it was after this that the present suit was brought by the aforesaid plaintiffs in the companyrt of the district judge bijapur as civil suit number 2 of 1962 under 8.
accordingly plaintiff no 2s father as the trustee filed civil suit number96 of 1935 in the companyrt of the joint civil judge bijapur ant the learned civil judge by his judgment dated august 8 1936 decreed the plaintiffs claim.
they pleaded inter alia that the temple had numberright or title to the suit premises which belonged to this by virtue of a registered gift deed dated february 19 1917 executed by mariyappa uncle of plaintiff number 2 in favour of their predecessor in title balalochanayya that there was numberconsent in writing given by charity companymissioner under 8.
on their failure to do so he brought two suits being civil suits number.
shankarawa also of gurunandayya were taken in service of the temple and allowed to reside in the suit premises free of rent on companydition that they were to occupy the said premises so long as their services to the temple were required.
after ramchayya and gurunandayya were removed from service of the temple shantayya brother of rachayya ant smt.
as earlier the suit was instituted by appellant number 2s father as plaintiff number 2 in the name of idol shri gollaleshwar dev as plaintiff number 1.
aggrieved by the judgement of the district judge the appellants preferred an appeal before the high companyrt.
thereafter plaintiff number 2s father terminated the services of rachayya gurunandayya yet called on them to vacate the suit premise which they tilt.
51 and therefore the suits brought under 8.
subsequently balalochayya left the premises occupied by him.
shankarawa also started creating trouble and plaintiff number2s father according terminated their services and asked them to vacate the suit premises.
the case of the plaintiffs was that the defendants were in occupation of the said premises with leave and licence of the trustee of the temple and as they refused to deliver possession of the suit premises the suits had been instituted for a declaration that the property belong to the temple and for possession thereof.
it appears that plaintiff number 2s uncle mariyappa lingappa permitted one balalochanayya hiremath to reside in a part of the suit premises as he happened to be a man of saintly pursuits and one without a family.
plaintiff number 2 was impleaded as the present trustee of the temple and plaintiff number 3 as the grandson of mariappa the elder brother of plaintiff number 2.
50 ii of the act for the aforesaid reliefs with the companysent in writing of the charity companymissioner granted under.
rachayya and gurunandayya started asserting rights derogatory to the trust.
they were to remain occupation of the suit premises as licensees of the trustee of the temple.
from the judgment and decree dated 19.10.1971 and 5.4.1971 of the mysore high companyrt in regular first appeal number 57 of 1967.
the defendants went up in appeal to the court of the district judge in regular appeal number 109 of 1936 but the appeal was dismissed on numberember 22 1937.
thereafter plaintiff number 2s father as the trustee employed two brothers ramchayya and gurunandayya to perform services for the temple and he assigned the suit premises to them for their residence with a view that they should be allowed to occupy the premises free so long as the trustees allowed them to remain in occupation and so long as they were retained in the service of the temple.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1195 of 1972.
50 11 of the act were number maintainable and further that the companyrt of the civil judge senior division bijapur had jurisdiction to entertain the suits.
244 and 255 of 1957 in the name of the idol shree gollaleswar dev as plaintiff number 1 with himself being the trustee as plaintiff number 2.
in 1957 shantayya along with smt.
the defendants companytested the plaintiffs claim on various grounds.
b. datar for the respondents.
singh for the appellants.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sen j. this appeal on certificate from the judgement and decree of the karnataka high companyrt dated april 5 1971 raises a question of general public importance.
the suit premises being within the four walls of the temple they form part of the temple and are entered in the certificate of registration as belonging to the temple.
s. javali and b.p.
