) 344 => '79',
		(int) 345 => '2023',
		(int) 346 => '405',
		(int) 347 => '446',
		(int) 348 => 'No.2',
		(int) 349 => '80',
		(int) 350 => '11.15',
		(int) 351 => '11.16',
		(int) 352 => '81',
		(int) 353 => '2023',
		(int) 354 => '11.17',
		(int) 355 => '5.06.1985',
		(int) 356 => '82',
		(int) 357 => '11.18',
		(int) 358 => '83',
		(int) 359 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 360 => '12.1',
		(int) 361 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 362 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 363 => '84',
		(int) 364 => 'one',
		(int) 365 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 366 => '12.4',
		(int) 367 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 368 => '85',
		(int) 369 => '12.5',
		(int) 370 => '86',
		(int) 371 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 372 => 'No.6 to 15',
		(int) 373 => '12.6',
		(int) 374 => '87',
		(int) 375 => '12.7',
		(int) 376 => '5',
		(int) 377 => '5.1',
		(int) 378 => '5.2',
		(int) 379 => '5.3',
		(int) 380 => '6',
		(int) 381 => '5.1',
		(int) 382 => '5.2'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '60',
		(int) 1 => '1/138A',
		(int) 2 => '3RD STAGE',
		(int) 3 => '5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16',
		(int) 4 => '5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'ST',
		(int) 1 => 'TQ.GANGAVATI',
		(int) 2 => 'J.M.',
		(int) 3 => 'W.P.No.103982/2023',
		(int) 4 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 5 => 'Ashtottara',
		(int) 6 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 7 => 'W.P.No.103994/2023',
		(int) 8 => 'Sedam',
		(int) 9 => 'Anegundi village',
		(int) 10 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 11 => 'Anegundi village',
		(int) 12 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 13 => 'India',
		(int) 14 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 15 => 'Aradhanas',
		(int) 16 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 17 => 'Cr',
		(int) 18 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 19 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 20 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 21 => 'No.103994/2023',
		(int) 22 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 23 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 24 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 25 => 'Ashtottara',
		(int) 26 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 27 => 'O.S.',
		(int) 28 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 29 => 'O.S.',
		(int) 30 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 31 => 'Cr',
		(int) 32 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 33 => 'W.A. No.100390/2023',
		(int) 34 => 'Gangavati',
		(int) 35 => 'ಾಡುKಾ1&ೆ',
		(int) 36 => 'ಇ(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:31)ೆ3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ',
		(int) 37 => 'Mutts',
		(int) 38 => 'Anegundi village',
		(int) 39 => 'Pujas',
		(int) 40 => 'Aradhanas',
		(int) 41 => 'Holiness',
		(int) 42 => 'Holiness',
		(int) 43 => 'Kannada',
		(int) 44 => 'Anegundi',
		(int) 45 => 'Anegundi village',
		(int) 46 => 'Malkhed',
		(int) 47 => 'Gulbarga',
		(int) 48 => 'Gazetteer',
		(int) 49 => 'India',
		(int) 50 => 'Karnataka State',
		(int) 51 => 'Karnataka',
		(int) 52 => 'O.S.',
		(int) 53 => 'Nava Brindavana - 53 - NC:2024',
		(int) 54 => 'Municipality',
		(int) 55 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 56 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 57 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 58 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 59 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 60 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 61 => 'Madhwa',
		(int) 62 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 63 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 64 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 65 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 66 => 'Shri.-',
		(int) 67 => 'Gulbarga Region',
		(int) 68 => 'Karnataka',
		(int) 69 => 'Gulbarga Region',
		(int) 70 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 71 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 72 => 'W.P.No.103982/2023',
		(int) 73 => 'Karnataka',
		(int) 74 => 'O.S.',
		(int) 75 => 'Ugamsingh',
		(int) 76 => 'Paroli',
		(int) 77 => 'Kalash',
		(int) 78 => 'worship.89',
		(int) 79 => 'India',
		(int) 80 => 'Act.3',
		(int) 81 => 'Malankara',
		(int) 82 => 'the Patriarch of Antioch',
		(int) 83 => 'Simhasana',
		(int) 84 => 'St. Mary',
		(int) 85 => 'Ramanand',
		(int) 86 => 'Ramanand',
		(int) 87 => 'Peetadhipati',
		(int) 88 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 89 => 'Brindavana',
		(int) 90 => 'O.S.',
		(int) 91 => 'Karnataka'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'BANGALORE-560085',
		(int) 1 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
		(int) 2 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 3 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
		(int) 4 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 5 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 6 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 7 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 8 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 9 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 10 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 11 => 'Tungabhadra',
		(int) 12 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 13 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 14 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
		(int) 15 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 16 => 'Kaveendra Teertharu',
		(int) 17 => 'Malkhed',
		(int) 18 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 19 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 20 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 21 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 22 => 'Shri Raghuvarya',
		(int) 23 => 'Holy Brindavans',
		(int) 24 => 'Nasim',
		(int) 25 => 'Nasim',
		(int) 26 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 27 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 28 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 29 => 'Shri Raghuvaryaya',
		(int) 30 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 31 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 32 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 33 => 'Swetamberi',
		(int) 34 => 'Catholicos',
		(int) 35 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 36 => 'Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'ISLAND',
		(int) 1 => 'Tungabhadra river',
		(int) 2 => 'W.P. No.103994/2023',
		(int) 3 => 'Shri Jaya Theertharu',
		(int) 4 => 'Single',
		(int) 5 => 'Single',
		(int) 6 => 'Single',
		(int) 7 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
		(int) 8 => 'Shri Jaya',
		(int) 9 => 'Shri Jaya',
		(int) 10 => 'Single',
		(int) 11 => 'Single',
		(int) 12 => 'Shri',
		(int) 13 => 'Malkhed',
		(int) 14 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
		(int) 15 => 'Malkhed',
		(int) 16 => 'Sanskrit',
		(int) 17 => 'Single',
		(int) 18 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
		(int) 19 => 'the Brindavana of Sri',
		(int) 20 => 'the Brindavana of Sri Jaya Teertharu'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Shri',
		(int) 1 => 'Shri',
		(int) 2 => 'Shri',
		(int) 3 => 'Shri Madhvacharya',
		(int) 4 => 'Articles 25',
		(int) 5 => 'Brindavanas',
		(int) 6 => 'Brindavanas',
		(int) 7 => 'Shri Madhwacharya',
		(int) 8 => 'Bench',
		(int) 9 => 'Vageesha Teertharu',
		(int) 10 => 'Shri Jaya',
		(int) 11 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 12 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 13 => 'Shri',
		(int) 14 => 'Shri Madhwacharya',
		(int) 15 => '1 ಮ2ಾಮ3ಮರ',
		(int) 16 => 'F',
		(int) 17 => 'Shri',
		(int) 18 => 'No.1 being Shri',
		(int) 19 => 'No.1',
		(int) 20 => 'Vageesha',
		(int) 21 => 'Shri',
		(int) 22 => 'Judgment',
		(int) 23 => 'Shri',
		(int) 24 => 'Shri',
		(int) 25 => 'Shri Jaya Teertharu',
		(int) 26 => 'Shri',
		(int) 27 => 'M.P. Cases',
		(int) 28 => 'Shri',
		(int) 29 => 'Shri',
		(int) 30 => 'No.5-Shri',
		(int) 31 => 'Shri',
		(int) 32 => 'Shri',
		(int) 33 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 34 => 'Metropolitan',
		(int) 35 => 'Articles 25',
		(int) 36 => 'P.W. 24',
		(int) 37 => 'Shri',
		(int) 38 => 'Shri',
		(int) 39 => 'The Single Bench'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Holy Moola Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 1 => 'the Brindavana of Sri',
		(int) 2 => 'the Navabrindavan Gadde',
		(int) 3 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 4 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 5 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 6 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 7 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 8 => 'Koppal District',
		(int) 9 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 10 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 11 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 12 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 13 => 'the Nava Brindavan Gadde',
		(int) 14 => 'the Nava Brindavan Gadde',
		(int) 15 => 'the Nava Brindavan Gadde',
		(int) 16 => 'the Navabrindavana Gaddi',
		(int) 17 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde.',
		(int) 18 => 'the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu',
		(int) 19 => 'the Navabrindavana Gadde',
		(int) 20 => 'the Single Bench',
		(int) 21 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 22 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 23 => 'Sinappa Achar',
		(int) 24 => 'the Navabrindavana Gaddi',
		(int) 25 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde.',
		(int) 26 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 27 => 'Munsiff',
		(int) 28 => 'the Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 29 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 30 => 'the Moola Brindavana of Shri Vyasaraja Matt, Shri',
		(int) 31 => 'the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu',
		(int) 32 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 33 => 'Nava Brindavana',
		(int) 34 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 35 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 36 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 37 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 38 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 39 => 'Nava Brindavana',
		(int) 40 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 41 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 42 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadi',
		(int) 43 => 'SCC831',
		(int) 44 => 'Nava Brindavana Gadde',
		(int) 45 => 'Koppal District',
		(int) 46 => 'Koppal District'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'second',
		(int) 1 => 'seventh',
		(int) 2 => 'seventh',
		(int) 3 => 'first',
		(int) 4 => 'first',
		(int) 5 => 'third',
		(int) 6 => '1st'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu',
		(int) 1 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 2 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 3 => 'Shri Raghavendra Swamy',
		(int) 4 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 5 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 6 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 7 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 8 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 9 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 10 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 11 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 12 => 'Shri Jayateertharu',
		(int) 13 => 'Teertharu or Shri Jayateertharu',
		(int) 14 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 15 => 'Shri Jayateertharu',
		(int) 16 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 17 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 18 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 19 => 'Shri Jayateertharu',
		(int) 20 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt and',
		(int) 21 => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		(int) 22 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 23 => 'The Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 24 => 'The Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 25 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 26 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 27 => 'The Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 28 => 'another Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 29 => 'the Brindavana of Shri',
		(int) 30 => 'The Hudaya Canon',
		(int) 31 => 'Nirupa',
		(int) 32 => 'Peetadhipati',
		(int) 33 => 'the Poojas of Shri'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '14 acres',
		(int) 1 => '5(cid:16)ೕ ಮ6ಾ78ಾಯ(cid:27)ರ ಮುಖ(cid:20',
		(int) 2 => '4. ಸುBೕಂದ(cid:16',
		(int) 3 => '14 acres'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Peetadhipati of Shri'
	),
	'LANGUAGE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'English'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1232793',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'WP 103982/2023',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Shri Uttaradi Mutt Vs. The State Of Karnataka',
		'casenote' => null,
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Karnataka Dharwad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2024-06-05',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'SURAJ GOVINDARAJ',
		'judgement' => '<p>- 1 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, R DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE5H DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION No.103982 OF2023(GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.103994 OF2023(GM-RES) IN W.P.NO.103982/2023 BETWEEN SHRI UTTARADI MUTT RPRESENTED BY ITS HOLY PONTIFF SHRI SHRI1008SHRI SATYATMA TIRTHA SWAMIJI THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER R/O SHRI UTTARADI MUTT BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU56002 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. SATISH S RAICHUR & SHRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI., ADVOCATES) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU56000 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DISTRICT KOPPAL3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - 2 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 KOPPAL, DISTRICT KOPPAL4 THE TAHASILDAR ANEGUNDI TALUKA GANGAVATHI DISTRICT KOPPAL5 SHRI NANJANGUDA RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT THROUGH ITS PONTIFF MANTRALAYHA KURNOOL DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH STATE -5 6. GOPAL KRISHNA S/O DR. H.K. RAM RAO AGED ABOUT55YEARS R/O11-110, WARD NO.1 PAMPANAGAR, GANGAVATI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583227 7. VENKATESH G.N. S/O NAGARAJ ACHAR G. AGED ABOUT53YEARS, R/O #60, 12TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN ROAD BEHIND RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT, SRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE SOUTH KARNATAKA-560050.</p><p>8. KISHAN RAO S/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO AGED ABOUT64YEARS R/O #1/138A, GHORKAL MANVI TQ. RAICHUR DIST-584203.</p><p>9. K MARUTHI GURUPRASAD S/O K. BHEEMASENA RAO AGED ABOUT50YEARS R/O FLAT102 SHIVA PRADISE, 1 APARTMENT, MUNISWAMY LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE, BEHIND SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION BANGALORE SOUTH, KARNATAKA-560061 - 3 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.D. NARASINGA RAO S/O D. KISHAN RAO AGED ABOUT64YEARS R/O ANUGRAHA NILAYA JAYANAGAR, 3RD STAGE NEAR ST. PAULS SCHOOL GANGAVATI-583227. 11.RAM KUMAR AGED ABOUT49YEARS S/O N. SUBRAMANYAM977A/9 13TH MAIN8H CROSS, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560050. 12.VASUKI PRASANNA DESAI W/O PRASANNA DESAI AGED ABOUT48YEARS R/O MR26NEXT SHANTINIKETAN SCHOOL BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560056. 13.RAGHUNTH BADRINATH SOSALE S/O BADRINATH S.P. AGED ABOUT55YEARS No.41, 9TH CROSS, KENDRIYA NAGAR BSK6H STAGE, SOMAPURA EXIT HOSAHALLI, THALAGHATTAPURA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560062. 14.AMEETH BHARADWAJ S/O SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT35YEARS No.1077, 5TH MAIN, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560050. 15.PRABHANJAN MUTTAGI S/O M.L. NARAYANACHAR AGED ABOUT47YEARS, R/O No.12 PAYONIDHI, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, MANJUNATH NAGAR, ITTAMADU, BANGALORE-560085. (R6 TO R15 ARE AMENDMENT - 4 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 CARRIED OUT AS PER </p>ORDER<p> DATED2102.2024) …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. GANGADHAR J.M. AAG A/W SHRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SHRI. C.V. NAGESH., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. H.R. DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE FOR R6-R15) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE </p>ORDER<p> PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED2706-2023, IN FILE NO.SAM/KAM/MAG.101.2023-24, IN SO FAR AS THE REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY SHRI. UTTARADI MUTT REQUESTING TO DEPUTE SUFFICIENT POLICE PERSONNEL DURING THE CELEBRATION OF SHRI RAGHUVARYA TEERTHARA MAHIMOTSAVA FROM0407- 2023 TO1007-2023 AT THE HOLY MOOLA BRINDAVANA OF SHRI RAGHUVARYA TEERTHA, SITUATED IN THE ISLAND NAMED NAVA BRINDAVANA GADDE, BEARING SY.NO.192 OF ANEGUNDI, TQ.GANGAVATI, DIST.KOPPAL, THE ORIGINAL </p>ORDER<p> BEARING AT ANNEXURE-A, AND ETC ***** IN W.P.NO.103994/2023 BETWEEN SHRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT REPRESENTED BY ITS HOLINESS SHRI SUBUDHENDRA THEERATHARU BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SHRI. R.K. VADEENDRA S/O R.KRISHNACHAR AGE. 51 YEARS SHRI. NANJANGUD RAGHAVENDRA SWAMYMUTT NO.524, 5TH BLOCK , 11TH MAIN45H CROSS, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. ARUN NEELOPANT. .,ADVOCATE) AND - 5 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF REVENUE REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VIDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. TAHSILDAR GANGAVATHI O/F PAMPA NAGAR, KOPPAL SH-130, KANAKAGIRI GANGAVATHI MUNIRABAD ROAD, TQ. GANGAVATHI DIST. KOPPA-583227 3. SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE BT PATIL NAGAR, ASHOK CIRCLE, KOPPAL-583231 4. SHRI. UTTARADI MUTT REP. BY ITS PEETADHIPATHI SHRI. SATYATMATEERTHSWAMIJI UTTARADI MUTT BASVANGUDI, NEAR NATIONAL COLLEGE BANGALORE-560085 …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG A/W SHRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SHRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE., SR. COUNSEL FOR SHRI. SATISH S. RAICHUR & SHRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI., ADVOCATES FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT BY QUASHING THE </p>ORDER<p> BEARING No.KOM.MAG.101.2023- 24 DATED. 27-06-2023 OF SECOND RESPONDENT WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR </p>ORDER<p>S AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR </p>ORDER<p>S ON2703.2024, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 </p>ORDER<p>S1 Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, the petitioner in W.P.No.103982/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs. a. Quash the order passed by the respondent No.4 dated 27.06.2023, in file No.SAM/KAM/MAG:101:2023-24, in so far as the rejection of the application filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt requesting to depute sufficient police personnel during the celebration of Shri. Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava from 04.07.2023 to 10.07.2023 at the Holy Moola Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertha, situated in the island named Nava Brindavana Gadde, bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal, the Original order being at Annexure-A and, b. Consequently, direct the respondent No.4 authority to allow the application filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt dated 08.06.2023, the copy of which is at Annexure-N, and b(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent nos. 1 to 4 to prevent Respondent no.5, including its followers , agents and office bearers and anybody claiming through or under Respondent No.5 from offering prayers or conducting any religious activity in any form including Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the name of Sri. Jayateertharu at the Brindavana of Sri. Raghuvarya Teertharu at the Navabrindavan Gadde situated on the island named ‘NavaBrindavana Gadde’, bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal; and c. Grant any other appropriate order, writ or direction as may be necessary in the facts and - 7 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.</p><p>2. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the petitioner in W.P.No.103994/2023 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs. i. Issue appropriate writ by quashing the order bearing No.Kom.Mag:101:2023-24 dated 27.06.2023 of second respondent which is produced at Annexure-A; ii. Direct Respondent No.1 to 3 to provide police protection during Aradhana of Shri. Jayateertharu which is scheduled to take place on 6th July 2023, 7th July 2023 and 8th July 2023. iii. Grant such other relief’s as is deemed fit.</p><p>3. Facts in W.P.No.103982/2023 filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt:</p><p>3. 1. The Petitioner Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, claims to be the main pontifical Mutt in the lineage of the great saint Shri. Madhvacharya. 3.2. Shri Uttaradi Mutt claims to be the owner of the land in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi being an island situate in Tungabhadra river which is known as Nava Brindavana Gadde (Gadde meaning an - 8 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 island). It is contended that several previous pontiffs’ brindavana is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde, one of them being that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu who was the predecessor/Peetadhipati of Shri Uttaradi Mutt. 3.3. It is contended that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, taluka Sedam, District Kalaburagi which is acknowledged by the general public. It is contended that there is no dispute as regards the said brindavana but now the dispute has been raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as regards the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu by contending that it is not of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu but of Shri Jaya Teertharu. 3.4. Various averments have been made as regards the ownership of the said land which is not relevant for the purpose of this matter since ownership dispute is not being considered in - 9 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the present matter which is part of another proceeding. 3.5. It is contended that there has been an admission on part of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde, there was never any claim made that the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is situate in Nava Brindavana Gadde. Off late Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has been raising disputes and or coming in the way of Shri Uttaradi Mutt performing aradhana and pooja of its gurus which was never in question. 3.6. Historically it is contended that in the year 1959 Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt trying to assert title over the land in Sy.No.192 belonging to Shri Uttaradi Mutt on the basis of more number of brindavanas in the Nava Brindavana Gadde are that of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt.-. 10 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 However, in the very same representation made by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, it is clearly stated that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde which resulted in the said claim being challenged by Shri Uttaradi Mutt in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 which is decreed in favour of Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Reference is made to the written statement filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in said proceedings, as also the evidence led by earlier pontiff in the said proceedings. On that basis, it is contended that there is an admission made on the existence of the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 3.7. In terms of the decree, name of Shri Uttaradi Mutt which was already entered in respect of 1/3rd of the land, the entry made in the name of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in respect of the balance 2/3rd of the land was deleted, - 11 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 therefore recognising the sole ownership of the entire island to be that of Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Insofar as the claim of ownership of the land, there are certain other proceedings which are pending. 3.8. In the present matter what is in question is as regards the admitted facts and it is in that background it is contended that this court ought to come to the rescue of Shri Uttaradi Mutt so as to permit the peaceful celebration of aradhana and pooja of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, as regards which police protection was sought for on account of the disturbance on part of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 3.9. Shri Uttaradi Mutt having performed the aradhana, pooja, etc., of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu for centuries, Shri Uttaradi Mutt made a request to jurisdictional police authorities to provide police protection which - 12 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 came to be rejected by the impugned order. It is in that background that Shri Uttaradi Mutt is before this Court challenging the said order. 3.10. Once earlier this Court vide order dated 5.06.2023 in W.P. No.103449/2023 had permitted such aradhana and pooja to be performed. The Aradhana and poojas being required to be performed on a regular basis, this court ought to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and grant the relief sought for by directing the police to depute requisite number of police personnel at the brindavana so as to protect peace and tranquillity on account of the disturbance sought to be created by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt despite Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt having categorically admitted the existence of brindavana of Shri - 13 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 3.11. The dispute in the present matter relates to the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. The contention of Shri Uttaradi Mutt is that in terms of the accepted facts and history, the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated at Navabrindavana Gadde in Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District. 3.12. The said Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu belonging to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, it is for Shri Uttaradi Mutt to carry out necessary ceremonies relating to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at the said brindavana, it is in pursuance thereof Shri Uttaradi Mutt had submitted an application to the concerned authorities to depute sufficient police personnel during the celebration of Shri Raghuvarya Thirtha Mahimotsava from - 14 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 4.07.2023 to 10.07.2023 at the holy moola Brindavan of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. 3.13. The said application came to be rejected by respondent No.4-Tahsildar vide its order dated 27.06.2023, it is challenging the same that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt had approached this Court.</p><p>4. Facts in W.P. No.103994/2023 filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt:</p><p>4. 1. This petition has been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt against the State of Karnataka -respondent No.1, Tahsildar- respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police- respondent No.3 and Shri Uttaradi Mutt- respondent No.4 seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4.2. It is stated that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed an application with the Tahsildar seeking for police protection for performing aradhana of Shri Jaya Theertharu at the - 15 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 brindavana located at Nava Brindavana Gadde on 6th, 7th and 8th July 2023. This application having been rejected, the present petition has been filed. 4.3. It is stated that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is a Moola Maha Samsthana established by Shri Madhvacharya amongst other Mutts established by him. It is contended that the Nava Brindavana Gadde is a tiny island formed in Tungabhadra river in Anegundi village. This is called so since there are nine brindavanas of saints of Shri Madhva Parampara located there. The disputes in respect of certain brindavanas of Shri Padmabha Teertharu, Shri Kavindra Teertharu and Shri Vageesha Teertharu is pending consideration in RSA No.100446/2015. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had also filed W.P. No.111125/2014 as regards the land claimed to be owned by Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Shri Uttaradi Mutt claiming to have purchased the - 16 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 same from one Vakeel Krishna Rao in the year *1916. The sale deed does not mention the total extent. The entire land had been forfeited by Nizams for non-payment of revenue. Shri Uttaradi Mutt made a request to the Raja of Anegundi to regrant 14 acres 7 guntas of land. Accordingly, the same was regranted on the condition that Shri Uttaradi Mutt would not prevent the other Mutts and devotees visiting the Nava Brindavana Gadde and performance of aradhana. 4.4. It is contended that apart from the aforesaid three brindavanas, one other brindavana is of Shri Jaya Teertharu which is wrongly claimed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt to be that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is claimed that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is performing aradhana of Shri Jaya Theetharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde and in this regard certain paper clippings are sought to be placed on *Corrected vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 17 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 record which are relating to the year 1988-89, 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2008-09 and 2009-10. 4.5. It is claimed that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers wanting to perform aradhana of Shri Jaya Theetharu, Shri Uttaradi Mutt with a malicious intent has sought to interfere with the same by falsely claiming that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. 4.6. The application filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt for police protection has been rejected on the ground that there is likelihood of breach of peace which is not permissible. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is entitled under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India to perform the aradhana of its pontiff Shri Jaya Theetharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde which cannot be denied by executive action.-. 18 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 5. OBJECTIONS BY RESPONDENTS No.2 to 4:</p><p>5. 1. Respondents No.2 to 4-State had filed its objections contending that there have been disputes from the year 2022 which have been raised by both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had sought for police protection for conducting aradhana and pooja in the month of July 2022 which came to be rejected by the police authorities, as regards which W.P. No.102614/2022 came to be filed which came to be disposed of on 15.07.2022 with the following observations: “9. Having heard the learned senior counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there is nothing on record which would show that earlier such Aradhana of Sri Jaya Theertharu was conducted or permitted to be conducted by the petitioner-Mutt at the Nava Brindavan Gadde. When it is an admitted fact that a dispute in respect of the Brindavanas are pending consideration at the hands of this Court in R.S.A. No.100446/2015 and several interim orders are passed by this Court to ensure that some arrangement is made permitting the two Mutts to conduct Aradhanas and more particularly in - 19 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 respect of only three Brindavanas, the petitioner Mutt could not have ventured to take a unilateral decision to conduct Aradhana without permission of this Court in R.S.A. No.100446/2015. The petitioner-Mutt was required to approach this Court by filing appropriate application seeking permission of the Court to conduct Aradhana at the Nava Brindavan Gadde. The question as to whether the dispute in R.S.A. No.100446/2015 is restricted only to three Brindavanas or it spreads across the entire island is something which cannot be gone into by this Court in this writ proceedings.</p><p>10. Moreover, in this writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 what is required to be considered is whether there is any impropriety in the impugned orders enforcing Section 144 in the Nava Brindavan Gadde during the days mentioned therein. The District administration is well within its powers to impose the sanction contained under Section 144 Cr.P.C. to ensure public peace and tranquility. When the authorities have found that conducting of the Ardahana in such a situation has all the potential of disturbing the public peace, the authorities are well within their powers to impose sanction under Section 144 of Cr.P.C.</p><p>11. For the reasons stated above, this Court is convinced that there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly.</p><p>5.2. Since the said petition had been dismissed, Shri Uttaradi Mutt continued to perform aradhana and pooja. In the year 2023 once again Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt made similar - 20 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 application. This time an application was made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt also seeking for police protection. The Asst. Commissioner called for a meeting on 30.05.2023 since no consensus were arrived at, the Asst. Commissioner by order dated 30.05.2023 issued an endorsement that both the Mutts should seek necessary orders from the Court. The said order dated 30.05.2023 came to be challenged before this Court in W.P. No.103449/2023 which came to be disposed of by order dated 5.06.2023 with the following directions: i)The writ petition is allowed in part. ii) Order dated 30.05.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 in File No.Kom/Devasthana/2023-24 is quashed to the extent of directing the petitioner to approach this Court to obtain order to perform the religious rituals. iii) The Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 shall provide suitable protection for maintenance of public peace and tranquility and would be at liberty to impose or pass an order for maintenance of public peace and tranquility including issuance of an order under section 144 of Cr.P.C. to permit the petitioner to conduct the rituals only with - 21 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 regard to conducting of Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, on fifth, sixth and seventh of June, 2023, at the Holy site of Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu in the island of Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy. No.192 of Anegundi. iv) It is however made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter including other issues in dispute other than conducting Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. v) This Court also does not express any opinion with regard to the question of rights of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu or rights of Shri Jayateertharu in the Navabrindavana Gaddi. This aspect would have to be decided in the pending proceedings between the parties to the lis, if any. vi) This Court further observes that in view of the fact that both the parties are claiming lineage of the great saint Shri Madhwacharya and adored by several thousands of people, this Court hopes that both the parties would maintain public peace and tranquility for the religious rituals of Aradhana and Shraddha being conducted in the said Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu of the Nava Brindavana Gadde. vii) All rights of the parties are kept open. 5.3. Subsequently, the Tahsildar made an order on 27.06.2023 stating that it was difficult to permit both the Mutts to perform aradhana and pooja which has been challenged before this court in - 22 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the above writ petitions. This Court vide common order dated 5.07.2023 passed the following order: </p>ORDER<p> (i) The writ petitions are allowed in part with following directions: (ii) The impugned order dated 27.06.2023 passed by the Tahashildar vide Annexure- is quashed. (iii) The petitioners in Writ Petition No.103982/2023 namely Shree Uttaradi Mutt shall be entitled to celebrate Shree Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava from 4th July to 7th July, 2023 (both days inclusive) at the Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Taluka- Gangavati, District-Koppal. (iv) The petitioners No.103994/2023 in Writ Petition namely Shree Raghavendraswamy Mutt shall be entitled to perform Aradhana of Shree Jayateertharu for a period from 8th July to 10th July 2023 (both days inclusive) at the Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Taluka- Gangavati, District-Koppal. (v) The respondent/State shall provide suitable Police assistance and protection for the purpose of maintaining public peace, morality, tranquility and would be at liberty to impose the suitable orders to maintain the public peace and tranquility or discipline încluding issuance of an order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C during the said period mentioned hereinabove. (vi) It is made clear that this Court has not touched upon the merits and demerits of the case, existence or otherwise of either Shree Raghuvarya - 23 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Teertharu or Shri Jayateertharu in Navabrindavana Gaddi which is being agitated before the RSA Court as disputed question of fact and law are involved. (vii) It is also made clear by virtue of this Court granting reliefs to both parties, this order would not in any way create a precedent for the litigations if any arise between the parties as the same will have to be adverted in the RSA proceedings, wherein the larger issue between the parties are pending consideration. (viii) The directions issued to the respondent/State shall be followed in stricto sensu, without any violation and breach. Proper protection shall be given to both parties devotees, followers for the relevant dates mentioned hereinabove, failing which, authorities will face serious repercussion from this Court. 5.4. The said order dated 5.07.2023 having been challenged in W.A. Nos.100390/2023 and 100391/2023, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.2023 has been set-aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. The order dated 31.08.2023 reads as under: </p>ORDER<p> i) Both the writ appeals in WA No.100390/2023 and WA No.100391/2023 are hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed in W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023 is hereby set- aside.-. 24 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 iii) The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant as well as respondent No.5 to produce additional documents in support of their respective claims including additional documents produced by the appellant along with I.A. No.5/2023. v) Liberty is also reserved to the parties to file objections, additional pleadings, counter affidavits etc., in support of their vi) respective claims. The parties are also at liberty to file interlocutory application(s) in the Writ Petition and seek suitable reliefs and also request the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal of the matter. vii) All rival contention between the parties on all aspects of the matter including the several contentions noted above are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.</p><p>5.5. The submission made is that since both the Mutts are seeking for permission to conduct aradhana and pooja on the very same date or same set of dates, it is difficult for the administration to provide necessary protection for the same day or set of dates and as such, the administration will abide by any orders passed by this Court.-. 25 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 6. A co-ordinate bench of this court having partly allowed the Writ Petitions filed by both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt permitting both the Mutts to perform their respective poojas at different dates. The said order was taken on appeal before the Division Bench by Shri Uttaradi Mutt, no appeal having been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the Division Bench had remanded the matter and hence, the petition is taken up for consideration afresh.</p><p>7. Post the remand, Shri Uttaradi Mutt filed an application seeking an amendment, which came to be allowed, and in terms of the amendment petition, the prayer sought is as follows: b1) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent nos.1 to 4 to prevent Respondent No 5, including its followers, agents and office bearers and anybody claiming through or under Respondent No.5 from offering prayers or conducting any religious activity in any form including Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the - 26 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 name of Shri Jayateertharu at the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at the Navabrindavana Gadde situated on the island named ‘NavaBrindavana Gadde”, bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal; 8. Subsequently, respondents Nos. 6 to 15 sought to be impleaded in the present matter. The application was rejected by the Single Bench. An appeal having been filed before the Division Bench, the Division Bench allowed the said application. Hence, an amendment was carried out, bringing on record respondents Nos. 6 to 15, who also filed their statement of objections and addressed their arguments opposing the petition.</p><p>9. Respondents No.6 to 15 have filed their objections contending that, 9.1. The writ petitions have become infructuous since the prayer sought for originally do not survive for consideration and the amended relief at prayer B(i) is not tenable or sustainable; - 27 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 9.2. That relief sought for can only be granted by the Civil Court in a properly instituted suit, respondents No.6 to 15 have filed a suit in O.S. No.35/2024 before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati, who would consider the issue. 9.3. There is a civil dispute between the parties on account of the filing of the suit. There being a dispute as regards the identity of the brindavana, evidence has to be led and adjudication has to be made. They reiterate the contentions of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu and not Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. 9.4. The so-called admission made by previous pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is a rebuttable one. The entire gazetteers have not been produced, hence they cannot be relied upon. There is discrepancy in the date of death of Shri Jaya Teertharu, therefore the contents cannot be believed.-. 28 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 9.5. Any order which is passed in the present proceedings would affect respondents No.6 to 15 who have filed the suit and rights of private parties are required to be adjudicated in a civil proceedings and not a public remedy like a writ petition. 9.6. A suit in O.S. No.35/2024 is filed by Respondents 6 to 15 before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati. 9.7. In the said plaint, it is contended that the plaintiffs No.1 to 6 are the disciples of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, plaintiff No.7 is the disciple of Shri Uttaradi Mutt, plaintiff No.8 to 10 are disciples of Shri Vyasaraya Mutt. They contend that in the Nava Brindavana Gadde there are nine brindavanas as under:</p><p>1. Shri Padmanabha Teertharu (1324) 2. Shri Jaya Teertharu (1388) 3. Shri Kaveendra Teertharu (1398) 4. Shri Vageesha Teertharu (1406) 5. Shri Govinda Odeyar (1534) - 29 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 6. Shri Vysararaj Teertharu (1539) 7. Shri Srinivas Teertharu (1564) 8. Shri Rama Teertharu (1584) 9. Shri Sudheendra Teertharu (1683) 9.8. Based on the above, it is contended that there is no brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and that brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 9.9. It is contended that the dispute as regards the brindavana of Shri Padmanabha Teertharu, Kaveendra Teertharu and Vageesha Teertharu in a separate proceeding. They deny that Shri Uttaradi Mutt is carrying on uninterrupted parampara of Shri Madhwacharyaru. References are made as regards the dates on which aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu are to be conducted. There are certain averments made and references made to certain books to lay a claim that the brindavana is that of Shri Jaya Teertharu.-. 30 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 9.10. That the brindavanas located in Malkhed are though of Shri Akshobhya Teertharu and Shri Jaya Teertharu, they are Mrutika brindavanas. They admit that the claim was made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt for permitting to worship at the said brindavanas and the said application came to be rejected on account of the same being under the control of Smt.Bhageerathi Bai, Sinappa Achar and Raghappa Achar, however subsequently in the year 1958 the same was granted to Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Insofar as the cause of action is concerned, it was contended cause of action arose in the year 2022 when Shri Uttaradi Mutt tried to prevent the aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu by the plaintiffs and it was contended by Shri Uttaradi Mutt that the Mahimotsava of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu would be conducted therein and it is in that background seek the reliefs as sought for.-. 31 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10. Shri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Shri Uttaradi Mutt in WP No.103982/2023 would submit that; 10.1. Respondent No.5- Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has sought to prevent Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, from carrying out the celebration of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Mahimotsava as also carrying out aradhana puja, offering prayers, etc., to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu requiring Shri Uttaradi Mutt to approach the jurisdictional authorities for police protection, which application having been rejected Shri Uttaradi Mutt is before this Court. 10.2. This is more so for the reason that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had indicated that they would conduct the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at the same brindavana as that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. There being only one person who could occupy the brindavana. Shri Uttaradi Mutt claiming that brindavana is - 32 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu which is so from time immemorial and all the poojas being conducted as regards the said brindavana on the basis that brindavana was of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu had filed an application with the revenue officials for grant of necessary police protection for carrying out aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu from 5.7.2023 to 7.07.2023. 10.3. There is an earlier round of litigation between the parties in as much as Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed W.P. No.102614/2022 and Shri Uttaradi Mutt had filed W.P. No.103449/2023. 10.4. He submits that vide order dated 15.07.2022 and 5.06.2023, respectively, both the above writ petitions came to be disposed of. In W.P. No.103449/2023, the following directions were issued: Order - 33 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 i) The writ petition is allowed in part. ii) Order dated 30.05.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 in File No.Kom/Devasthana/2023-24 is quashed to the extent of directing Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to approach this Court to obtain order to perform the religious rituals. iii) The Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 shall provide suitable protection for maintenance of public peace and tranquility and would be at liberty to impose or pass an order for maintenance of public peace and tranquility including issuance of an order under section 144 of Cr.P.C. to permit Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to conduct the rituals only with regard to conducting of Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, on fifth, sixth and seventh of June, 2023, at the Holy site of Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu in the island of Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi. iv) It is however made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter including other issues in dispute other than conducting Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. v) This Court also does not express any opinion with regard to the question of rights of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu or rights of Shri Jayateertharu in the Navabrindavana Gaddi. This aspect would have to be decided in the pending proceedings between the parties to the lis, if any. vi) This Court further observes that in view of the fact that both the parties are claiming lineage of the great saint Shri Madhwacharya and adored by several thousands of people, this Court hopes that both the parties would maintain public peace and tranquility for the religious rituals of Aradhana and Shraddha being conducted in the said - 34 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu of the Nava Brindavana Gadde. vii) All rights of the parties are kept open. 10.5. In furtherance of the above orders, Shri Uttaradi Mutt performed the poojas for Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 10.6. It is thereafter that once again the present issue has arisen which resulted in both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt filing the present Petitions. These Petitions were earlier disposed by a co-ordinate bench on 5.07.2023 passed the order which is extracted hereinabove. 10.7. Writ appeals being filed in W.A. No.100390/2023 and 100391/2023, the Division Bench vide its order 31.08.2023 disposed of both the writ appeals as under: </p>ORDER<p> i. Both the writ appeals in WA No.100390/2023 and WA No.100391/2023 are hereby allowed.-. 35 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 ii. The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed in W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023 is hereby set-aside. iii. The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. iv. Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant as well as respondent No.5 to produce additional documents in support of their respective claims including additional documents produced by the appellant along with I.A. No.5/2023. v. Liberty is also reserved to the parties to file objections, additional pleadings, counter affidavits etc., in support of their respective claims. vi. The parties are also at liberty to file interlocutory application(s) in the Writ Petition and seek suitable reliefs and also request the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal of the matter. vii. All rival contention between the parties on all aspects of the matter including the several contentions noted above are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. 10.8. It is in the above background that the Amendment was sought by Shri Uttaradi Mutt to include prayer b(1); Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has not filed any application for - 36 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 amendment or otherwise as permitted by the Hon’ble division bench. 10.9. Tracing the history of the dispute he submits that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed an application before the Munsiff, Gangavati on 12.03.1959 categorically stating as under: (cid:1)ಷಯ:- ಆ(cid:5)ೆಗುಂ(cid:10)ಯ ತುಂ(cid:12)ಾಭದ(cid:16) ನ(cid:10)ಯ ಮಧ(cid:20)ದ(cid:21)ರ(cid:22) ುವ ಸ(cid:26)ೆ(cid:27) ನಂಬ(cid:29) 192 ನವ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನ ಗ ಯನು! "ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄUÀrØ" ಎಂದು ¥ÀmÁÖ $ಾಡುವ (cid:1)ಷಯದ(cid:21).(cid:22) $ಾನ(cid:20)&ೇ ಆ(cid:5)ೆಗುಂ(cid:10)ಯ ತುಂ(cid:12)ಾಭದ(cid:16) ಪ(cid:16)(cid:26)ಾಹದ ಮಧ(cid:20)ದ(cid:21) (cid:22) ಸ(cid:26)ೆ(cid:27) ನಂಬ(cid:29)192 AiÀÄ ಕ&ೆ 14-7ರ(cid:21)((cid:22) ನವ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನ ಗ ಯ(cid:21)(cid:22)) ªÀiÁzsÀé ಸಂಪ(cid:16)(cid:31)ಾಯದ ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄಗಳ ,ೕ-ಾ(cid:10)ಪ.ಗಳ/ ಒಂಬತು 1 ಮ2ಾಮ3ಮರ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಗಳ/ ಇ(cid:26)ೆ. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಮ6ಾ78ಾಯ(cid:27)ರ ಮುಖ(cid:20) ಸಂ:ಾ;ನ(cid:26)ಾದ ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) ¸Áé«ÄUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ¦ÃoÁ¢ü¥ÀwUÀ¼ÁwzÀÄÝ 1. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಪದ?.(cid:5)ಾಭ .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 2. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಕ(cid:1)ೕಂದ(cid:16) .ೕಥ(cid:27) 3. 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:12)ೇA .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 2ಾಗು 4. ಸುBೕಂದ(cid:16) .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ (cid:5)ಾಲುD ಜನ ಮ2ಾಮ3ಮರು ಇ(cid:21) (cid:22) ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಸ;&ಾE(cid:31)ಾF&ೆ ಈ (cid:5)ಾಲುD AiÀÄwUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ಆ&ಾಧ(cid:5)ೆ 2ಾಗು ಈ ತರ ವ(cid:20)ವ:ೆ;ಗಳನು! 3ಂ(cid:10)Hಂದಲೂ 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ ,ೕ-ಾBಪ.ಗJೇ $ಾಡುKಾ1&ೆ. :ೋಸLೆ5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜ ಮ-ಾBೕಶ&ಾEದ F (cid:1)ಜಯನಗರದ ರತ!Nಂ2ಾಸ(cid:5)ಾBೕಶ&ಾEಕೃಷO(cid:31)ೇವ&ಾಯನ ಕುಲ ಗುರುಗJಾEದF1 - 37 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 5(cid:16)ೕ(cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರು 2. 5(cid:16)ೕ 5(cid:16)ೕH(cid:26)ಾಸ .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 2ಾಗು 3. 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಮಚಂದ(cid:16) .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರು 3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ ಮೂರು ಜನ ಮ2ಾನುQಾವರು ಇ(cid:21) (cid:22) ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಸ;&ಾE(cid:31)ಾF&ೆ ಇ(cid:21)(cid:22)ಯ Rಾವತು1 ವ(cid:20)ವ:ೆ; 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಯರ ಮಠTೆD :ೇU(cid:31)ಾFE(cid:31)ೆ. 5(cid:16)ೕ ಉತ1&ಾ(cid:10) ಮಠದ 5(cid:16)ೕ ರಘW .ೕಥ(cid:27)ರ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನವX ಇ(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:31)ೆ3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ ಮಠ ಮತು1 :ೋಸLೆ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರ ಮಠದ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನಗJೇ ಇ(cid:21) (cid:22) 2ೆಚುY ಇದು ಅ(cid:5)ಾ(cid:10)Tಾಲ(cid:10)ಂದಲೂ ಈ ಸ;ಳವX5cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ 2ಾಗು 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರ ಮಠTೆD :ೇU(cid:31)ಾFE(cid:31)ೆ ಅ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:20)ಗು ಈಗ ಇದನು! ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄUÀrØ ಎಂದು ¥ÀmÁÖ $ಾ N ಮೂರು ಮಠಗಳ :ಾ7Iತ(cid:20)ದ(cid:21)(cid:22)ಡಲು ಇ[YಸುKೆ1ೕ(cid:26)ೆ. ಅದTಾDE ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳವರ ಮಠ :ೋಸLೆ 5(cid:16)ೕ (cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರ ಮಠ 2ಾಗು 5(cid:16)ೕ ಉತ1&ಾ(cid:10) ಮಠ 3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ ಮೂರು ಮಠಗಳ 2ೆಸU(cid:12)ೆ ªÀÄoÀvÁæAiÀÄUÀrØ ಎಂದು ಸ(cid:26)ೆ(cid:27) ನಂಬ(cid:29) 192 AiÀÄಕ&ೆ 14-7 ರೂ\ಾ]. 17-00 ಆTಾರªÀżÀî ನವ ಬೃಂ(cid:31)ಾವನ ಗ ಯನು! ¥ÀmÁÖ $ಾಡ^ೇTೆಂದು ^ೇ Tೆ. ಗಂ(cid:12)ಾವ. ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16) :ಾ7Iಗಳ/ ಮಠದ ಪರ(cid:26)ಾE ಸ3 ಜಯ&ಾಂ ಸರ _ೋ‘ 10.10. He submits that even in this representation there is no claim made by Shri Raghavendra - 38 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Swamy Mutt that the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at the Nava Brindavana Gadde, more importantly he submits that there is an admission that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvara Teertharu is at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 10.11. It is in view of the above representation that the Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was constrained to file a suit in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 against defendant No.1 being Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, defendant No.2 being Shri. Vyasarayaru Mutt of Sosale, defendants No.3 and 4 being the representatives of the above Mutts. In the said suit, Shri Uttaradi Mutt had prayed for declaration to the effect that the Shri Uttaradi Mutt is the sole owner of the land in S.No.192 (Old S.No.239) measuring 14 acres 7 guntas, situated at Anegundi village and to enter the plaintiff-Shri Uttaradi Mutt’s name in the - 39 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 mutation register, revenue records by deleting the name of the defendants No.1 and 2. 10.12. His submission is that as per the representation made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt before the Munsiff, Gangavathi, it is clear that even as per Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s brindavana, is located in Sy.No.192, Anegundi. 10.13. In the said suit, a written statement came to be filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which reads as under: Copy of the Additional Written Statement In the Court of Munciff at Gangavathi in O.S.No.65/1 of 1959-60 H.S. Stya Pramooda Teertharu……… Pltf vs H.H. Suyanendra Tirtharu & others.... Defts. In the above case the defendants 1 and 2 submit their additional written statement as follows:- Under Order VIII R. 9 of CPC: - 40 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 1.- It is specifically denied that the plaintiff holiness has inherited the suit land through succession as he is put to strict proof of the same and further it is denied that he is the owner and possessor of the suit land.</p><p>2. That there are nine (9) holy Brindavanas among them the Moola Brindavana of Shri Vyasaraja Matt, Shri. Vyasarayaru is situated. Including Moola Brindavana there are five Brindavanas of Shri Vyasaraya Mutt i.e, Vyasarayaru, Srinivas Tirtharu Rama Thirtharu, Govinda Tirtharu (Govinda Vadiyaru) and Padmanabha Tirtharu (Padmanabharu comes to the common i.e, D.1 and and 2). There are three Holi brindavanas belonging to Deft. No.1's Mutt they are Ravindra Tirtharu, Vageesha Tirtharu and Sudhendra Tirtharu. The plaintiff with mala fide intention has preferred to mention in the rejoinder para No.7 that the Holy Brindavans are not in the possession of the defendants 1 and 2. On the contrary the plaintiff. has never been in possession of the same. Since time immemorial the defendants 1 and 2 are in possession of the Holy Brindavans by performing Pujas and Aradhanas as owners and possessors till to this day.</p><p>3. That the plaintiff ought to have submitted the records at the time of filing the suit. But the late production of the documents at the time of rejoinder and further no proper reasons are shown for their late production, hence they are liable to be rejected.</p><p>4. That the orders passed by the Nasim samsthan Anegundi in the year 1351 F. is conclusive and the same is in consonance with the law and procedure, which not be deemed to be set aside under law. The subsequent orders. of Nasim as allege in para No.4 of rejoinder passed in the year 1355 F. to which these defendants deny is without jurisdiction - 41 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 as the said order had been passed ignoring the law of limitation and procedure prevailent then.. Further the order of Rajasab and restoration of patta as alleged do not stand in the eye of law, and hence denied specifically.</p><p>5. That these defendants 1 and 2 specifically deny the right and title of the plaintiff over the suit land and the plaintiff bound to prove all the allegations made in para 8 of the rejoinder. That the factum of purchase by H.H. Satya Dhanaru is false and hence denied. The plaintiff is not entitled to lead secondary evidence. The peshkar Krishn Rao as alleged in the sale deed was not a owner and possessor of the suit land and hence denied.</p><p>6. That the rejoinder has not been signed either by the plaintiff's holiness or by his authorised agent hence the same is liable to be rejected.</p><p>7. That the defendants 1 and 2 have appointed D. 3 and D.4 as their respective agents as such they are entitled to appear and allegation in para 9 rejoinder is vague. Hence it is prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs. Defendants 1 and 2..</p><p>1. His Holiness Suyamendra Thirtharu through Agent Jayaramachar Sir Joshi Sd/- in Hindi.</p><p>2. His Holiness Vidya Prasanna Theertharu through: Agent Hanumanthacharya Sir joshi. Sd/- in Kannada.-. 42 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 It is to certify on oath this day that the contents of additional W/s are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. Defendants 1 and 2.</p><p>1. His Holiness Suyamendra Thirtharu through agent Jayaramachar Sir Joshi Sd/- in Hindi.</p><p>2. His Holiness Vidya Prasanna Teertharu through Agent Hanmanthacharya Sir joshi. Sd/- in Kannada. Dt:</p><p>29. 11.60. Through: Sd/-Pleader. 10.14. Even in the written statement, it is clearly admitted by both Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Vyasaraya Mutt that there are nine holy brindavanas at Anegundi, the moola brindavana of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is situate there. Apart from moola brindavana of Shri. Srinivasa, Shri. Rama, Shri. Govinda (Govinda Wodeyaru) and Shri. Padmanabha Teertharu, as also Shri. Raveendra, Shri. Vageesha and Shri. Sudheendra Teertharu are situated - 43 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 therein. At no place in the written statement, a claim is made as regards the existence of the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 10.15. In the said suit, evidence of Shri. Sujayendra Teertharu, the Peetadhipati of Raghavendra Swamy Mutt was led on 24.12.1967. In his deposition, he stated that the island is the property of all three Mutts, and there are brindavanas in all three Mutts situated therein. The nine brindavanas are as follows:</p><p>10. Shri Padmanabha Teertharu 11. Shri Kavindra Teertharu 12. Shri Vagisha Teertharu 13. Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu 14. Shri Sudhindra Teertharu 15. Shri Vyasarayaru (Vysararaj Teertharu) 16. Shri Srinivas Teertharu 17. Shri Rama Teertharu 18. Shri Govindawadiyaru.-. 44 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.16. Out of the said brindavanas, Shri Padmanabha Teertharu is common to all the three Mutts, Shri Kaveendra and Shri Vageesha Teertharu are common to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is solely that of Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Sudheendra Teertharu is that of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Govinda Wodeyaru, Shri. Srinivasa and Shri. Rama Teertharu are exclusively that of Shri. Vyasaraya Mutt. 10.17. By relying on the above, Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande submits that even as per the Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in his deposition tendered on 24.12.1967 the moola brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu was located in Anegundi. Furthermore there is no claim made that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde.-. 45 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.18. The suit that was filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was decreed and Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was declared to be the sole and absolute owner of Sy.No.192 of Anegundi village vide Judgment and decree dated 13.03.1968. 10.19. Thus, his contention is that the entire property belongs to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, of course he submits that poojas could be performed by other Mutts of their respective predecessor Gurus. 10.20. An appeal having been filed against the decree, the appeal also came to be dismissed on 2.02.1972; thereafter, no challenge was made, and as such, it attained finality. 10.21. In the year 1991, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt sought to interfere with Shri. Uttaradi Mutt performing pooja and aradhana at Anegundi; hence, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was constrained to - 46 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 file one more suit seeking a permanent injunction against Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt from interfering with the aradhana of Shri. Padmanabha, Shri. Kaveendra and Shri. Vageesha Teertharu, which was defended by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt by filing written statement contending that they also have the right to perform aradhana of the said Teertharu. 10.22. His submission is that there is no mention made of Shri Jaya Teertharu in the written statement, nor is any claim made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that there is a brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu as regards whom they have to perform pooja and aradhana. 10.23. His submission is that in none of the above proceedings the dispute centered around the identity of the brindavana and never was there - 47 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 any assertion made that it belongs to Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 10.24. It is only now that a departure is sought to be made contending that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde, by wrongly contending that the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is that of Shri Jaya Teertharu which cannot be so made. It was always understood that the brindavana was that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is only now that an assertion is made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Therefore, it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish that brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu which it has failed to do so and until they do so, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt ought to be permitted to perform pooja and aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at his brindavana.-. 48 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.25. In the year 2022, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt filed W.P. No.102614/2022, and for the first time in a court proceeding, it was claimed that there is a brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu in Sy. No.192 of Anegundi, which is known as Nava Brindavana Gadde. This court, vide its order dated 15.07.1952, held that there is nothing to show on record that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had conducted aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde, which order has attained finality. 10.26. Shri. Uttaradi Mutt had filed W.P. No.103449/2023 wherein this court permitted Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to conduct aradhana of Shri Raghuvaryaya Teertharu which order has attained finality.-. 49 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.27. He submits that offerings of prayers to former gurus is an essential religious custom of Madhva community, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and its followers are bound to offer prayers to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu as regards whom they have been offering prayers for centuries. Merely because now Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is making a new claim without the establishment of such a claim, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt cannot be deprived of performing pooja which they have been doing for centuries. What Shri. Uttaradi Mutt have sought for in the present petition is only for police help to carry out the poojas as required and as done in the past and now due to the obstruction held out by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt necessary police help is sought for. If not for the said obstruction, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt would not have approached the authorities and on their refusal this court.-. 50 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.28. The brindavana being the final resting place of a saint belonging to Madhva community, there is only one saint who could be said to be in the said Brindavana and as per Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, it is Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s brindavana. The Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is near Malkhed, Kalaburagi where prayers are offered in his name. 10.29. He relies upon a Judgment in S.Rangaraj –v- P.Jagjeeva1 more particularly, para 51 thereof to contend that the State is required to protect fundamental rights. Para 51 thereof is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>51. We are amused yet troubled by the stand taken by the State Government with regard to the film which has received the National Award. We want to put the anguished question, what good is the protection of freedom of expression if the State does not take care to protect it?. If the film, is unobjectionable and cannot constitutionally be restricted under Article 19(2), freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of 1 1989(2) SCC574- 51 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 violence. That would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation. It is the duty of the State to protect the freedom of expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the State. The State cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to prevent it and protect the freedom of expression. 10.30. By relying on S.Rangaraj’s case, his submission is that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has a right to offer prayers at the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu. This right would be negated if the obstruction held out by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not dealt with in a proper and required manner by the jurisdictional police by offering necessary protection to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt. The right of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt will be frustrated if the authorities, including the police authorities, do not assist Shri. Uttaradi Mutt in asserting such a right. 10.31. In order to further establish that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is not at Nava - 52 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana Gadde, he submits that judicial notice could be taken under Section 56 of the Evidence Act that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, Kalaburagi which is recorded not only in the commentaries of Madhva faith but also in various gazetteers which have been published by the State. 10.32. In this regard he relies upon the Mysore Gazetteer, 1966, Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka Gazeteer, Dharwad District, publication of Karnataka Tourism Dept., Gulbarga district and Gazetteer of India, Karnataka State published by government of Karnataka. 10.33. These publications in the Gazetteers along with deposition of Peetadhipathi of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60, he submits is a conclusive proof that Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu’s brindavana is located in Nava Brindavana - 53 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Gadde, Anegundi and that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is located in Malkhed, Kalaburagi. 10.34. He relies upon the following decisions:</p><p>10. 35. In Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das v. Surjanarayan Das2, more particularly para 25 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>25. It is urged for the appellant that what is stated in the Gazetter cannot be treated as evidence. These statements in the Gazetter are not relied on as evidence of title but as providing historical material and the practice followed by the math and its head. The Gazetteer can be consulted on matters of public history. 10.36. Relying on the decision in Surjanarayan Das case, submission is that though what is stated in a gazetteer cannot be considered evidence but the statement made in the Gazetteer can be regarded as historical material and of public history. These aspects if taken into consideration, and judicial notice is taken under 2 1966 Supp SCR436- 54 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Section 56 of the Evidence Act, the Gazetteer would establish that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and not of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and any assertion made contrary thereto would have to be established by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 10.37. In ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.3, particularly paras 15 to 19 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>15. The learned counsel then contending that this Court will not entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC216 wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 218, para</p><p>7) “7. In our view, it is apparent that the order passed by the High Court is, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. It is true that many matters could be decided after referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be a ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of alleged breach of contract. Whether the alleged non- 3 (2004) 3 SCC553- 55 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 supply of road permits by the appellants would justify breach of contract by the respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and is not required to be decided or dealt with in a writ petition. Such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuing writs.</p><p>16. A perusal of this judgment though shows that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of facts which requires consideration of evidence which is not on record, will not normally be entertained by a court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This decision again, in our opinion, does not lay down an absolute rule that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact the parties should be relegated to a civil suit. In this view of ours, we are supported by a judgment of this Court in the case of Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda [(1969) 3 SCC769 where dealing with such a situation of disputed questions of fact in a writ petition this Court held: (SCC p. 774, paras 14-16) “14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit-in- reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to - 56 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.</p><p>15. From the averments made in the petition filed by the appellants it is clear that in proof of a large number of allegations the appellants relied upon documentary evidence and the only matter in respect of which conflict of facts may possibly arise related to the due publication of the notification under Section 4 by the Collector.</p><p>16. In the present case, in our judgment, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that it will not determine disputed question of fact. The High Court has jurisdiction to - 57 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 determine questions of fact, even if they are in dispute and the present, in our judgment, is a case in which in the interests of both the parties the High Court should have entertained the petition and called for an affidavit-in-reply from the respondents, and should have proceeded to try the petition instead of relegating the appellants to a separate suit.</p><p>17. The above judgment of Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC769 finds support from another judgment of this Court in the case of Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council [(1970) 1 SCC582 wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 587, para</p><p>13) “Merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit against a public body. The questions of fact raised by the petition in this case are elementary.</p><p>18. This observation of the Court was made while negating a contention advanced on behalf of the respondent Municipality which contended that the petition filed by the appellant Company therein apparently raised questions of fact which argument of the Municipality was accepted by the High Court holding that such disputed questions of fact cannot be tried in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But this Court held otherwise.</p><p>19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In the above case of - 58 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC769 this Court even went to the extent of holding that in a writ petition, if the facts require, even oral evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the writ court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact. 10.38. By relying on the decision in ABL International’s case, he submits that it is not in all cases where there are disputed questions of fact, would the writ court refuse to exercise jurisdiction. It is only disputed question of fact that require a trial to be held that the court could refuse to entertain jurisdiction. In the present matter, it is undisputed that Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu’s brindavana is at Anegundi which is admitted by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, it is only in the year 1985 that the former pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt on his deathbed had - 59 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 indicated that he was mistaken to believe the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu to be that of Shri. Raghuvara Teetharu, and as such, he had instructed his disciples to perform the aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. His submission is that until the year 1985 there was no dispute and even the pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and the Mutt by itself had accepted and asserted that the said Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu. If that be so, for the first time an assertion being made in the year 1985 to the contrary it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish the assertion in a suit to be filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, it cannot therefore be contended that it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file such a suit.-. 60 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.39. In Tejraj-President, Jain Sangh v. State (M.B.) & Collector4, particularly para 10 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>19. The Supreme Court then, after indicating the question involved in the case, said that all those questions should be decided in a properly constituted suit in a Civil Court rather than in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is thus clear that the power under Article 226 ought not to be exercised if the right which the Petitioner is seeking to enforce depends on facts which are complex and disputed and which have to be established. The dispute as to the facts persuading the High Court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution must, however, be real and substantial. It must be with regard to perception of facts as distinguished from their evaluation. The rule that the High Court should not in an application under Article 226 embark on an investigation into the disputed facts and materials for determining whether the Petitioner Mutt has the right which he is seeking to enforce, cannot apply where the doubt or dispute is as to the construction of a document or a judicial order or as to the effect and meaning of a record. Again, the mere statement of the opponent in a petition under Article 226 challenging the correctness of the facts averred by the suppliant and saying that he is in possession of documents and materials to contradict the statements made by the Petitioner is not sufficient for holding that the case is of the type in which facts have to be established. If such a statement is accepted as sufficient to decline to exercise power under 4 1957 SCC OnLine MP81- 61 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Article 226 then the opponent in a petition under Article 226 and not the Court would be the arbiter of the question whether the case is of a type where questions of facts have to be established. The opponent is under an obligation to produce sufficient material to satisfy the Court that there does exist a real and serious dispute as to the facts on which the Petitioner concerned bases his rights sought to be enforced. As will be shown presently, in this case there is no such dispute as to the material facts. When the right sought to be enforced is clear and undisputable and is a fundamental right, the Petitioner cannot be directed to avail himself of the remedy of a suit (see Himmatlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR1954SC403]. and Mahabir Prasad v. B.S. Gupta, Sales Tax Officer, Indore [1957 M.P. Cases 214.]. 10.40. By relying on Jain Sangh’s case, he submits that a dispute has been raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt subsequently, and the dispute is not on account of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt. Accepted facts which were admitted by the pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt was that the brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu. It is only after 1985 that the said aspect has been disputed and recently that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has - 62 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 obstructed Shri. Uttaradi Mutt offering pooja, aradhana, etc. for Shri. Raghuvarya Rayaru contending that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 10.41. On the basis of the above, he submits that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt itself has admitted at an undisputed point of time that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has now only with the intention of creating problems and obstacles in Shri. Uttaradi Mutt performing required poojas is contending that the brindavana is that of Shri Jaya Teertharu requiring Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to approach Courts of law for protection being a law abiding entity. If not for the obstructions held out by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt would not have approached this court.-. 63 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.42. The Brindavana where aradhana and puja was being performed for the last several centuries is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and it is only now that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has sought to contend that the said Brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. It is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish the same by cogent evidence and it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to seek for a declaration in a properly instituted suit that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. The status-quo as prevalent now is that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and as such, it does not now lie for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to contend that it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to establish the Brindavana to be of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu.-. 64 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 10.43. His submission is that it is only in the Nirupa issued by the Peetadhipathi that the Peetadhipathi has stated that he was under mistaken belief that the Brindavana is that of the Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu when in actuality it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. This alleged mistaken belief having been acted upon for at last four hundred and more years and the aradhana being performed as that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is only in the year 1985 that the Nirupa was issued just prior to the death of the Peetadhipati. This cannot be a ground for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to contend that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 10.44. For centuries, these prayers being offered at the Brindavana to Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and their followers who have impleaded themselves - 65 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 as respondents No.6 to 15 to establish it, to the contrary. The suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, until a decision is rendered in the said suit, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt ought to be permitted to offer prayers for Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu in Navabrindavana Gadde. 10.45. The offering of prayers to the former gurus and saints is a fundamental religious practice of the Madhwa community, as such, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt whose saint is Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is the bounden duty of all followers of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to offer prayers to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu during the important events of his lifetime, and if such poojas are not offered, it would amount to disrespect to that saint, which is not in the interest of the Mutt and/or the followers of the Mutt. The poojas having been offered for centuries to Shri.-. 66 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghuvarya Teertharu, the followers of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt having followed and implemented, the belief that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is also a bounden duty on the part of the said followers to see to it that the said Brindavana is not treated as that of anyone else and that only pooja of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is offered in the said Brindavana. 10.46. The Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu, being situated in Navabrindavana Gadde, is established by the evidence of the Peetadhipathi of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in O.S.No.65/1/1959-60 wherein the name of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu has been mentioned by the said Peetadhipathi. 10.47. Even in O.S.No.193/1992, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, in its evidence, has categorically stated that the Brindavana is that of Shri.-. 67 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghuvarya Teertharu. This aspect is reflected in the Karnataka Toursim Gazetteer, Gulbarga Region (Anegundi). Similarly, it is also established by the very same documents that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is not at Navabrindavana Gadde. The Mysore State Gazetteer published in the year 1966 indicates and establishes that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, Kalaburagi. The Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka, Dharwad District also speaks of the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu being situated in Malkhed. The Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga Region as also the Gazetteer of India, Karnataka State Gazetteer, Government of Karnataka indicates that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s Brindavana is at Malkhed, Kalaburagi. The Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu being at Nava Brindavana Gadde cannot be disputed. Once it is established that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s - 68 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana is situated at Malkhed, Kalaburagi, there cannot be another Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Navabrindavana Gadde. Furthermore, it cannot be contended by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu since there cannot be two saints who occupy the same Brindavana. On the basis of the above, the submission of Sri.Amit Kumar Deshpande is that the writ petition filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt has to be allowed and the writ petition filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has to be dismissed.</p><p>11. Shri. Prabhuling Navadgi, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.5-Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would submit that, 11.1. It is only the amended prayer B(i) in W.P.No.103982/2023 which is required to be considered by this Court. Other prayers having - 69 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 been rendered infructuous due to the passage of time, he submits that interim prayer and final prayer, being one and the same, cannot be granted. 11.2. He denies that there is any admission made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as regards the existence of the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Navabrindavana Gadde and submits that there is a lot of research which has happened which would indicate otherwise. 11.3. Shri. Vadirajaru, a pontiff of Sodi Mutt, Udupi, had written a book indicating the existence of the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava brindavana Gadde, one Shri. BNK Sharma, scholar in his treatise History of Dvaita School of Vedanta and his literature, also recognised that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde.-. 70 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 11.4. Another researcher M.R.Anantha Padmanabha Rao also recognizes that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 11.5. Shri. Sannur Bheema Bhat has translated the Sanskrit work of Shri. Vadirajaru mentioned earlier into Kannada which records the existence of Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s Brindavana at Navabrindavana Gadde. 11.6. It is further claimed that Shri. T.K.Venugopala Dasaru who has done research on Dasa Parampara has also written a booklet on Srimad Jaya Theerta Moola Brindavana which is stated to be situate at Navabrindavana Gadde. 11.7. The government of Karnataka while celebrating Anegundi Utsava had also published a souvenir authored by Sharana Basappa Kolkar that Shri.-. 71 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana is at Nava Brindavana Gadde, hence, his submission is that in the light of these scholars having written and having published works indicating Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana being located at Nava Brindavana Gadi, the so-called admission on part of the then Peetadhipathi of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt cannot be the basis for the claim of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt. 11.8. His submission is that there being a dispute as regards whose brindavana is located at Nava brindavana Gadde, it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file a suit in relation thereto and only on a determination of the matter by a Civil Court, could the matter be laid to rest and a claim made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt be considered. 11.9. The aspect of whether Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is the owner of Sy.No.192; he submits that another - 72 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 matter is pending consideration before this court, in RSA No.100446/2015, which would have to decide on that aspect. He submits that the suit in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60 has no relevance for this case. 11.10. He relies upon the following decisions:</p><p>11. 11. In Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma5, particularly paragraphs 37 and 89 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>37. It was vehemently urged that declaration of the character of a church, viz., whether it was autocephalous was solely dependent upon the canonical laws and it necessarily involved an adjudication of what was the applicable canon, what was its interpretation and what are the religious beliefs, practices, customs and usage in the church which pertained to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the civil courts could not embark on such an enquiry. This is the farthest or the highest stand that could be taken by the appellant. The answer is twofold, one Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and other Article 25 of the Constitution. The latter guarantees constitutionally freedom of conscience and the right freely to 5 1995 Supp (4) SCC286- 73 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 profess, practise and propagate religion to every person. Its reach has been explained in various decisions. In His Holiness Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami v. State of T.N. [Seshammal v. State of T.N., (1972) 2 SCC11sub nom His Holiness Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami v. State of T.N., AIR1972SC1586 it was held that this article guarantees freedom to practise rituals and ceremonies which are integral parts of a religion. In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P. [(1977) 1 SCC677:</p><p>1977. SCC (Cri) 147 : AIR1977SC908 it was held that right to practise and propagate not only matters of faith or belief but all those rituals and practices which are regarded as integral parts of a religion by the followers of a doctrine. In S.P. Mittal v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC51: AIR1983SC1 it was held that freedom or right involving the conscience must naturally receive a wide interpretation. The suit filed was thus maintainable. The injunction and prohibition sought from interfering in administration of Church are certainly matters which pertain to the religious office. Even the declaration that the Church is episcopal is covered in the expansive expression of religion as explained in Mittal case [(1983) 1 SCC51: AIR1983SC1 . The word ‘episcopal’ means “of or pertaining to bishops, having a government vested in bishop”. A suit for declaration of such a right would be maintainable under Section 9. Not only because it is claim to an office but also because there is no other forum where such dispute can be resolved. If a dispute arises whether a particular religious shrine has ceased to be so due to its anti-religion activities then the followers of that religion or belief and faith cannot be denied the right to approach the court. Explanation I is not restrictive of the right or matters pertaining to religion. It only removes the doubt to enable the courts to entertain suits where dispute about religious office is involved. The right - 74 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 to religion having become fundamental right, it would include the right to seek declaration that the Church was episcopal. But the court may refrain from adjudicating upon purely religious matters as it may be handicapped to enter into the hazardous hemisphere of religion. Maintainability of the suit should not be confused with exercise of jurisdiction. Nor is there any merit in the submission that Explanation I could not save suits where the right to property or to an office was not contested or where the said right depended on decisions of questions as to religious faith, belief, doctrine or creed. The emphasis on the expression “is contested” used in Explanation I is not of any consequence. It widens the ambit of the Explanation and includes in its fold any right which is contested to be a right of civil nature even though such right may depend on decisions of questions relating to religious rights or ceremonies. But from that it cannot be inferred that where the right to office or property is not contested it would cease to be a suit cognizable under Section 9. The argument is not available on facts but that shall be adverted to later. Suffice it to mention that in Ugamsingh [(1970) 3 SCC831: (1971) 2 SCR836 the plaintiff's claim was that they were entitled to worship without interference of the idol of Adeshwarji in the temple named after him at Paroli according to tenets observed by the Digambari sect of the Jain religion. It was held that from the pleadings and the controversy between the parties it was clear that the issue was not one which was confined merely to rites and rituals but one which effected the rights of worship. If the Digambaris have a right to worship at the temple, the attempt of the Swetamberis to put Chakshus or to place Dhwajadand or Kalash in accordance with their tenets and to claim that the idol is a Swetamberi idol was to preclude the Digambaris from exercising their right to worship at the temple, with respect to - 75 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 which a civil suit is maintainable under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The scope of the section was thus expanded to include even right to worship.</p><p>89. The conclusions thus reached are:</p><p>1. (a) The civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and suits. (b) The expression ‘civil nature’ used in Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is wider than even civil proceedings, and thus extends to such religious matters which have civil consequence. (c) Section 9 is very wide. In absence of any ecclesiastical courts any religious dispute is cognizable, except in very rare cases where the declaration sought may be what constitutes religious rite.</p><p>2. Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not debar those cases where declaration is sought for a period prior to the Act came into force or for enforcement of right which was recognised before coming into force of the Act.</p><p>3. The following findings in Moran Mar Basselios (supra) have become final and operate as res judicata: (a) The Catholicate of the East was created in Malankara in 1912. (b) The Constitution framed in 1934 by Malankara Association is valid. (c) The Catholicos were not heretics nor they had established separate church.-. 76 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 (d) The meeting held by Patriarch group in 1935 was invalid.</p><p>4. (a) The effect of the two judgments rendered by the Appellate Court of the Royal Court and in Moran Mar Basselios (supra) by this Court is that both Catholicos and Patriarch groups continue to be members of the Syrian Orthodox Church. (b) The Patriarch of Antioch has no temporal powers over the Churches. (c) Effect of the creation of Catholicate at Malankara and 1934 Constitution is that the Patriarch can exercise spiritual powers subject to the Constitution. (d) The spiritual powers of the Patriarch of Antioch can be exercised by the Catholico in accordance with the Constitution.</p><p>5. (a) The Hudaya Canon produced by the Patriarch is not the authentic version. (b) There is no power in the Hudaya Canon to excommunicate Catholicos.</p><p>6. The excommunication of the Catholicos by the Patriarch was invalid.</p><p>7. All churches, except those which are of Evangelistic Association or Simhasana or St. Mary are under spiritual and temporal control of the Malankara Association in accordance with 1934 Constitution. 11.12. By relying on Moran Mar Marthoma’s case, he submits that it is only a civil court which can - 77 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 entertain jurisdiction in the matter and not this court since there are disputed questions of facts which have to be adjudicated. This court ought not to embark to see such a finding on disputed questions of fact in a writ proceeding when it could only be done so by a trial Court. Any right, even under Article 25 of the Constitution, could be pressed into service by filing a suit and not by filing a writ petition is the submission. 