SRI TRIPURA BHAIRAVI MUTT vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2012 Before THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH Writ Petition 41048 / 2011 (LR) Between Sri Tripura Bhairavi Mutt By its Mahanth – Sri K Krishna Mohananda Giri Goswamy, 48 yrs Ashoka Road, Mysore Petitioner (By Sri Padubidri Mohan Rao, Adv.) And 1 State of Karnataka – by its Secretary Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha Bangalore 2 Land Tribunal, Nanjangud Taluk By its Chairman 3 Sri Bhishma Pitamaha, 90 yrs S/o Maniram Sharma 4 Sri Kuldeep Prakash, 42 yrs S/oSri Bhisma Pitamaha 5 Smt Shobha Devi, 50 yrs W/o Sudhir Mishra

2 6 Smt Hemalatha, 48 yrs D/o Bhishma Pitamaha 7 Smt Nisha Sharma, 46 yrs D/oBhisma Pitamaha 8 Smt Anjana, 44 yrs D/o Bhisma Pitamaha 9 Smt Vijaya Lakshmi, 40 yrs D/o Bhisma Pitamaha R3-9 are r/a # 573, Ashoka Road Mysore 1 Respondents (By Sri R Omkumar, AGA for R1-2; Sri Ravi B Naik, Sr.Adv. For Sri P Chandrashekar for R3-9) Writ Petition is filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order of the Land Tribunal, Nanjangud dated 14.9.2011 – annexure A. Petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Petitioner K Krishna Mohananandagiri Goswamy representing the Tripura Bhairavi Mutt, has filed this petition to quash the order of the Land Tribunal, Nanjangud in LRF 94/76-77 on 14.9.2011.

3 According to the petitioner, the Mutt had filed an application in Form 11 under S.66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act relating to the lands held by it situate at Nanjangud, Mysore. The application was filed by the then Mahanth of the Mutt – Sri P Krishnandagiri Goswamy. Before the matter could be taken up by the Tribunal for inquiry, during September, 1989, the said P Krishnandagiri Goswamy died, as such, petitioner claiming to be the Mahanth stating that he has succeeded the gaddi of the petitioner Mutt as successor to the late Mahanth and Peetha of the Mutt and that he has been installed as a Mahanth of the petitioner Mutt on 2.10.1989 and that his appointment as Mahanth has been recognised by the petitioner Mutt at Varanasi by the brotherhood sanyasis, mahanths and other brotherhood, filed an application. It is stated, the 3rd respondent who was a purvashrama bandu of deceased Mahanth took a main role in initiation and installation of the present Swamiji – petitioner as the Mahanth of the Mysore Mutt and also signed the documents along with his son Kuldeep Prakash the 4th respondent - which is evidenced by annexure C and petitioner has taken over the possession of all the movable and immovable properties of the 1st petitioner mutt on 2.10.1989. it is further stated, P Krishnanandagiri

4 Goswamy has been assessed to Wealth Tax in respect of the properties which were the subject matter of declaration as at annexure B along with other properties received by his predecessor Mahanth as belonging to P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. According to the petitioner, the said Mahanth has challenged this assessment before this Court and this Court, on consideration of the documents and evidence, ordered the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to reconsider the matter and assess the properties of late Mahanth and accordingly, the Income Tax authorities have passed an order modifying the previous order, holding that the properties blended with the Mutt properties and that of the Mahanth's. Further it is stated, in MSA 89/1988, this Court has referred the issue, to hold an inquiry as to the legal heirs of the deceased Mahanth, to the II Munsiff at Mysore in OS 142/1983 who has recorded a finding that it is the present petitioner Krishna Mohananandagiri Goswamy who is the rightful heir of the deceased Mahanth. Based on the finding of the court below, this Court passed an order holding the petitioner to come on record as the legal heir of deceased

5 Mahanth and negated the right of the 3rd respondent as per the order at annexure D. Similarly, in RFA 183/1980, matter was referred to the court below to hold an inquiry as to the legal heir of deceased P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy, and the finding is in favour of the petitioner Mahanth. In MFA 1919/1994 c/w 1616/1994, the same question arose regarding inheritance of the property left behind by the deceased Mahanth's brother and the 3rd respondent and it has been categorically held that the properties of Sanyasi cannot be inherited as prima facie the properties are impressed with the character of Mutt properties. It is further submitted, at an undisputed point of time, the deceased Mahanth P Krishnanandadagiri Goswamy had filed a declaration as per annexure F before the Revenue Inspector on 26.6.1973 that he has renounced all his worldly affairs and taken up sanyasa and as such, neither the 2nd respondent nor any member of his family or purvashrama bandhu could claim any right in the property of the petitioner Mutt in their capacity as purvarshrama bandhu or relative of the deceased Mahanth P Krishnanandgiri Goswamy. On the death of the previous swamiji, the properties that stood in his name also does not go to the purvashrama bandus but goes to the Mutt succeeded by his chela/disciple.