11.13. In Basant Singh -v- Janki Singh AIR1967SC341 particularly para 6 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>6. The explanation of Janki Singh and Kailashpati Singh that the plaint was drafted by their lawyer Ramanand Singh at the instance of the panchas including one Ramanand and they signed and verified the plaint without understanding its contents cannot be accepted. There is positive evidence on the record that the plaint was drafted at the instance of Janki Singh and was filed under his instructions. The plaint was signed not only by Janki Singh and Kailashpati Singh but also by their lawyer, Ramanand Singh. Neither Ramanand Singh nor the panch Ramanand was called as a - 78 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 witness. Even in this litigation, Ramanand Singh was acting as a lawyer on behalf of some of the defendants. Kailashpati Singh is a Homeopathic medical practitioner and knows English. The plaint was read over to Janki Singh. Both Janki Singh and Kailashpati Singh signed the plaint after understanding its contents and verified all the statements made in it as true to their knowledge. They then well knew that Ramyad Singh had died in 1939 after the passing of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act. It is not shown that the admission in the plaint as to the date of death of Ramyad Singh is not true or that it was made under some error or misapprehension. This admission must be regarded as a strong piece of evidence in this suit with regard to the date of death of Ramyad Singh. 11.14. In the case of Satyadeo Prasad -v- Smt.Chanderjoti Debi and others6 AIR1996Patna 110, particularly para 31 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>31. Section 21 of the Evidence Act states that admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the persons who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in certain cases with which we are not concerned for the present. Section 31 lays down that admissions “are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained”. On a reading of the two 6 AIR1996PATNA110- 79 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 sections together, the law on the point appears to be clear that an admission of a person is admissible in evidence as against him and though, under certain circumstances, it operates as estoppel against him, it is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted and it can be explained away by the maker thereof or the person against whom it is sought to be proved. For example, a person against whom it is sought to be used may prove that it was made without his knowledge or in ignorance of facts admitted, or under such other circumstances; but there is no doubt about its admissibility in evidence against the maker thereof. The above view gains support from a Single Judge decision of this court in Jairam Mahaton v. Lokenath Mahaton, AIR1930Pat 405, wherein it was held that, in a title suit the proceedings in a previous title suit between the present defendants and a third person were relevant under S. 19 and the pleadings of the defendants were admissible as admission of the defendants under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. In S.T. Chendikamba v. K.I. Viswanathamayya, AIR1939Mad 446; it was pointed out that what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so, but the party making the admission may give evidence to rebut this presumption, and unless and until that is satisfactorily done the fact admitted must be taken to be established. It was further pointed out that the same principle will apply to an admission in a signed pleading, and that, so far as Indian Law is concerned, there can be no doubt that under the provisions of the Evidence Act, an admission contained in a plaint or written statement or an affidavit or any sworn deposition given by a party in a prior litigation will be regarded as an admission in a subsequent action, though it is capable of rebuttal. The statement of Hardeo (defendant No.2) in his written statement in the previous partition suit (Ext.-. 80 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023</p><p>6) is, therefore, admissible in evidence, and unless any evidence in rebuttal has been given by him, that will be a very valuable piece of evidence against his contention in the present suit. Unfortunately, no explanation has been given by him with regard to the statements made in the above written statement, and all that he has said in his evidence is that he did not know the contents of that written statement, as it had been drafted at the instructions of Kamta Prasad. Kamta Prasad, who has been examined as P.W. 24, has, no doubt, admitted in his examination-in-chief that he had also come when Hardeo filed the written statement in that suit. But the stand taken by the defendants in cross- examining this witness is to the effect that the written statement was not written in his (Kamta's) presence. A suggestion had been put to him that the written statement was not written in his presence, and he stated that it is not a fact that the written statements of Hardeo and Jagarnath were not written in his presence. Thus, the explanation offered by Hardeo is not convincing and cannot be accepted. That being so, the admissions made in the above written statement are admissible against him. 11.15. Though several other judgments have been annexed to the memo, he does not refer to or rely on any of those judgments. 11.16. The submission of Shri. Prabhuling Navadagi, learned Senior counsel is that the dispute being - 81 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 civil in nature, the civil court would have to decide the dispute. The deposition of Peetadhipati is not relevant since subsequently, the said Peetadhipati had issued a Nirupa wherein he had categorically stated that he was under a misapprehension that the brindavana located in Navabrindavana Gadde was that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. After having read various treatises, he has now come to a conclusion that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and has called upon his disciples to treat the said brindavana as that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and go ahead with the prayers to him therein. 11.17. On enquiry as to when this Nirupa was issued, he submits that the Nirupa was recorded by the disciples of the erstwhile Peetadhipati on 5.06.1985. On enquiry as to whether any pooja or aradhana has been performed after - 82 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 5.06.1985 of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and if any document could be placed in support thereof, though he submits that the pooja and aradhana has been carried out, there is no particular document that is placed on record in relation to the Aradhana having been performed but some pamphlets relating to the announcement of the aradhana are placed on record. 11.18. Based on the above, he submits that from the time Nirupa was issued, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has been performing aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde and as such, the application filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt for protection ought not to have been rejected. Based on the above, he submits that the writ petition filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt is required to be dismissed and that filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt be allowed.-. 83 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12. Shri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 15 who are impleaded, subsequently submits that; 12.1. The respondents No.6 to 15 are followers and devotees of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, their rights would be affected by any orders that may be passed in the present matter in as much as it is respondents No.6 to 15 who are going to be performing the pooja and any order against Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would affect them adversely. 12.2. At the outset Shri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel submits that he would be adopting the submissions made by and on behalf of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt by Shri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi learned senior counsel.-. 84 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.3. In addition, he submits not only in support of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt but as also on behalf of the devotees that the dispute in the present matter is as regard the identity of one Brindavana in Navabrindavana Gadde, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt claiming it to be that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and the very same Brindavana is claimed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and respondents No.6 to 15 as that Shri Jaya Teertharu. 12.4. Subsequent to the impleading application filed in the present matter, respondents No.6 to 15 have also filed a representative suit in OS No.35/2024 before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Gangavathi seeking for declarative and injunctive relief against Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Vyasaraja Mutt. The Reliefs as sought for are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: - 85 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 i. To Declare that the Moola Brindavana of Sri. Jaya Teertharu is at Navabrindavana Gaddi Anegundi Village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District and further to declare the claim of the 1st defendant that it is the Brindavana of Sri. Raghuvaryaru is untenable and illegal. ii. Injunct the 1st defendant and their henchmen, workers and their followers or any one claiming under them not to worship by conducting daily pujas and aradhana or Mahimotsava to the Brindavana of Sri Jaya Teertharu as that of Sri. Raghavaryaru at Nava Brundavana Gaddi, Anegundi Village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District. iii. Grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble court deems fit grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 12.5. The Single Bench, having rejected the impleading application on an appeal filed in Writ Appeal No.100023/2024, the Division Bench has categorically concluded that any order passed in the writ petition would affect or would have a bearing on the suit that the impleading applicants have filed and, as such they cannot be said not to have any interest, in the subject matter of the writ petition. Whether the claim - 86 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 or independent right is claimed through Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is proper or not is to be decided in the suit where both Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt are parties. Respondents No.6 to 15 cannot be considered to be ordinary devotees since they have initiated a suit in O.S. No.35/2024. Though they are not necessary parties, they would be proper parties. Thus, he submits that any order passed in the present matter would have a direct bearing on respondents No.6 to 15. 12.6. As regards the maintainability of the writ petition, he submits that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is seeking a direction to the authorities to prevent Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt from performing the Poojas of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Navabrindavana Gadde. There has been no determination of this aspect by any court of law - 87 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 till now. Without declaration of the civil right, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt cannot seek such a direction to be issued against respondent-State as regards undeclared civil rights. 12.7. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri. Althaf Ahamed v. State of Karnataka and others7 more particularly paras 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference.</p><p>5. The weighty aspect which dissuades the court from exercising the writ jurisdiction is that the dispute between the parties is essentially in relation to validity of the gift deed. This dispute involves civil rights. In the ultimate analysis, what is to be adjudicated is whether respondent Nos.5 and 6 have got valid title over the property or not and whether the Will referred to by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and alleged to have been executed fraudulently and by misrepresentation is valid or not. 5.1 It is in light of these aspects that the assertion of the appellant that he is the absolute owner of the property will have to be examined. Decision on all issues would require leading of evidence and determination of civil rights amongst the parties. It involves adjudication into titular rights of the parties. It is a trite principle that the 7 WA No.713/2023 dated 11.3.2024 - 88 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 dispute regarding property rights cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction. The parties have to take recourse to civil court. 5.2 The contested property rights cannot be dealt with in writ jurisdiction. The writ court can at the best take notice of the property rights of the parties which are already established rights. When a party is claiming under the disputed Will, the writ court would not be able to adjudicate it, for, it is a matter of leading evidence. In the same way when the gift deed is the derivative document, whereunder the parties claim their respective title rights and dispute one another’s claims, the adjudication has to be done by the civil court. The remedy before the civil court would be proper remedy in such circumstances. 5.3 This is reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sohan Lal vs. Union of India and Another (AIR1957SC529 observing thus, “We do not propose to enquire into the merits of the rival claims of title to the property in dispute set up by the appellant and Jagan Nath. If we were to do so, we would be entering into a field of investigation which is more appropriate for a Civil Court in a properly constituted suit to do rather than for a Court exercising the prerogative of issuing writs. These are questions of fact and law which are in dispute requiring determination before the respective claims of the parties to this appeal can be decided. Before the property in dispute can be restored to Jagan Nath it will be necessary to declare that he had title in that property and was entitled to recover possession of it. This would in effect amount to passing a decree in his favour. In the circumstances to be mentioned hereafter, it is a matter for serious consideration whether in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution such a declaration ought to be made and restoration of the property to Jagan Nath be ordered.” (para</p><p>5) - 89 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.8. Relying on the aforesaid paragraphs in Althaf Ahamed’s case, he submits that when the alleged admissions in the Gazetteer are seriously disputed by respondents, the writ Court cannot adjudicate the undeclared rights. Whenever parties claim their own respective title and dispute the others’ claims, adjudication has to be done by a Civil Court and not by a writ petition. The injunctory relief which Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is seeking for against Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt cannot be so granted in a writ proceeding; such a relief cannot be dehors the ordinary civil remedies which are available under the general law of land before a Civil Court. Respondents No.6 to 15 have filed a comprehensive suit before the civil Court, which would decide the matter. Till then, this Court ought not to intercede in the matter or grant the orders sought by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt.-. 90 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.9. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T.8 more particularly para 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 14. These questions, in our view, were pure questions of fact and could be answered one way or the other only by the civil court in a properly constituted civil suit and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court.</p><p>15. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria [Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC61 and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal 8 AIR2019SC659- 91 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 [Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC230 .) 16. In our view, the writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) in the civil court.</p><p>17. We cannot, therefore, concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court when it unnecessarily went into all the questions of fact arising in the case on the basis of factual pleadings in detail (43 pages) and recorded a factual finding that it was Respondent 1 (writ petitioner) who was in possession of the flat and, therefore, he be restored with his possession of the flat by the appellant.</p><p>18. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, while so directing exceeded its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. Indeed, the High Court in granting such relief, had virtually converted the writ petition into a civil suit and itself to a civil court. In our view, it was not permissible. 12.10. By relying on Roshina’s case, he submits that disputes relating to rights and liabilities of the private individuals must be adjudicated by the civil Courts and not in a writ jurisdiction. The private law dispute cannot be adjudicated in a public law remedy of writ petition, a private law dispute can only be adjudicated in a civil suit.-. 92 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 12.11. He relies upon the decision of the hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes9 more particularly a portion of para 7 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>7. …….. the jurisdiction of the High Court was bypassed, the appellants moved the High Court challenging the competence of the Provincial Legislature to extend the concept of sale, and invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and sought to reopen the decision of the Taxing Authorities on question of fact. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary : it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self- imposed limitations. Resort that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by 9 AIR1964SC1419- 93 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. 12.12. By relying on Thansingh Nathmal’s case, he submits that when Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has an alternative efficacious remedy the writ court ought not to entertain a writ petition under Article 266. It is open to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to move Civil court or tribunal, this court should direct Shri Uttaradi Mutt to move such court or a tribunal and not entertain a claim made by Shri Uttaradi Mutt before this Court. 12.13. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal10 more particularly a portion of para 36 thereof, which is reproduced here under for easy reference; 10 AIR2003SC2686- 94 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 36. ……. The High Court derives its jurisdiction in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if an occasion arises therefor, to make judicial review of the order passed by a statutory authority. It is beyond any cavil that no writ can be issued if the disputes involve private law character. The writ court has also no jurisdiction to determine an issue on private dispute over a property or right under a partnership. ……. 12.14. By relying on Dwarka Prasad Agarwal’s case he submits that no writ can be issued when the dispute involves private law, a writ court can only deal with public law. 12.15. As regards the admission of the deponent in OS No.65/1/1959-60 he submits that the said admission can only bind Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and the person succeeding to the office of the said deponent it cannot be binding on respondent no.6 to 15 who have an independent right. This independent right has been recognized by the Division Bench while allowing writ appeal filed by respondents No.6 to 15 as regards the rejection of the impleading - 95 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 application by the single judge. Thus, this right having been upheld as regards respondents No.6 to 15 which is independent of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the statement of the deponent in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60 will not be binding on respondent no.6-15, nor are they claiming under Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 12.16. He submits that the suit in OS No.65/1/1959-60 was filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt seeking for relief of declaration that Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is the owner of 14 acres 7 guntas and for deletion of the entry made in the name of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. There was no issue in the said suit as regards the existence or otherwise of the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvara Teertharu or Shri Jaya Teertharu. Therefore, the admission made in a suit where the existence or otherwise of the Brindavana was - 96 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 not in question will not be binding on anybody in so far as the present dispute is concerned. 12.17. He relies upon the decision of the hon'ble Apex court in the case of Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil11 more particularly para 13 thereof which is reproduced here under for easy reference; 13. The first infirmity in regard to this admission is that whatever was said by the respondent in regard to Survey No.201/2 is irrelevant and inadmissible in the deposition of the respondent in that case. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act states that “An admission is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned”. In regard to dispute between the appellant and the respondent arising out of Surveys Nos. 194/15 and 200/29, Survey No.s Nos. 201/2 and 194/13 were neither issues in fact nor relevant fact. 12.18. By relying on the Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case he submits that admission, if any made in such a suit can only be read in regard to and in reference to a dispute in the said suit and not 11 AIR1977SCC1712- 97 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 beyond the dispute in the said suit. Therefore, admission cannot apply in the present case. There is no issue raised in the said suit as regards the existence or not of the Brindavana. Therefore, the alleged admission would not be binding on respondents No.6 to 15. 12.19. He again relies on para 16 of Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case (supra) which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:</p><p>16. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent even though not confronted with the admission would be bound by his admissions and the appellant would be entitled to rely on the admissions as admissible. There is the observation in the very next sentence in the aforesaid decision of this Court that “the purpose of contradicting the witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act is very much different from the purpose of proving the admission”. It, therefore, follows that admission is relevant and it has to be proved before it becomes evidence. 12.20. Relying on the above, he submits that an opportunity has to be given to put the admission across to the person who has made - 98 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the admission, permitting him to tender his explanation, merely because admission is made cannot be held against him. 12.21. He reiterates that an admission is not conclusive proof; admission can be explained, in this regard he relies upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Basant Singh vs. Janki Singh and other12 more particularly a portion of para 5 thereof which is reproduced here under for easy reference:</p><p>5. ….Under the Indian law, an admission made by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him in other suits. In other suits, this admission cannot be regarded as conclusive, and it is open to the party to show that it is not true…… 12.22. He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal13 more particularly para 30 12 AIR1967SC34113 AIR1979(4) SCC790- 99 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 thereof, which is reproduced here under for easy reference:</p><p>30. In the face of this evidence reinforced by the oral evidence on the record, the learned Judge of the High Court concluded that the Math and the temple in this case are a public religious Trust and not the personal property of the defendant. We do not find any reason to take a different view. 12.23. By relying on Avadh Kishore Das’s case he submits that the present Peetadhipati can also in the civil suit filed by respondents No.6-15 depose that the statement of the earlier Peetadhipati to be incorrect or not on the basis of cogent evidence which is also available in terms of various books and documents which have been produced. 12.24. The deponent in OS No.65/1/1959-60 also issued a Nirupa in which he who was the earlier Peetadhipati has stated that he had consulted various scholars, writers, researchers, etc., and - 100 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 thereafter concluded that the earlier statement made by him was not correct; therefore, the said explanation would have to be considered by this Court. 12.25. In so far as Gazetteers are concerned, he submits that the same lacks credence since there is a statement made in the Bombay Gazetteer that Shri. Jaya Teertharu expired in 1269 AD and the Gulbarga Gazetteer it is stated that he expired in 1389 AD. There being a gap of more than 100 years it cannot be accepted that the location of the Brindavana as stated therein to be genuine, the discrepancy going to the root of the matter. 12.26. He relies upon the decision in Triyambak Shivarudra vs. State of Bombay14 more particularly para 8 thereof which is reproduced here under for easy reference:</p><p>14. 1950 Crl.LJ1372- 101 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 8. Section 81, Evidence Act, provides that Courts shall presume the genuineness of every document referred to therein. Official Gazettes are amongst the documents included in that section. It is therefore dear that we must raise an initial presumption that 0.</p><p>0. 8 which is published in the Gazette of India dated 26th January I960 is a genuine document. The presumption enacted by Section 81 is, however, a rebuttable one. That is a clear from the definition of the words "shall presume" which is a given in Section 4, Evidence Act. According to that section: Whenever it is directed by this Act that, the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved. 12.27. Relying on Triyambak Shivarudra’s case, he submits that the Gazetteers by themselves are not conclusive evidence but are rebuttable pieces of evidence which can be rebutted before the civil court. On the basis of the wrong statement or mistake in the statements made in the Gazetteer, the same already stands rebutted even before this Court and, as such, cannot be relied upon. 12.28. He relies upon the decision of Calcutta high court in the decision of Kali Prosanna vs.-. 102 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Nagendra Nath 44 (CWN) Calcutta weekly notes which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; “Reports and gazetteers ae not strictly evidence of the truth of all the statements contained in them, although they may be read for what they are worth.</p><p>12.29. Relying on Kali Prosanna’s case, he submits that reports and Gazetteer are not strictly evidence of truth. In that background, he submits that even the Gazetteers relied upon by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt cannot be accepted by this court. All these aspects would have to be decided in the suit filed by respondents Nos. 6 to 15, and on that basis, he submits that the above writ petition is required to be dismissed.</p><p>13. Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior counsel in reply would submit as under: - 103 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 13.1. Insofar as the reliance placed by both Shri. Prabhuling Navadgi and Shri. C.V. Nagesh learned Senior Counsels on the work of one Dr B.N.K.Sharma published in 1986; he submits that this, though it is a scholarly work, would not have the same value as a gazetteer, which is recognised under Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act. It can only be a scholarly work, which will have to be established in the course of trial before the trial Court in the suit filed by respondents No.6 to 15, and the same cannot be a basis for claiming the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu to be that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu in the present writ petition. 13.2. As regards the judgments relied upon in Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case, Basant Singh’s case and Nagindar Ramdas’s case [referred to supra]., by the respondents to contend that admissions are not conclusive on account of the - 104 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 possibility of they being proved wrong, he submits that the said proposition would not apply to the present facts. The admission has never been established to be wrong. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt itself has been of a consistent opinion of the identity of nine Brindavanas in Nava Brindavana Gadde for centuries. Evidence in this regard was led in the suit filed in the year 1959 as also in the year 1992. There is nothing on record to show that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has conducted or was permitted to conduct the Aaradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at the Navabrindavana Gadde as observed in the judgment dated 15.07.2022 in WP No.102614/2022. 13.3. Neither Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt nor Respondents 6 to 15 have been able to explain the admissions pertaining to the identity of the Brindavana in Navabrindavana Gadde except to - 105 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 lay a claim on the Nirupa issued by the former Peetadhipati (which in a manner amounts to resiling from the earlier admission) and the publication made by Dr.B.N.K.Sharma as also by the Pontiff of Sosale Mutt. These are all aspects which have come into being in recent times and cannot upset the facts which have been accepted by all concerned for centuries. 13.4. Insofar as the contention of the respondents that the writ court cannot decide the disputed question of fact, he submits that this Court can assess the veracity of facts which can be so ascertained on the basis of the documents produced. The dispute having been raised as regards established facts of over centuries only recently in the year 1985, the established facts prior to the dispute being that the Brindavana belonged to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, this aspect would have to be taken into - 106 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 consideration by this Court and there would be no disputed question which this Court would be addressing itself to. 13.5. By relying on ABL International Ltd’s case (referred to supra), he contends that the adjudication in the instant case does not require detailed evidence or trial to be conducted. The entire evidence in the form of documents which are uncontroverted and are reliable are already on record, which this Court can take cognisance of. Since Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Respondents 6 to 15 have now sought to deny and/or controvert the established facts; it is for them to establish the same in the suit filed. Admittedly, no suit has been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt but has been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, who were, according to him, acting at the behest of Shri Raghavendra - 107 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Swamy Mutt to only try and derail these proceedings. 13.6. He submits that the brindavana where aradhanas and poojas were being performed for the last several centuries is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and it is only now that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has sought to contend that the said brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. It is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish the same by cogent evidence and it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to seek a declaration in a properly instituted suit that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. The status quo as prevalent now is that the brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu, and as such, it does not now lie for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt or respondents No.6 to 15 to contend that it is for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to establish the - 108 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. His submission is that it is only in the Nirupa issued by the Peetadhipati that the Peetadhipati has stated that he was under a mistaken belief that brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu when in actuality it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Assuming the contentions of shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Respondents 6 to 15 to be true, this alleged mistaken belief having been acted upon for last 400 and more years and the aradhana being performed as that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is only in the year 1985 that Nirupa was issued just prior to the death of Peetadhipati, this cannot be a ground for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to contend that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 13.7. For centuries, prayers have been offered at the brindavana to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is - 109 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers who have impleaded themselves as respondents No.6 to 15 to establish to the contrary. The suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, until a decision is rendered in the suit, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt ought to be permitted to offer prayers for Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu in the Nava brindavana Gadde, without any interference from Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt or its followers. 13.8. The offering of prayers to the former gurus and saints is a fundamental religious practice of the Madhva community; as such, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, whose saint is Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, has a bounden duty as also all followers of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt have a bounden duty to offer prayers to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu during the important events of his life, and if poojas are not offered, it will amount - 110 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 to disrespect to the saint, which is not in the interest of Shri Uttaradi Mutt and the followers of the Shri Uttaradi Mutt. 13.9. The poojas having been offered for centuries to Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, the followers of Shri Uttaradi Mutt having followed and implemented the belief that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, it is also a bounden duty of the said followers to see to it that the said brindavana is not treated as that of anyone else and that only poojas of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is offered in the said brindavana. 13.10. The brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, being situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde, is established by the evidence of Peetadhipati of Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60, wherein the name of Shri.-. 111 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu has been mentioned by the said Peetadhipati. Even in O.S. No.193/1995, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, in its evidence, has categorically stated that the brindavana is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu. This aspect is also reflected in the Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga region (Anegundi). 13.11. Similarly, it is also established by the very same document that brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is not at Nava Brindavana Gadde. The Mysore State Gazetteer, published in the year 1966, indicates and establishes that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is at Malked, Gulbarga. The Bombay Gazetteer Karnataka, Dharwad district also speaks of brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu to be situated at Malkhed. The Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga region, as also the Gazetteer of India Karnataka - 112 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 State Gazetteer, Government of Karnataka, indicate that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana is at Malked, Kalburagi. The brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being at Nava brindavana Gadde cannot be disputed. Once it is established that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s brindavana is situated at Malked, Kalaburagi; there cannot be another brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava brindavana Gadde. Furthermore, it cannot be contended by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu since there cannot be two saints who occupy the same brindavana. 13.12. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, not having chosen to file any suit to establish its claim, merely because respondents No.6 to 15 have filed a suit, would not make the fact a disputed fact.-. 113 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 13.13. By relying on Jain Sangh’s case, he reiterates that the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has categorically held that objections as to disputed question of fact raised, when raised for the sake of raising will not deviate from the established facts. 13.14. As regards the decision in Triyambak Shivarudra’s case relied upon by respondents he submits that there is no material which has been placed on record showing that any fact recorded therein is wrongly recorded in the gazetteer and as such, the said judgment would not apply in the present case and in the above background, he submits that the writ petition filed by Uttaradi Mutt is required to be allowed.</p><p>14. Shri Gangadhar J.M, Learned Additional Advocate General, would submit that it is only on account of a possible law and order issue that could be created - 114 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that the requests made by both the Mutts have been rejected. The state would adhere to any direction issued by this court.</p><p>15. Heard Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Satish S Raichur and Sri. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, learned counsel for Petitioner and Sri. Gangadhar J.M. learned AAG a/w Sri. Praveen Uppar, AGA for Respondents No.1 to 4, Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadagi, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Arun L. Neelopant for Respondent No.5, Sri. C.V. Nagesh Senior Counsel for Sri. H.R. Deshpande for Respondents No.6 to 15 in W.P.No.103982/2023, Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadagi, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Arun Neelopant for Petitioner and Sri. Gangadhar J.M. AAG a/w Sri. Praveen Uppar, for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Satish S. Raichur and Sri. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, learned - 115 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 counsel for Respondents No.4 in W.P.No.103994/2023. Perused papers.</p><p>16. Based on the above arguments the points that arise for determination in this matter are:</p><p>1. Whether this court cannot entertain the present petition and pass orders thereon on account of the contentions raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, on the one hand, and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as also its followers Respondents 6 to 15 on the other being disputed?.</p><p>2. Whether the contention raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as well as its followers Respondents 6 to 15, can, in fact, be said to be disputed questions of fact.</p><p>3. Despite a suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, is the present petition maintainable?.</p><p>4. Would the admission made by former Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt be binding on Shri. Raghavendra - 116 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Swamy Mutt and its followers Respondents 6 to 15?.</p><p>5. Whether the Gazetteers produced by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, now at this stage, can be relied upon by this Court?.</p><p>6. Whether at this juncture, it can be said that the Brindavana at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu or Shri. Raghuvara Rayaru?.</p><p>7. What order?.</p><p>17. I answer the above points as under:</p><p>18. Insofar as the history of litigation as regards the present matter is concerned, originally, both Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had filed petitions in W.P. No.103994/2023 and 102614/2022 respectively. Shri Uttaradi Mutt wanted to perform the Mahimotsava of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at his Brindavana in Nava - 117 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana Gaddi from 4.07.2023 to 10.07.2023. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt also wanted to perform Aradhana of Jaya Teertharu at his Brindavana in Nava Brindavana Gaddi, from 5.07.2023 to 7.07.2023.</p><p>19. It is clear that for the first time, both the Mutts wanting to celebrate the Aradhana of their respective Gurus during the same period of time. Apprehending interference, both the mutts filed applications before the tahsildar for police protection, but both applications were rejected. In view thereof, the above writ petitions are filed.</p><p>20. A coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petitions by permitting both the Mutts to perform the Aradhana on different sets of dates. Aggrieved by the same, Shri Uttaradi Mutt filed a Writ Appeal, but Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt did not.-. 118 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 21. In the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench allowed the same by setting aside the orders of the coordinate Bench and remanded the same for adjudication by taking on record the additional documents filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt. The Division Bench afforded an opportunity to both the Mutts to file amended petitions and additional documents and seek additional reliefs.</p><p>22. An amendment was filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt, but no amendment has been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt; only objections have been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. Thus, it is clear that insofar as the writ petition by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as regards the dates mentioned in the said writ petition and the prayers, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt does not intend to press or prosecute the said petitions since the dates mentioned have already passed and the said writ petition therefore - 119 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 rendered infructuous. It is also clear that only Shri Uttaradi Mutt, has been prosecuting the matter, agitating its legal rights.</p><p>23. In the above background history of the matter, I would have to consider the points raised.</p><p>24. ANSWER TO POINTS NO.1, 2 AND3 1. Whether this court cannot entertain the present petition and pass orders thereon on account of the contentions raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, on the one hand, and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as also its followers Respondents 6 to 15 on the other being disputed?.</p><p>2. Whether the contention raised by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as well as its followers Respondents 6 to 15, can, in fact, be said to be disputed questions of fact.</p><p>3. Despite a suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15, is the present petition maintainable?. - 120 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.1. Points 1,2 and 3 being related to each other are considered together. 24.2. The submission of Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi., learned senior counsel appearing for Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and that of Shri. C.V. Nagesh., learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023 is that the writ petition filed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt is not maintainable since the questions which have arisen out of said writ petition are disputed questions of fact which this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot decide. 24.3. The additional submission of Shri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel is that respondents No.6 to 15, having filed a suit for declaration until the determination of the dispute raised in the - 121 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 said suit, this Court ought not to pass any orders and, as a necessary corollary ought to leave it to the civil Court to determine the disputed question of facts. 24.4. Shri. C.V. Nagesh., learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Roshina’s case, Thansingh Nathmal’s case, Dwarka Prasad Agarwal’s case, Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case, Avadh Kishore Dass’ case, Triyambak Shivarudra’s case and Kali Prosanna’s case for the same purpose. 24.5. The submission of Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande., learned senior counsel appearing for Shri Uttaradi Mutt is that there is no disputed question of fact which requires trial, in so far as Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt’s dispute. Respondents No.6 to 15 having filed a suit, the same would be defended. Shri - 122 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has not filed any suit; the claim made by its followers is on the basis of the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, which has created confusion. The Nirupa having been issued in the year 1985, there is no dispute prior to 1985 of the aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being performed at the Nava Brindavana Gadde and no aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu was performed there. Even during the lifetime of the earlier pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the said pontiff, in the evidence led in O.S. No.65/1/1959-60, has categorically admitted that it is the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu which is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde. Neither in the written statement nor the evidence has the earlier pontiff ever claimed that the Brindavana of - 123 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Shri. Jaya Teertharu was located in Nava Brindavana Gadde. 24.6. For over 400 years the aradhana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu having been performed at Nava Brindavana Gadde, it cannot be now contended that there is a dispute of fact requiring trial in so far as the existence of the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu in Nava Brindavana Gadde. His further submission is that the aradhana and other ceremonies in so far as Shri. Jaya Teertharu has been performed for last few centuries at Malkhed, Kalaburagi district and continue to be performed there even today. Thus, the contention of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and/or respondents No.6 to 15 that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde subsequent to the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt will - 124 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 not make it a disputed question of facts requiring trial. 24.7. In this regard, he relies upon the decision in ABL International Ltd. Case and submits that the writ court would also have jurisdiction to try issues both fact and law even if they are in dispute, when the same does not require a detailed trial this Court can determine the issues and pass necessary judgment on the basis of the documents available on record. 24.8. The dispute having been raised by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers post 1985, it is the assertion now made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which is required to be established in a Court of law and not that of Shri Uttaradi Mutt who has been performing the aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde for over a century.-. 125 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.9. He also relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Tejraj- President Jain Sangh's case. In view thereof submission is made that this Court can and would have to decide the above issue. 24.10. It is therefore in the background of the above submissions that this court would have to decide the above issues. 24.11. It is trite law that this Court exercising writ jurisdiction would ordinarily not cause an enquiry into disputed question of facts and would normally relegate the parties to a civil suit. It is also trite law that this Court would not countenance any contention on the part of the respondents that there are disputed questions of fact when there are in fact no such disputed questions of fact and/or that the respondents - 126 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 have raised the disputed question of fact and/or brought into dispute certain admitted facts to try and prevent orders being passed in the Writ Petition, which in my considered opinion would also amount to abuse of the process of court. 24.12. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Moran Mar Marthoma case’s and principles laid down therein cannot be disputed; the said decision dealt with and was rendered in respect of the jurisdiction of a civil Court to decide a claim under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. In the said judgment, there is no reference, nor is any issue dealt with as regards a writ Court not having jurisdiction. Thus, the said decision will not be a touchstone to decide on whether this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction in the present case or not. 24.13. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Roshina’s case was one relating to a claim of - 127 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 property rights which were disputed and it is in that background that the Hon’ble Apex Court came to a conclusion that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to convert a writ petition into a civil suit. The said decision also would not apply to the present case since there are no property rights which are required to be decided upon or adjudicated by this Court. The dispute, essentially in Roshina’s case, was a property dispute which was inter se the parties, and as such, the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the opinion that those disputes would have to be adjudicated by the Civil Court and not by a writ court. Since this is a private law dispute which cannot be decided in a public law remedy. 24.14. Again the decision in Thansingh Nathmal’s case was one relating to the exercise of - 128 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 jurisdiction by the High Court where an alternative remedy was available and where the Court came to a conclusion that there was an elaborate examination of evidence required in order to establish or enforce a right as regard which a writ was filed and it is in that background that the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the opinion that an elaborate examination of evidence cannot be made by a writ Court. These judgments in my considered opinion would not help the cause of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and/or respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023. 24.15. Per contra the decision relied upon by Shri. Ameet Kumar Kumar Deshpande., learned counsel appearing for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt in ABL International Ltd. Case would be of relevance since the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the High Court could - 129 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 exercise jurisdiction to determine the question of fact even if they are in dispute and those could be determined on the basis of the affidavits and reply rather than relegate the parties to a separate suit. This jurisdiction needs to be exercised at the discretion of the Court. 24.16. Thus, it is clear that there is no specific bar for a writ Court to exercise jurisdiction merely because respondents were to contend that the facts are disputed, it is left to the discretion of the Court. 24.17. It is not in dispute that the aradhana and other functions in so far as Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is concerned has been performed at Nava Brindavana Gadde for more than four centuries, it is only after a Nirupa was issued by the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati in the year 1985 - 130 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that the existence of the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu has been brought into question. 24.18. In the year 1959, Shri Uttaradi Mutt had filed a suit in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 claiming proprietary rights over the land in Sy.No.192 (old Sy.No.239) situate at Anegundi Village in which the Nava Brindavana Gadde is situated. 24.19. In the written statement filed more so at para 2 Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt contended that the Brindavana’s of the Gurus of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt and Shri Vyasaraya Mutt are situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 24.20. It was contended that five Brindavana’s belonging to Shri Vyasaraja Mutt are situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde namely that of; 1. Shri Vyasarayaru (Vysararaj Teertharu) - 131 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 2. Shri Sinivas Teertharu 3. Shri Rama Teertharu 4. Shri Govinda Teertharu (Govindawadiyaru) 5. Shri Padmanabha Teertharu 24.21. It was contended that three Brindavana’s belonging to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt are situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde namely that of:</p><p>1. Shri Ravindra Teertharu, 2. Shri Vageesh Teertharu and 3. Shri Sudhendra Teertharu. 24.22. Though the details of the ninth Brindavana is not mentioned in the written statement what is required to be appreciated by this Court is that even among the eight out of nine names mentioned the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Theertharu who is claimed to belong to Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not mentioned in the written statement.-. 132 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.23. In the evidence led by the earlier pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt namely his holiness Shri. *Sujeendra Teertharu, it has been stated that nine Brindavana’s are that of; 1. Padmanabha Tirtha 2. Kavindra Tirtha 3. Vagisha Tirtha 4. Raghuvarya Tirtha 5. Sudhindra Tirtha 6. Vyasarayaru (Vysararaj Tirtha) 7. Sinivas Tirtha 8. Rama Tirtha 9. Govindawadiyaru. 24.24. Thus, Shri *Sujeendra Teertharu who was the earlier Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in his evidence has categorically admitted that the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde. In the said evidence led by him, there is no mention made of Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Theertharu. *Corrected vide Court Order dated 24.06.2024 - 133 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.25. In the evidence it is further stated that the aforesaid Brindavana’s belong to all three Mutt namely, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri Sosale Vyasarayaru Mutt. 24.26. Shri. Kavindra Theertharu and Shri Vagisha Theertharu being common to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri Uttaradi Mutt. Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu being solely belonging to Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri. Sudhendra Teertharu being solely belonging to Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Govindawadiyaru, Shri Sinivas Teertharu and Shri. Rama Teertharu exclusively belonging to Shri. Sosale Vyasarayaru Mutt. 24.27. Thus, from the evidence led it is clear that Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Brindavana is categorically admitted to be located at Nava - 134 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana Gadde and the same solely belongs to Shri Uttaradi Mutt. 24.28. Though all three Mutts follow Shri. Madhavcharya’s philosophy it appears that there are some disputes between these three Mutts which ought not to have occurred and the earlier pontiff having accepted that Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Brindavana solely belongs to Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and situate in Nava Brindavana Gadde, now it is sought to be contended that such Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is not situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde and that the said Brindavana belongs to that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Though it is admitted that Shri Raghuvara Teertharu was a Guru of the Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, and there is denial made of the existence of his brindavana at Nava Brindavana Gadde, there is - 135 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 no assertion made as to where his Brindavana is, if not at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 24.29. This assertion which has been made is only post the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff in the year 1985, there being no such claim or assertion made prior to 1985. Thus, merely post 1985 such an assertion having been made would not make the practice followed for four centuries earlier of offering pooja and aradhana to the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde a disputed one. Thus, on the face of it, by sheer extent of time it cannot at this stage be said that there are disputed questions of facts requiring this Court not to exercise jurisdiction. 24.30. Furthermore, Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt also has filed WP No.103994/2023 seeking similar reliefs as that sought for by Shri - 136 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Uttaradi Mutt in WP No.103982/2023. Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt itself having approached this Court seeking for the more or less identical reliefs as that sought for by Shri Uttaradi Mutt and not filing a suit in that regards till date, also indicates the double standards adopted. Though the prayer sought for by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt have been rendered infructuous, the fact remains that even according to Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt this Court could exercise jurisdiction to decide the matters in issue and it is for that reason that this court has been approached vide a writ petition by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, if not then it would amount to the said Mutt abusing the process of court since the writ petition is filed knowing fully well that this court would not have jurisdiction. Even for this reason I am therefore - 137 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 unable to agree with the submissions made that this court has no jurisdiction. 24.31. It is trite law that jurisdiction to a Court cannot be conferred by consent, thus, it is not only on the basis of the writ petition filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt that I come to the conclusion that this Court has jurisdiction but also on the grounds aforesaid i.e., there is no disputed question of fact which can be said to come in the way of this Court exercising its jurisdiction. 24.32. A suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023 and no suit having been filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in that regard even if it is assumed that respondents No.6 to 15 are acting at the instance of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the assertion now made by respondents No.6 to 15 - 138 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 would have to be determined by that Court, such suit pending determination by the Civil Court would not come in the way of this Court exercising jurisdiction. Of course, the determination by the Court would be binding on the parties. Merely, because of the said subsequent suit being pending it is not required for this Court not to decide the present matter. It would also be open for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to seek for such reliefs that they are entitled to in the said suit. 24.33. As regards the performance of the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde, certain documents are sought to be relied upon, viz., paper publications/Pamphlets from the year 1989 onwards. The same would not amount to evidence of the Poojas and Aradhanas being performed at Nava Brindavana - 139 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Gadde for Shri. Jaya Teertharu. Be that as it may there is nothing on record prior to 1989 indicating that the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu was performed at the Nava Brindavana Gadde, in fact, in an earlier Writ Petition in W.P. No.102614/2022 filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, this court vide its order dated 15.07.2022 while dismissing the said writ petition has categorically come to a conclusion that there was nothing on record to show that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had conducted or was permitted to conduct the Aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. The said observation and judgment have not been challenged, attaining finality and the said observation is binding on this Court. 24.34. In W.P. No.102614/2022 relating to the performance of Aradhana in the year 2022, - 140 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 again in the year 2023, another dispute arose when the performance of aradhana by Shri Uttaradi Mutt of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu was resisted by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt constraining Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file writ petition in W.P. No.103499/2023. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the coordinate Bench of this Court permitting Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to carry out the Aradhana in furtherance of which Aradhana was in fact carried out, no challenge being made to the said order of the coordinate Bench, thus attaining finality. 24.35. Therefore, evidence and records available indicate that Shri. Uttarathus attainingied out pooja, Aradhana and other ceremonies concerning its Guru Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu for more than 400 years, as also in the recent past at Nava Brindavana Gadde.-. 141 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.36. There is no believable document placed on record by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt as regards the conduct of pooja, aradhana and other ceremonies relating to Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde, either in the past or present. 24.37. One of the writ petitions filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has been dismissed with an observation that there is nothing on record to indicate such performance of pooja or aradhana of Shri Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. In that background, it cannot be said that the contention now taken by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is one which gives rise to disputed questions of fact requiring the trial court to decide the matter in a properly constituted suit. It is only in the recent past that the disputes have arisen, more particularly in the last three years.-. 142 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.38. Though the contention of Shri C.V.Nagesh learned Senior Counsel is that there is no determination or adjudication of the claim of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, I’am of the considered opinion that when the dispute has been raised by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and it is asserted and claimed that the brindavana is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu, when in fact all records indicate otherwise, it is for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to file necessary proceedings for declaration of the assertion and claim, now made by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. It would not be for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to file any such suit or proceedings. Merely because a party were to make a claim, the party against whom such claim is made need not be driven to court, it is for the party making a claim to approach the jurisdictional and - 143 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 competent court, seeking for adjudication of its claim. 24.39. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that this Court can entertain the writ petition in WP No.103982 of 2023 and pass orders thereon, despite the contentions raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and respondents 6 to 15 contending that there are alleged disputed question of fact, when in fact there are none. 24.40. I answer point No.2 by holding that the contention raised by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and respondents 6 to 15 cannot in fact be said to be disputed questions of fact considering that Shri Uttaradi Mutt has been offering poojas and performing aradhana’s of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu for over 400 years at Nava Brindavana Gadde and there are admissions made in this regard by Shri.Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. The aspect of admission has also been separately considered hereinbelow.-. 144 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 24.41. I answer point No.3 by holding that the suit having been filed by respondents No.6 to 15 in WP No.103982/2023 no suit having been filed by the Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt , respondents No.6 to 15 being disciples and or followers of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt who claim that Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde and claim of respondents No.6 to 15 being yet to be adjudicated, the same shall not come in way of this Court exercising jurisdiction. Since I have come to the conclusion that as on today the undisputed fact is that the Brindavana is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu.</p><p>25. Answer to point No.4: Would the admission made by former Peetadhipati of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt be binding on Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers Respondents 6 to 15?. 25.1. As referred to in answer to points No.1 to 3 the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt had in the written statement in - 145 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 O.S. No.65/1/59-60 as also in the evidence categorically stated that Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu’s Brindavana is located in Nava Brindavana Gadde. There was no mention made in either the written statement or in evidence that the Brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu was located in Nava Brindavana Gadde. 25.2. The contention of Sri. C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel for respondents No.6 to 15 is that such an admission made by the earlier pontiff does not bind respondents No.6 to 15. They have an independent right, they can always negate any admission made by the earlier pontiff. In this regard, he relies upon the decision in Dwarka Prasad Agarwal’s case as also Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case his submission is that in the suit in O.S. No.65/1/59-60 there was no dispute as regards the existence or otherwise of the Brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and Shri. Jaya - 146 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Teertharu in the absence of such a dispute the admission made by the earlier pontiff cannot be binding. If an admission has to be relied upon, the admission should be put across to the person against whom the admission is sought to be relied upon for him to offer an explanation. 25.3. By relying on Basant Singh’s case his contention is that the admissions made in another suit cannot be regarded as conclusive its open to a party to the other suit to prove otherwise. By relying on Avadh Kishore Das’s case his submission is that, in the Nirupa issued by the earlier pontiff/Peetadhipati, the said pontiff/Peetadhipati has explained the admissions by stating that he was under a mistaken belief, now it having been brought to his notice various Articles, Research, Publications that Shri. Jaya Teertharu’s - 147 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Brindavana is located at Nava Brindavana Gadde, a Nirupa has been issued by the earlier pontiff, this Nirupa would negate the so-called admission made in the aforesaid suit. 25.4. The submission that an opportunity would have to be granted to a person who has made an admission to explain the same, in my considered opinion, cannot be so done in the present case since the earlier pontiff has expired long ago in the year 1985 and therefore the admission made by him cannot be put across to him. In this regard the submission made by Sri.C.V.Nagesh., learned senior counsel is that the successor to the earlier pontiff, i.e., the present pontiff, can explain the admission in the view of the Nirupa. 25.5. The Nirupa as issued is extracted hereinbelow for easy reference - 148 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 “²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ªÉƺÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà UÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgÀ ªÉƺÀj£À°è” ²æà gÁªÉÆ ¨sÁw¸ÀªÁå¸À ²æà ªÀÄzsÁé¸ÁÜ£À ¸ÀA¹ÜvÉÊB²æà gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÀzÀéA±ÉÊB ¨sÀĪÀ£ÉÃAzÉæ’ÊB ²æà AiÀiÁaðvÀ JAzÀÄ EzÉ. ¸Àé¹Ü²æà «dAiÀƨsÀÄåzÀAiÀÄUÀvÀ ±Á°ÃªÁºÀ£À ±ÀPÀ 1907 £Éà ²æà PÉÆæÃzsÀ£ÁªÀÄ ¸ÀAªÀvÀìgÀ eÉåõÀ× §ºÀļÀ ¨sÁ£ÀĪÁgÀzÀ®Æè 5-6-1905 ²æà ªÀÄvÀàgÀªÀĺÀA¸À ¥ÀjªÁædPÁZÁAiÀÄð ¥ÀzÀªÁPÀå ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÁgÁªÁgÀ ¥ÁgÀAUÀvÀ ¸ÀªÀðvÀAvÀæ ¸ÀévÀAvÀæ ²æà ªÀÄzÉé’ʵÀÚªÀ¹zÁÞAvÀ ¥ÀæwµÁ×¥À£ÁZÁAiÀÄð ²æà ªÀÄ£ÀÆð®gÀWÀÄ¥Àw ªÉÃzÀ’ªÁå¸ÀzÉêÀ ¢ªÀå ²æà ¥ÁzÀ¥ÀzÁägÁzÀPÀgÁzÀ dUÀzÀÄÎgÀÄ ²æà ªÀÄ£ÀäzÁéZÁAiÀÄðgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀA¸ÁÜ£Á¢üñÀégÀgÁzÀ £ÀAd£ÀUÀÆqÀÄ ²æà ªÀÄzÁæWÀªÉAzÀæ ¸Áé«ÄUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄoÀzÀ ªÉÃzÁAvÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁædå ¢VédAiÀÄ «zÁå¹AºÁ¸À£Á¢üñÀégÀgÁzÀ ²æà ªÀÄvï ¸ÀĪÀæwÃAzÀæ wÃxÀð ²æÃ¥ÁzÀAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ PÀgÀPÀªÀÄ® ¸ÀAeÁvÀgÁzÀ ²æà ²æà ªÀÄvÀÄìAiÀÄ«ÄÃAzÀæwÃxÀð ²æà ¥ÁzÀAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀPÀgÁzÀ ²²²²ææææÃÃÃà ªªªªÀÀÀÀÄÄÄÄvvvvÀÀÀÀÄÄÄÄììììdddd¬¬¬¬ÄÄÄÄÃÃÃÃAAAAzzzzÀÀÀÀææææ wwwwÃÃÃÃxxxxÀÀÀÀðððð ²²²²ææææÃÃÃà ¥¥¥¥ÁÁÁÁzzzzÀÀÀÀAAAAUUUUÀÀÀÀ¼¼¼¼ÀÀÀÀªªªªÀÀÀÀggggÀÀÀÀÄÄÄÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¦æAiÀÄ ²µÀåjUÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸ÀägÀuÉ. £ÁªÀÅ ²æà UÀÄgÀÄzÉêÀvÁ£ÀÄUÀæºÀ§®¢AzÀ ¸ÁߣÀ, d¥À, vÀ¥À, zÉêÀvÁ ¥ÀÇeÁ, ¥ÁoÀ¥ÀæªÀZÀ£À, ¹zÁÝAvÀ ¸ÁÜ¥À£Á¢ ¸ÁévÀªÉÆÃavÀ PÁAiÀiÁð£ÀĵÀÛ¤gÀvÀgÁV ¤ªÀÄUÉ ±ÉæÃAiÉÆéüªÀÈzsÀxÀðªÁV ²æà ªÀÄ£ÀÆä®gÀWÀÄ¥Àw ªÉÃzÀªÁå¸ÀzÉêÀgÀ ¥ÁæxÀð£À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ ªÀÄAvÁæ®AiÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄzÀ°èzÉÝêÉ. ¤ªÀÄä AiÉÆÃUÀPÉëêÀĪÀ£ÀÄß *Retyped and Replaced vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 149 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 §gɹ PÀ½¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. vÀgÀĪÁAiÀÄ F »AzÉ £ÁªÀÅ G¥À£Áå¸ÀUÀ¼À°è, £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄUÀ¼À°è, £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°è ²æà gÀWÀĪÀAiÀÄðwÃxÀðgÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÉݪÀÅ. E°èAiÀÄ vÀ£ÀPÀ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁVzÀÝ F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ²æêÀÄoÀzÀ D¸ÁÜ£À«zÁéA¸ÀgÀÄ, »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀPÀgÀÆ, ¯ÉÃRPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆ DzÀ ªÀiÁUÀr gÀAUÀ£ÁxÁZÁAiÀÄðgÀÆ, BNK ±ÀªÀÄð ªÉÆzÀ¯ÁzÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀ£Á, ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¸ÀAUÀæºÀ «ªÀıÀð ¯ÉÃR£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DªÀÄƯÁUÀæªÁV £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉÆøÀ¯É ªÁå¸ÀgÁd ªÀÄoÀzÀ ¦ÃoÁ¢ü¥ÀwUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æà «zÁå¥ÀAiÉÆä¢ü wÃxÀðgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ²æà gÀWÀĪÀAiÀÄðwÃxÀðgÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀgÀA¥ÀgÉAiÀÄ ²æà dAiÀÄwÃxÀðgÀ ªÀÄÆ® §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ RavÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ EzÉà ªÀµÀð £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°è £ÀqÉzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ²æà ¸ÀÄ¢üÃAzÀæwÃxÀðgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ²æà ªÁå¸ÀgÁdgÀ DgÁzsÀ£Á ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¥Á¯ÉÆÎAqÀ £Á«ÃªÀðgÀÆ ²æà dAiÀÄwÃxÀðgÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀPÉÌ £ÉqÀ¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¥ÀÇeÁgÁzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹gÀÄvÉÛêÉ. F PÁgÀt¢AzÀ £ÁªÀÅ F »AzÉ G¥À£Áå¸À ªÉÆzÀ¯ÁzÀªÀÅUÀ¼À°è ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖAvÉ £ÀªÀ§ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÀÅ ²æà gÀWÀĪÀAiÀÄðgÀzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛêÉ. PÁgÀt ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ²µÀågÀÄ F DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ²æà dAiÀÄwÃxÀðgÀ ªÀÄÆ® §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀªÀÅ £ÀªÀ §ÈAzÁªÀ£ÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà EzÉ JAzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀªÁV ¤±ÀéӬĹPÉÆAqÀÄ CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥ÀÇeÉ, DgÁzsÀ£É, G¥Á¸À£É, EvÁå¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÉÝAzÀÄ ªÀÄAvÁæ®AiÀÄ PÉëÃvÀæ¢AzÀ §gɹzÀ ¤gÀÆ¥À gÁAiÀĸÀ. *Retyped and Replaced vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 150 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Ew £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸ÀägÀuÉUÀ¼ÀÄ «zÁå ªÀÄoÀ PÀÄA¨sÀPÉÆÃt JA§ ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ aPÀÌ ªÉƺÀgÀÄ</p><p>25.6. The examination of the Nirupa would indicate that even according to the earlier pontiff, it was believed that the disputed Brindavana situated in Nava Brindavana Gadde is that belonging to Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. The said belief is now sought to be termed as mistaken belief in the Nirupa and a direction has been issued by the earlier pontiff to his disciples to conduct the pooja and aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at the said Brindavana, by indicating or contending that the said Brindavana is not of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu but it is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. *Retyped and Replaced vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 151 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 25.7. Thus, even in the admitted Nirupa there is an admission made by the earlier pontiff that there was a belief of the Brindavana to be belonging to Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and that belief is now sought to be changed at the time of issuance of Nirupa in the year 1985 to contended that the Brindavana is not of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu but that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu. 25.8. Thus, the admission made in the suit is not denied in the Nirupa but is sought to be resiled from, this in my considered opinion cannot take away the admission made, the resiling from the admission made and a new claim being set up under the Nirupa it is required for Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to establish this new claim. An explanation to an admission cannot be by way of resiling from the admission, a new - 152 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 case or claim being set up under the Nirupa, the same would have to be established in a court of law by anyone claiming the contents of the Nirupa to be true by filing a properly constituted suit before the Jurisdictional and Competent Court, which would also be the situation in respect of the Successor Pontiffs. 25.9. The said admission is made in a proceeding between the same party i.e., Shri. Uttaradi Mutt was the plaintiff therein, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt was the Defendant No.1 and Shri. Sosale Vyasarayaru Mutt was the defendant No.2, the dispute in the said suit was as regards the ownership of the property where the Nava Brindavana Gadde is situated. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the said proceedings and the present proceedings cannot be so different to contend that the admission made in the earlier proceedings - 153 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 would not be binding in the present proceedings. 25.10. Since Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has specifically pleaded and led evidence as regards the Brindavanas located in the Nava Brindavana Gadde. Hence, the decision in Sita Ram Bhau Patil’s case would not be appliable. In so far as Basant Singh’s case is concerned wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that an admission can be explained by the concerned party, here the person who has made the said admission having expired his successor to office relying on the Nirupa issued by the person making the admission and the said Nirupa also clearly stating that there was an alleged mistaken belief that the Brindavana was of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu when it is in fact of Shri. Jaya Teertharu, I am of the considered opinion that these aspects would - 154 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 have to be independently established by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt in a proceedings initiated in that regard by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. 25.11. The admission has not been explained but is sought to be resiled from, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the admission made in O.S. No.65/1/59-60. 25.12. Hence, I answer point No.4 by holding that the admission made by former Peetadhipati of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would be binding on Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its followers.</p><p>26. ANSWER TO POINT NO.5: Whether the Gazetteers produced by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, now at this stage, can be relied upon by this Court?. 26.1. Shri. Uttaradi Mutt has produced several Gazetteers based on which the submission - 155 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 made by Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande is that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is recognized to be that in Nava Brindavana Gadde and that of Shri Jaya Teertharu is in Malkhed, Kalaburagi. Reliance is placed on the Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, Gulbarga Region (Anegundi) to contend that the brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu is at Anegundi viz., Nava Brindavana Gadde. By relying on the very same document/publication, it is contended that the brindavana of Shri *Jaya Teertharu is not at Nava Brindavana Gadde since his name is not mentioned. 26.2. By relying on the Mysore State Gazetteer published in the year 1966, it is contended that the brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed, Gulbarga, now Kalaburagi. By relying on Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka, Dharwad district, it is again contended that the *Corrected vide Court order dated 24.06.2024 - 156 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu is at Malkhed. 26.3. The submission made by Shri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande is that in terms of Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is a presumption as to the contents of the Gazetteer and this Court would have to take the same into account to be genuine and accept the contents thereof. It is further contended that cognizance of the contents thereof could be taken in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act. 26.4. The submission of Sri. C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsel for respondents No.6 to 15 is that the Gazetteer cannot be taken to be or considered to be the gospel truth, the contents of the Gazetteer would have to be independently assessed on the available evidence, this Court cannot look into the same due to the contents of the Gazetteer being disputed, it would be better to let the Court - 157 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 seized of the suit now filed by respondents No.6 to 15 to decide on the same. 26.5. His submission is that in terms of Bombay Gazetteer Shri Jaya Teertharu is stated to have expired in the year 1269 and in terms of the Gulbarga Gazetteer, he is stated to have expired in the year 1389 there being difference of 100 years amongst these two Gazetteers. The year of expiry being wrongly mentioned, the contents of the Gazetteers cannot be considered to be true. In this regard reliance has been placed on Thriamak Shivarudra’s case to contend that the Gazetteers themselves are not conclusive evidence but are rebuttable pieces of evidence. Reliance is also placed on Kali Prasanna’s case to contend that Gazetteers are strictly not evidence of the truth of the matter.-. 158 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 26.6. Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act is extracted hereinbelow for easy reference:</p><p>81. Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of Parliament and other documents. The Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the London Gazette or [any official Gazette, or the Government Gazette]. [Substituted by A.O. 1937, for "the Gazette of India, or the Government Gazette of any L.G., or".]. of any colony, dependency or possession of the British Crown, or to be a newspaper or journal, or to be a copy of a private Act of Parliament [of the United Kingdom]. [Inserted by A.O. 1950.]. printed by the Queen's Printer and of every document purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such document is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody. 26.7. A perusal of Section 81 of Indian Evidence Act, extracted hereinabove, would indicate that the Court shall presume the genuineness of every document, be it official gazette or government gazette printed by the Queens printer, which - 159 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 would now have to be read as Government Press, thus, the Gazetteers having been produced there would be a presumption drawn by this Court. 26.8. The said presumption as contended by Sri.C.V.Nagesh is rebuttable except for pointing out the divergence in the year of death of Shri. Jaya Teertharu, nothing has been placed on record to disbelieve the Gazetteers, nor is any defect pointed out in the Gazetteers. Merely because the year of death of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is mentioned wrongly would not take away the assertion made in the Gazetteers that the brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde nor does it take away the fact that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated at Malkhed, Kalaburagi.-. 160 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 26.9. All the counsels having specifically asserted that a brindavana can relate to only one pontiff or Guru and that two pontiffs or two Gurus cannot be in the same brindavana. It cannot therefore be contended that the same brindavana is of a different pontiff than that of the pontiff which has been believed for the last several centuries. 26.10. The denial by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is based on one single contradiction. The existence of the Gazetteers and the publication thereof is not disputed. 26.11. The submission of Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsel in this regard is that in the Suit, the truth of the Gazetteers would come out. The fact remains that respondents No.6 to 15 are seeking to deny the veracity of the contents of the Gazetteers, as regards which, as of today, there is only a denial. The Gazetteers speak for themselves and have been published, - 161 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 admitted to be so published, the existence being admitted. At this stage, the said gazetteers would have to be considered by this Court. The request for non-consideration by respondents No.6 to 15 on the basis of their dispute, as regards the veracity, is yet to be established in the suit. 26.12. The veracity and authenticity of the gazetteers being established, I’am of the considered opinion that in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act, this court can take cognizance of, as also take judicial notice of the contents of the said gazetteers which give a history of people and places, which includes that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and Shri. Jaya Teertharu and their respective Brindavanas including location thereof. 26.13. Insofar as the books and treatises relied upon by Sri.C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior counsel, - 162 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 these books and treatises are private publications which are not ones which are recognized or be recognised under Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act. Without commenting on the veracity and or the authenticity of the said books, it can only be said that the contents of the said books and the statements made therein are the opinion of the authors concerned. If at all, they are required to be established during the trial in the suit filed by respondents No.6 to 15, the authors would have to be examined in the said suit. 26.14. Merely because there is a publication that would not bind this court. It is a trite law that newspaper publications or the like are not ones which can be taken to be established evidence without them being established in the manner known to law.-. 163 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 26.15. Merely because the said suit is pending and a claim is made contra to the existing state of affairs, it cannot be said that the said dispute will override the existing state of affairs, requiring the contents of the Gazetteers to be disbelieved. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the contents of the Gazetteers would have to be taken into consideration by this Court in terms of Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, as also in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act. 26.16. Thus, I answer Point No.5 by holding that the Gazetteers relied upon by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt can and/or to be believed by this Court for the purpose of ascertaining and passing necessary orders there being no rebuttable evidence placed on record contrary to the contents of the Gazetteers - 164 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 except the divergence pointed out in the year of death of Shri Jaya Teertharu.</p><p>27. ANSWER TO POINT NO.6: Whether at this juncture, it can be said that the Brindavana at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri. Jaya Teertharu or Shri. Raghuvara Teertharu?. 27.1. In view of my answer to points No.1 to 5 above, it is clear that until the year 1985 even Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and its pontiffs believed that the brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde to be that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. It is only post the Nirupa which had been issued by earlier pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt based on certain publications that it is now sought to be asserted that the brindavana is of Shri. Jaya Teertharu and not of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. 27.2. As held above, there is nothing on record which would indicate that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy - 165 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 Mutt is performing any pooja or aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde prior to 1985 and even after 1985 except for the pamphlets which have been produced there is nothing placed on record and coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 15.07.2022 in WP No.102614/2022 has come to a conclusion that there is nothing which is on record to establish that Shri.Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has conducted any aradhana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 27.3. In the suit which had been filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt, written statement having been filed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, as also evidence having been led by the earlier pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, firstly there is no mention of the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu being existent at Nava Brindavana Gadde in the written statement.-. 166 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 27.4. In the evidence led by the pontiff, firstly it is categorically asserted that the brindavana of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde and secondly, nowhere it has been claimed that brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situate at Nava Brindavana Gadde. 27.5. It is also clear from the records that in the year 1985 when Nirupa was issued by earlier pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, for the first time it is contended that the brindavana of Shri. Jaya Teertharu is situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde. In fact, the pontiff has categorically stated that he was under a mistaken belief that the brindavana was that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu. This would indicate and categorically establish that even until 1985 both the pontiff of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt were of the opinion - 167 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 that the brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu and not Shri Jaya Teertharu. 27.6. Even thereafter there are no issues which arose until 2021-22 when the ceremony, pooja, aradhana sought to be performed by Shri Uttaradi Mutt was obstructed by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which resulted in writ petition being filed for that year followed by subsequent years. The Nirupa having been issued on the basis of certain publication made by Sosale Vysaraya Mutt and now sought to be substantiated by relying on the publication by certain other researchers viz., Shri. M.R.Anantha Padmanabha, Shri. Sanur Bheema Bhat, Shri. T.K.Venugopala Dasaru, which are all private publications which would need to be established by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt by cogent evidence being led. These being - 168 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 private publications by individuals cannot be accepted to be the gospel truth or Veda Vakya, on the face of it. The authors would have to be examined and cross-examined, their assertions being contrary to the admission even made by the pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt cannot be a ground for this Court to disbelieve that the brindavana located at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu requiring this court to take judicial notice of the same in terms of Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act. 27.7. Be that as it may, these are all documents which have come into being post the admission made in the Suit on which basis the Nirupa has been issued and as such, the Nirupa being a assertion of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt would have to be established by Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt.-. 169 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 27.8. At this stage when Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has not sought for any further relief than that originally sought for in W.P. No.103994/2023, it is Shri Uttaradi Mutt who has persisted in prosecuting its writ petition by filing amendment and addressing arguments. This would give rise to unmistakable conclusion that Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not interested in prosecuting W.P. No.103994/2023. 27.9. The arguments of Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi and Shri. C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsels has always been with an intent to find lacuna in the claim of Shri Uttaradi Mutt rather than establishing the claim of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is not merely a Respondent in WP No.103982 of 2023 but is also a Petitioner in WP No.103994 of 2023. The only assertion made as regards - 170 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 establishing the claim of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt being reference to aforesaid publications and the Nirupa. 27.10. A suit has also been filed by respondents No.6 to 15 wherein petitioners No.1 to 6 claims to be the devotees and followers of Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt which has been filed after the filing of the present writ petition and those persons have also been impleaded in the present matter. The manner in which the said suit has been filed subsequent to filing of the writ petition, impleading application being filed and asserted that respondents No.6 to 15 will be affected if any order is passed and there being no suit which has been filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, I am of the considered opinion that the intention behind filing of the said suit is also suspect. Be that as it may the arguments of respondents 6 to 15 - 171 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 were heard in detail and all the submissions made on their behalf by Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel have been dealt with in the present order. 27.11. For all the above-mentioned reasons, I answer point No.6 by holding that at this juncture, I am of the considered opinion that the brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde is that of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu and not that of Shri Jaya Teertharu.</p><p>28. ANSWER TO POINT No.7: What order?. 28.1. I am of the considered opinion that it does not behoove the Mutts of the stature of Shri. Uttaradi Mutt and/or Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to have such disputes in a court of law, they ought to have resolved the same among themselves they being guiding Mutts as regards - 172 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 the Shri. Madhva philosophy which the common citizens look upto. 28.2. The mutts and their Peetadhipatis, being knowledgeable of worldly and other worldly affairs, are looked upon to offer solace to a common man. It is never advisable for such guiding Mutts, who are friends, philosophers and guides to the general public, to have such disputes. It is, in fact, for such Mutts to guide the general public, their devotees and followers in such a manner that there is no scope for any disputes to arise, if despite the same if any worldly or other worldly disputes were to arise to guide them in such a manner that they are resolved amicably. If the same are not so resolved, the Courts are always available to decide on the dispute raised. 28.3. It is there required for the Peetadhipatis of both the Mutts to resolve these disputes at the - 173 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 earliest, lest the followers and devotees would be dragged into the same, as can be seen by Respondents No.6 to 15 having been dragged in. 28.4. Considering that these disputes have recently arisen for the last three to four years leading to litigation before this Court, and this litigation arises every year when Aradhana is required to be performed, I am of the opinion that waiting for the Civil Court to decide the alleged dispute now raised which may take many years, would not be in the interest of both the Mutts and/or the followers of the Mutt. 28.5. This court would have to take into consideration the circumstances as existing and as also established as being followed to arrive at a conclusion rather than to wait for a decision of a Civil Court as regards the dispute raised only now based on the Nirupa issued by the former - 174 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 pontiff of Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, which Nirupa is also contrary to the statements made by the very same pontiff in a litigation before Courts of law. 28.6. In view of the above findings and observations, I pass the following: </p>ORDER<p> i. The Writ Petition in W.P. No.103994/2023 filed by Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt is dismissed. ii. The writ petition in W.P. No.103982/2023 filed by Shri. Uttaradi Mutt is allowed. iii. A mandamus is issued directing official respondents No.1 to 4 to provide adequate protection, if and when necessary, for Shri. Uttaradi Mutt to offer prayers, conducting pooja Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc., in the name Shri. Raghuvarya Teertharu at his Brindavana situated on the island named ‘Nava Brindavana Gadde”, - 175 - NC:</p><p>2024. KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982 of 2023 C/W WP No.103994 of 2023 bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Gangavati Taluk, Koppal District; and iv. Respondents No.1 to 4 are also directed to ensure that Shri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and/or its followers do not offer any prayers, conducting pooja Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Puja, rituals, prayers, Ashtottara, samarpana, etc, in the name of Shri. Jaya Teertharu at any brindavana situated at Nava Brindavana Gadde. v. The above order shall, however, be subject to the Judgement and decree, if any, passed in OS No.35/2024, now pending before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Gangavathi. I place on record my appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Sri.Vinay Kudri, Law Clerk- cum-Research Assistant. Sd/- JUDGE LN, List No.:</p><p>19. Sl No.: 1</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State Of Karnataka',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1232793'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Article 226, Constitution, Article 226, Section 144, Section 144, Section 144, Section 144, Amendment, Article 19(2, Section 56, the Evidence Act, the Evidence Act, Article 226 of the Constitution, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Article 226, Article 226 the High Court, Section 4, Article 226 of the Constitution, Article 226 of the Constitution, Article 226 of the Constitution, Article 226, Article 226 of the Constitution, Article 226 embark, Article 226, Article 226, Article 226, the Brindavana of Shri, Section 9, Article 25 of the Constitution, Section 9, Section 9, Section 9, Section 9, Section 9, Constitution, Constitution, Article 25 of the Constitution, Section 21 of the Evidence Act, Section 31, Section 21, the Evidence Act, the Evidence Act

PERSON: KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, DESHPANDE., BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, KOPPAL5 SHRI NANJANGUDA RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT, H.K. RAM RAO AGED ABOUT55YEARS R/O11-110, KISHAN RAO S/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO AGED, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560056, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, ARUN L. NEELOPANT, H.R. DESHPANDE., RAGHUVARYA TEERTHA, DIST.KOPPAL, R.K. VADEENDRA S/O R.KRISHNACHAR AGE, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, KANAKAGIRI GANGAVATHI, DESHPANDE, BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Uttaradi Mutt, a. Quash, Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava, Raghuvarya Teertha, Nava Brindavana Gadde, Anegundi, Mahimotsava, Sri, Anegundi, c. Grant, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Uttaradi Mutt, Anegundi, Nava Brindavana Gadde, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Nava Brindavana Gadde, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Mutt, Shri Raghavendra Swamy, Shri Uttaradi, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri Madhva Parampara, Shri Kavindra Teertharu, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Krishna Rao, Nizams, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri Jaya, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Aradhana, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Aradhana, Ardahana, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Mutts, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Anegundi, Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Tahsildar, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Tahashildar, Shree Uttaradi Mutt, Shree Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava, Shree Raghuvarya - 23 - NC:2024, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, vii, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Mahimotsava, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Anegundi, Nos, Nos, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, No.7, Govinda Odeyar, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri Vysararaj Teertharu, Shri Srinivas Teertharu, Shri Sudheendra Teertharu, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri Akshobhya Teertharu, Bhageerathi Bai, Raghappa Achar, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Kumar Deshpande, Respondent No.5- Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Anegundi, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, v. Liberty, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, b(1, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, ¦ÃoÁ¢ü¥ÀwUÀ¼ÁwzÀÄÝ, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, ಇ(cid:21, ೇU(cid:31)ಾFE(cid:31)ೆ ಅ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:20)ಗು, ÀmÁÖ, ಾಡ^ೇTೆಂದು, Shri Raghavendra - 38 - NC:2024, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Mutt, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Anegundi, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, H.S. Stya Pramooda, Defts, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Brindavanas, Moola Brindavana, Srinivas Tirtharu Rama Thirtharu, Holi, Deft, Vageesha Tirtharu, Sudhendra Tirtharu, para No.7, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Rajasab, Krishn Rao, Suyamendra Thirtharu, Jayaramachar, Joshi Sd/-, Prasanna Theertharu, Hanumanthacharya, joshi, Sd/-, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Suyamendra Thirtharu, Jayaramachar, Joshi Sd/-, Prasanna Teertharu, Hanmanthacharya, joshi, Sd/-, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri, Vyasaraya Mutt, Anegundi, Mutt, Shri, Shri, Padmanabha Teertharu, Shri, Raveendra, Shri, Sudheendra Teertharu, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Sujayendra Teertharu, Shri Kavindra, Vysararaj Teertharu, Shri Srinivas, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Sudheendra Teertharu, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Govinda Wodeyaru, Shri, Shri, Shri, Vyasaraya Mutt, Shri, Kumar Deshpande, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Uttaradi Mutt, Mutt, Uttaradi Mutt, Gurus, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Anegundi, Shri, Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Kaveendra, Vageesha Teertharu, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Nava Brindavana Gadde, Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Shri, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Anegundi, Nava Brindavana Gadde, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Uttaradi Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Uttaradi Mutt, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Brindavana, Para 51, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Mutt, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Karnataka Gazeteer, Dharwad District, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Anegundi, Shri, Srinivas Ramanuj Das v., Surjanarayan Das2, Gazetteer, Gazetteer, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Gazetteer, Shri, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Gunwant Kaur, Century Spg, para13, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Anegundi, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Raghuvara Teetharu, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Brindavana, Shri, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Jain Sangh v. State, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Himmatlal, Mahabir Prasad, B.S. Gupta, Jain Sangh’s, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Raghuvarya Rayaru, Shri, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Brindavana, Shri, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Shri, Raghuvarya Teertharu, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri, Shri, Raghuvarya Teertharu, Nirupa, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Shri, Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri, Mutt, Shri, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Raghuvarya Teertharu, Raghuvarya Teertharu, Raghuvarya Teertharu, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Raghuvarya Teertharu, O.S.No.193/1992, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Dharwad District, Shri, Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri, Sri, Kumar Deshpande, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, BNK Sharma, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, M.R.Anantha Padmanabha Rao, Sannur Bheema Bhat, Shri, Kannada, Shri, Shri, T.K.Venugopala Dasaru, Dasa Parampara, Srimad Jaya, Anegundi Utsava, Sharana Basappa Kolkar, Shri.-, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Uttaradi Mutt, Shri, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Moran Mar, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Srimad Perarulala, Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami, Srimad Perarulala, Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami, Stainislaus v. State of M.P., KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Adeshwarji, Swetamberis, Dhwajadand, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Moran Mar Basselios, Catholicos, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Moran Mar Basselios, Catholicos, Moran Mar Marthoma’s, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Basant Singh -v- Janki Singh, Janki Singh, Kailashpati Singh, Ramanand Singh, Janki Singh, Janki Singh, Kailashpati Singh, Ramanand Singh, Ramanand Singh, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Ramanand Singh, Kailashpati Singh, Homeopathic, Janki Singh, Janki Singh, Kailashpati Singh, Ramyad Singh, Ramyad Singh, Ramyad Singh, Chanderjoti Debi, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Jairam Mahaton, Lokenath Mahaton, S.T. Chendikamba v. K.I. Viswanathamayya, Indian Law, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Kamta Prasad, Shri, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Peetadhipati, Shri, Shri, Nirupa, Nirupa, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Nirupa, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Prabhuling K. Navadgi, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Mutt, Uttaradi Mutt, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Mahimotsava, Sri, Anegundi Village, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Mutt, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri, Shri, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982, Shri, Shri, Althaf Ahamed v. State, Will, Shri, Uttaradi Mutt, KHC-D:7502 WP No.103982

DATE: 2023, 2023, 2024, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, R6-R15, 2023, TO1007-2023, 11TH MAIN45H, 2023, 2023 1, THIS DAY, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 6th July 2023, 7th July 2023, 8th July 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, the year 1959, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, centuries, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 6th, 7th and, 8th July 2023, 2023, 2023, the year *1916, 2023, 2023, the year 1988-89, 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2023, 2023 5, the year 2022, the month of July 2022, 2023, days, the year 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, fifth, sixth, June, 2023, 2023, 2023, 4th July to 7th July, 2023, both days, 8th July to 10th July 2023, both days, 2023, 100391/2023, 2023, the same day, 2023, 2023 6, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023 9.5, 1324, 1388, 1398, 1406, 1534, 2023, 2023 6, 1539, 1564, 1584, 1683, 2023, 2023 9.10, the year 1958, the year 2022, 2023, 2023 10, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, fifth, sixth, June, 2023, 2023, 2023, 100391/2023, 2023, 2023 ii, 2023, 2023, 14-7ರ(cid:21)((cid:22, 2023, 2023 5(cid:16)ೕ(cid:26)ಾ(cid:20)ಸ&ಾಜರು 2, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 1959-60, 2023, 2023 1.-, the year 1351, the year 1355 F., 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, this day, 2023, 24.12.1967, 16, 2023, 2023 10.16, 2023, 2023 10.18, 13.03.1968, the year 1991, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023 10.25, the year 2022, Shri, 15.07.1952, 2023, 2023 10.27, centuries, centuries, 2023, 2023 10.28, 1 1989(2, 2023, 2023, 2023, 1966, 2023, 2023, under 2 1966, 2023, 2023 Section 56, 2002, 3 (2004, 2023, 2023, 1969, 2023, 2023, 2023, 1969, 1970, 2023, 2023, 1969, the year 1985, 2023, 2023, the year 1985, the year 1985, 2023, 2023 10.39, 2023, 2023, 1957, 1985, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023 10.42, the last several centuries, 2023, 2023 10.43, the year 1985, centuries, 2023, 2023, 10.45, centuries, 2023, 2023, 2023, the year 1966, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023 11.4, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 1995, 2023, 2023, 1972, 1977, 1983, 1983, 2023, 2023, 1970, 1971, 2023, 2023, 1991, 1912, 1934, 2023, 2023, 1935, 2023, 2023, 2023, 1939, 2023, 2023, 20236, 2023, 2023, 2023 5.06.1985, 2023, 2023 12, 2023, 2023 12.3, 2023, 2023, the 1st, daily, 2023, 2023, 2023, 2023, 11.3.2024 - 88 - NC:2024, 2023, 2023

ORG: C/W WP No.103994, KARNATAKA, C/W WRIT PETITION No.103994 OF2023(GM-RES, SR, SATISH S RAICHUR & SHRI, ADVOCATES, PRINCIPAL, DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA, C/W WP No.103994, GOPAL KRISHNA S/O DR, CROSS, MAIN, SRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE SOUTH KARNATAKA-560050.8, K MARUTHI GURUPRASAD S/O K. BHEEMASENA RAO AGED ABOUT50YEARS R/, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560061, C/W WP No.103994, NARASINGA RAO S/O D. KISHAN RAO AGED ABOUT64YEARS R/O ANUGRAHA NILAYA JAYANAGAR, SRINAGAR, PRASANNA DESAI W/O PRASANNA DESAI AGED, CROSS, THALAGHATTAPURA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560062, No.1077, MAIN, SRINAGAR, MUTTAGI S/O M.L. NARAYANACHAR AGED ABOUT47YEARS, MAIN, ITTAMADU, C/W WP No.103994, J.M. AAG, AGA, SR, C.V. NAGESH, SR, FILE NO.SAM/KAM, NO.524, SR, C/W WP No.103994, KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF REVENUE REP, PRINCIPAL, AAG A/W SHRI, AGA, SR, S. RAICHUR & SHRI, DATED, ETC, C/W WP No.103994, Court, Original, Annexure-N, Respondent no.5, Aradhana, C/W WP No.103994, Court, i. Issue, Aradhana of Shri, C/W WP No.103994, District Kalaburagi, C/W WP No.103994, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, C/W WP No.103994, Nava Brindavana Gadde, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, O.S. No.65/1/59-60, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, C/W WP No.103994, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, C/W WP No.103994, Court, Court, W.P. No.103449/2023, Aradhana, C/W WP No.103994, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Navabrindavana Gadde in Sy, Gangavathi Taluk, C/W WP No.103994, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the State of Karnataka -respondent No.1, Tahsildar, C/W WP No.103994, the Nava Brindavana Gadde, RSA No.100446/2015, W.P. No.111125/2014, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, C/W WP No.103994, the Raja of Anegundi, Shri Jaya Theetharu, Court, C/W WP No.103994, Shri Jaya Theetharu, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, C/W WP No.103994, W.P. No.102614/2022, Court, Court, Court, C/W WP No.103994, Brindavanas, Mutt, Aradhana, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, C/W WP No.103994, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Asst, Asst, Court, Court, W.P. No.103449/2023, Kom/Devasthana/2023-24, Court, C/W WP No.103994, Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Navabrindavana Gaddi, Court, Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Court, Court, Court, Aradhana, Shraddha, C/W WP No.103994, Court, Writ Petition No.103982/2023, Navabrindavana Gaddi, Anegundi, Taluka-, District-Koppal, Shree Raghavendraswamy Mutt, Navabrindavana Gaddi, Anegundi, Taluka-, District-Koppal, Court, C/W WP No.103994, Navabrindavana Gaddi, the RSA Court, Court, RSA, Court, W.A. Nos.100390/2023, WA No.100390/2023, W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023, C/W WP No.103994, I.A. No.5/2023. v) Liberty, the Writ Petition, C/W WP No.103994, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Aradhana, C/W WP No.103994, C/W WP No.103994, the Civil Court, JMFC, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, believed.-, C/W WP No.103994, JMFC, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, C/W WP No.103994, Shri Madhwacharyaru, C/W WP No.103994, Smt, C/W WP No.103994, the Petitioner-Shri Uttaradi Mutt, WP No.103982/2023, Court, the Aradhana of Shri, C/W WP No.103994, W.P. No.102614/2022, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, W.P. No.103449/2023, W.P. No.103449/2023, C/W WP No.103994, Kom/Devasthana/2023-24, Court, Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Moola Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Navabrindavana Gaddi, Court, Aradhana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Court, Court, Court, Aradhana, Shraddha, C/W WP No.103994, Division Bench, WA No.100390/2023, C/W WP No.103994, W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P. No.103994/2023, I.A. No.5/2023, the Writ Petition, C/W WP No.103994, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, AiÀÄ, cid:5)ಾಲುD, cid:5)ಾಲುD, C/W WP No.103994, ಈ ಸ;ಳವX5cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16, ನಂಜನಗೂಡು 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16, C/W WP No.103994, O.S. No.65/1/59-60, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, C/W WP No.103994, Munsiff, Gangavathi, the Court of Munciff at, H.H. Suyanendra Tirtharu &, CPC, C/W WP No.103994, Brindavanas of Shri Vyasaraya Mutt, Vyasarayaru, Govinda Tirtharu, Padmanabha Tirtharu, Ravindra Tirtharu, the Holy Brindavans, C/W WP No.103994, H.H. Satya Dhanaru, C/W WP No.103994, W/s, Srinivasa, Govinda, Govinda Wodeyaru, C/W WP No.103994, Mutts, C/W WP No.103994, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Shri, Srinivasa, C/W WP No.103994, C/W WP No.103994, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Teertharu, C/W WP No.103994, C/W WP No.103994, W.P. No.102614/2022, W.P. No.103449/2023, finality.-, C/W WP No.103994, Madhva, C/W WP No.103994, Madhva, Kalaburagi, State, the State Government, the National Award, State, C/W WP No.103994, State, State, State, S.Rangaraj, Nava - 52 - NC:2024, C/W WP No.103994, Kalaburagi, Madhva, State, the Mysore Gazetteer, Bombay Gazetteer, Karnataka Tourism Dept, Gazetteers, Peetadhipathi of Shri, C/W WP No.103994, Kalaburagi, Surjanarayan Das, C/W WP No.103994, ABL International Ltd., Export Credit Guarantee Corpn, India Ltd.3, Court, Court, State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., Court, the High Court, C/W WP No.103994, Court, Court, The High Court, State, The High Court, The High Court, C/W WP No.103994, the High Court, the High Court, the High Court, the High Court, The High Court, C/W WP No.103994, the High Court, Court, Mfg. Co. Ltd., Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, Court, the High Court, Court, Court, C/W WP No.103994, SCC769 this Court, C/W WP No.103994, Mutt, C/W WP No.103994, M.B.) & Collector4, The Supreme Court, Civil Court, the High Court, the High Court, C/W WP No.103994, Court, Court, Sales Tax Officer, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, C/W WP No.103994, C/W WP No.103994, C/W WP No.103994, Nirupa, Peetadhipathi, Peetadhipathi, Peetadhipati, C/W WP No.103994, Navabrindavana Gadde, Mutt, Mutt, C/W WP No.103994, Navabrindavana Gadde, the Peetadhipathi of Shri, Peetadhipathi, C/W WP No.103994, the Karnataka Toursim Gazetteer, Navabrindavana Gadde, Kalaburagi, The Bombay Gazetteer, The Karnataka Tourism Gazetteer, the Gazetteer of India, Karnataka State Gazetteer, Government of Karnataka, Kalaburagi, C/W WP No.103994, Malkhed,, Kalaburagi, Navabrindavana Gadde, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Court, C/W WP No.103994, Navabrindavana Gadde, Sodi Mutt, Udupi, Nava brindavana Gadde, History of Dvaita School of Vedanta, C/W WP No.103994, Navabrindavana Gadde, Navabrindavana Gadde, C/W WP No.103994, Teertharu, Teertharu, Peetadhipathi of Shri, Nava brindavana Gadde, a Civil Court, C/W WP No.103994, RSA No.100446/2015, C/W WP No.103994, State of T.N., T.N., State of T.N., S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, Church, Church, Mittal, C/W WP No.103994, Church, Explanation, Digambari, Jain, Chakshus, C/W WP No.103994, The Catholicate of the East, Malankara Association, C/W WP No.103994, the Appellate Court of, the Royal Court, Court, the Syrian Orthodox Church, Churches, Catholicate at Malankara, Evangelistic Association, the Malankara Association, C/W WP No.103994, Court, C/W WP No.103994, the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, Satyadeo Prasad -v- Smt, AIR1996PATNA110-, C/W WP No.103994, Hardeo, Ext.-, C/W WP No.103994 of, Kamta Prasad, Hardeo, Kamta, Hardeo and Jagarnath, Hardeo, Navadagi, C/W WP No.103994, Navabrindavana Gadde, C/W WP No.103994, Aradhana, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, C/W WP No.103994, C/W WP No.103994, Navabrindavana Gadde, Shri, Shri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Gangavathi, Vyasaraja Mutt, Reliefs, C/W WP No.103994, Declare, the Moola Brindavana of Sri, Navabrindavana Gaddi Anegundi Village, Gangavathi Taluk, Nava Brundavana Gaddi, Gangavathi Taluk, C/W WP No.103994, Navabrindavana Gadde, C/W WP No.103994, Court, C/W WP No.103994

CARDINAL: 2, 6, 7, 12TH, 12TH, 1, 11.RAM, 12.VASUKI, 13.RAGHUNTH, 9TH, 14.AMEETH, 5TH, 15.PRABHANJAN, 1ST, 1ST, 51, 5TH, 5, 2, R4, 24, 27-06-2023, 6, No.4, 27.06.2023, 04.07.2023 to 10.07.2023, No.4, 1 to 4, Mag:101:2023-24, 27.06.2023, 3, 1., 3.2, an - 8, one, 3.3, 3.4, 9, 3.5, 3.6, 10, 3.7, 1/3rd, 2/3rd, 11, 3.8, 3.9, 12, 3.10, 5.06.2023, 227, 2023, 3.11, 3.12, 14, 10.07.2023, 3.13, No.4, 27.06.2023, 1., No.3, No.4, 4.2, 15, 2023, 4.3, nine, 16, one, 7, 4.4, three, one, 24.06.2024, 17, 4.6, 26, 18, No.2, 4:5, 1, No.2 to, 4, 15.07.2022, 9, two, 19, 2023, only three, three, 227, 20, 30.05.2023, 30.05.2023, 30.05.2023, 30.05.2023, No.3, No.3, 21, several thousands, 5.3, 27.06.2023, 22, 27.06.2023, 2023, 5.4, 31.08.2023, 31.08.2023, 24, 2023, 25, 4, 26, 8, 6 to 15, 6 to 15, No.6 to 15, 9.1, 27, No.6 to 15, 9.3, 9.4, 28, No.6 to 15, 9.6, 6 to 15, 9.7, No.1, 6, No.8 to 10, nine, 2, 3, 4, 5, 29, 7, 8, 9, 9.8, 9.9, 30, 31, 10.1, 10.2, only one, 32, 5.7.2023, 10.3, 10.4, 15.07.2022, 30.05.2023, No.3, No.3, several thousands, 34, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 31.08.2023, 35, 10.8, 36, 10.9, 12.03.1959, 192, ಸಂ, 1, 2, 3, 3ಂ(cid:10)Hಂದಲೂ 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16, 37, 3, 5(cid:16)ೕ, 2ೆಸU(cid:12)ೆ, 192, 17-00, 10.10, 10.11, No.2, No.3, 4, 7, 39, 2, 10.12, 10.13, 1, 2, 9, 40, nine, five, 2, three, 1, 2, 1, 2, No.4, 41, 1, 2, 8, 1, 2, 9, 1, 2, 42, 1, 2.1, 11.60, 10.14, nine, 43, 2023, 10.15, three, three, nine, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 44, three, 10.17, 45, 10.19, 10.20, 10.21, 46, one, 10.22, 10.23, 47, 10.24, 48, 10.26, 49, 50, 10.29, 51, 51, 2023, 10.30, 10.31, 10.32, 10.33, 10.34, 35, 25, 10.36, 54, 10.37, 15 to 19, 1 SCC216, 218, 7, 3, 55, 3, 774, 14, 14, 56, 2023, 57, 3, 1, 587, 58, 3, 10.38, 59, 60, 10, 61, 214, 10.40, 62, 10.41, 63, 64, 10.44, 65, No.6 to 15, No.6 to 15, 66, 10.46, 10.47, 67, 2023, 2023, two, 11.1, 69, 11.2., 11.3, one, 70, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 71, 11.8, 11.9, another - 72, 11.10, 11, 37, 89, one, 5, 4, 73, 2, 1, 147, 1, 1, 74, 3, 2, 75, are:1, 26, 76, two, 1934 Constitution, 11.12, 11.13, 6, one, 78, 2023, 11.14, 110, 31, two, 79, 2023, 405, 446, No.2, 80, 11.15, 11.16, 81, 2023, 11.17, 5.06.1985, 82, 11.18, 83, No.6 to 15, 12.1, No.6 to 15, No.6 to 15, 84, one, No.6 to 15, 12.4, No.6 to 15, 85, 12.5, 86, No.6 to 15, No.6 to 15, 12.6, 87, 12.7, 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6, 5.1, 5.2

MONEY: 60, 1/138A, 3RD STAGE, 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16, 5(cid:16)ೕ &ಾಘ(cid:26)ೇಂದ(cid:16

GPE: ST, TQ.GANGAVATI, J.M., W.P.No.103982/2023, Gangavati, Ashtottara, Gangavati, W.P.No.103994/2023, Sedam, Anegundi village, Mutts, Anegundi village, Mutts, India, Mutts, Aradhanas, P.C., Cr, P.C., Mutts, Gangavati, No.103994/2023, Gangavati, Mutts, Mutts, Ashtottara, Gangavati, O.S., Gangavati, O.S., Gangavati, Cr, P.C., W.A. No.100390/2023, Gangavati, ಾಡುKಾ1&ೆ, ಇ(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:31)ೆ3ೕ(cid:12)ೆ, Mutts, Anegundi village, Pujas, Aradhanas, Holiness, Holiness, Kannada, Anegundi, Anegundi village, Malkhed, Gulbarga, Gazetteer, India, Karnataka State, Karnataka, O.S., Nava Brindavana - 53 - NC:2024, Municipality, Brindavana, Brindavana, Brindavana, Brindavana, Brindavana, Brindavana, Madhwa, Brindavana, Brindavana, Brindavana, Brindavana, Shri.-, Gulbarga Region, Karnataka, Gulbarga Region, Brindavana, Brindavana, W.P.No.103982/2023, Karnataka, O.S., Ugamsingh, Paroli, Kalash, worship.89, India, Act.3, Malankara, the Patriarch of Antioch, Simhasana, St. Mary, Ramanand, Ramanand, Peetadhipati, Brindavana, Brindavana, O.S., Karnataka

NORP: BANGALORE-560085, Shri Raghuvarya, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Tungabhadra, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Kaveendra Teertharu, Malkhed, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya, Holy Brindavans, Nasim, Nasim, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvaryaya, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Swetamberi, Catholicos, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu

LOC: ISLAND, Tungabhadra river, W.P. No.103994/2023, Shri Jaya Theertharu, Single, Single, Single, Shri Jaya Teertharu, Shri Jaya, Shri Jaya, Single, Single, Shri, Malkhed, Shri Jaya Teertharu, Malkhed, Sanskrit, Single, Shri Jaya Teertharu, the Brindavana of Sri, the Brindavana of Sri Jaya Teertharu

PRODUCT: Shri, Shri, Shri, Shri Madhvacharya, Articles 25, Brindavanas, Brindavanas, Shri Madhwacharya, Bench, Vageesha Teertharu, Shri Jaya, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri, Shri Madhwacharya, 1 ಮ2ಾಮ3ಮರ, F, Shri, No.1 being Shri, No.1, Vageesha, Shri, Judgment, Shri, Shri, Shri Jaya Teertharu, Shri, M.P. Cases, Shri, Shri, No.5-Shri, Shri, Shri, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Metropolitan, Articles 25, P.W. 24, Shri, Shri, The Single Bench

FAC: the Holy Moola Brindavana of Shri, the Brindavana of Sri, the Navabrindavan Gadde, Nava Brindavana Gadde, Nava Brindavana Gadde, the Nava Brindavana Gadde, Nava Brindavana Gadde, Nava Brindavana Gadde, Koppal District, Nava Brindavana Gadde, the Nava Brindavana Gadde, Nava Brindavana Gadde, Nava Brindavana Gadde, the Nava Brindavan Gadde, the Nava Brindavan Gadde, the Nava Brindavan Gadde, the Navabrindavana Gaddi, the Nava Brindavana Gadde., the Brindavana of Shri Raghuvarya Teertharu, the Navabrindavana Gadde, the Single Bench, the Nava Brindavana Gadde, Nava Brindavana Gadde, Sinappa Achar, the Navabrindavana Gaddi, the Nava Brindavana Gadde., Nava Brindavana Gadde, Munsiff, the Nava Brindavana Gadde, Nava Brindavana Gadde, the Moola Brindavana of Shri Vyasaraja Matt, Shri, the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu, Nava Brindavana Gadde, Nava Brindavana, Nava Brindavana Gadde, the Brindavana of Shri, Nava Brindavana Gadde, the Brindavana of Shri, Nava Brindavana Gadde, Nava Brindavana, Nava Brindavana Gadde, Nava Brindavana Gadde, Nava Brindavana Gadi, SCC831, Nava Brindavana Gadde, Koppal District, Koppal District

ORDINAL: second, seventh, seventh, first, first, third, 1st

WORK_OF_ART: the Brindavana of Shri Jaya Teertharu, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Raghavendra Swamy, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Jayateertharu, Teertharu or Shri Jayateertharu, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Jayateertharu, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, Shri Jayateertharu, Shri Uttaradi Mutt and, Shri Uttaradi Mutt, the Brindavana of Shri, The Brindavana of Shri, The Brindavana of Shri, the Brindavana of Shri, the Brindavana of Shri, The Brindavana of Shri, another Brindavana of Shri, the Brindavana of Shri, The Hudaya Canon, Nirupa, Peetadhipati, the Poojas of Shri

QUANTITY: 14 acres, 5(cid:16)ೕ ಮ6ಾ78ಾಯ(cid:27)ರ ಮುಖ(cid:20, 4. ಸುBೕಂದ(cid:16, 14 acres

EVENT: the Peetadhipati of Shri

LANGUAGE: English