6 Referring to the sworn statement before the Income Tax Officer, Mysore on 9.1.1978 annexure G, it is stated, Mahanth P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy has declared that he has no personal properties at all and all the properties inherited from his guru Mahanth Purushothamananda Giri Goswami, after his death, belongs to the Mutt and the Mutt holds it as Trustee. On Mahanth P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy's death, petitioner is the Mahanth of the petitioner mutt. The proceedings before the 2nd respondent Land Tribunal culminated in a similar order dated 6.8.1993 upholding the claim of the 3rd respondent and this order of the Tribunal was set aside in WP 31287/1993 – annexure H, remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal. Once again, the Land Tribunal passed a similar order which was challenged in WP 34337/1999 which was set aside by order dated 18.12.2006 – annexure J. It is stated, the Land Tribunal, without considering the various documents filed and out of extraneous consideration, passed the impugned order granting various extents of land to persons who had not filed any declaration and they have no right or title to possess the land belonging to the petitioner Mutt and they have also not established right in respect of the properties ordered to hold. During the pendency of the inquiry before the

7 Tribunal, suits were filed by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in OS 147/1995 c/w 100/1994 and also 258/1998 before the II Addl. Civil Judge, Mysore. The suit filed by the 3rd respondent was dismissed and the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed by another judgment dated 29.9.2007 as per annexure K against which, 3rd respondent filed three separate appeals before the II Addl. District Judge, Mysore in RA 126, 127 and 128 which were dismissed by a common order on 28.1.2010 holding the petitioner as the Mahanth of the Mutt and the properties standing in the name of the predecessor Swamiji Mahanth P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy belongs to the Mutt and not to him personally and the same is being held by the petitioner Mahanth on behalf of the Mutt. After the death of P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy, petitioner made an application under O 22 R 3, CPC to bring him on record as legal representative of the deceased Mahanth as per annexure L, which has not been considered by the Tribunal and it has ordered against the applicant Mahanth K Krishnamohananandagiri Goswamy. According to the petitioner, the revenue records at annexure N depicts the land are held by the predecessor Swamiji since ancient time till 1.3.1974 and the revenue records in respect of the properties in question

8 show that properties were held by predecessor Mahanths Eshwar Giri, Purushothamananda Giri and Krishnanandagiri Goswamy and it does not disclose the names of any individual family member though in Column 10, property is shown as ancestral property which according to the petitioner, is because it was inherited by successor Mahanth of the petitioner Mutt and the same is held by the Mutt. Thus, according to the petitioner, the Land Tribunal without holding proper inquiry as per R 24 and S 63 of the Land Reforms Rules and the Act, without following the procedure contemplated, has passed an order which is illegal and accordingly, he has sought for quashing the said order. Statement of objections have been filed by respondents 3-9. According to the contesting respondents, petitioner making a false claim that he is the Mahanth of Tripura Bhairvavi Mutt, has challenged the order of the Land Tribunal dated 14.9.2011 – annexure A. It is stated, petitioner was a saree vendor at Banaras. He was known to the family of these respondents and during his lifetime he had no contact with the late Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. As such, his claim that he is the Mahanth of

9 Tripura Bhairavi Mutt is not sustainable. The impugned order now challenged was the subject matter of the order before the Land Tribunal way back in the year 1993 and 1999 and the petitioner is before this Court for the third time challenging the order of the Land Tribunal. The Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that these respondents are the legal representatives of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy in view of the settled law by the Supreme Court in the case of Gurucharan Prasad Vs Krishnananda - AIR 1968 SC 1032 in which judgment it is held that the property purchased and standing in their name are the self acquired properties from money lending and other business and not the properties purchased by any endowment or contribution made by the general public. Accordingly, referring to the ratio laid down in the said judgment, it is submitted Krishnanandagiri Goswamy was doing money lending business and was a toddy contractor. He had purchased the property at Immavu Village of Nanjangud Taluk from various landlords out of the income earned from money lending and other business. Further, referring to para 33 of the above cited judgment, it is submitted, the Mahanth of the so called Tripura Bhairavi Mutt systematically pursued money lending business and there

10 was little nucleus of any endowed property and the property purchased by them and standing in their name are their personal properties. The claim of the petitioner that he is declared Mahanth is not sustainable in the eye of law and his claim as Mahanth is pending adjudication before this Court in RSA 984/2010, 985/2010 and 986/2010 and also an undertaking was given by the petitioner’s counsel that the judgment and the decree in the suits would not be precipitated. It is further submitted, late Krishnanandagiri Goswamy was basically doing money lending business during his life time and had not appointed any disciple. He was not at all in the field of spiritual brotherhood. In order that the property purchased by him remain with him, he had executed certain documents to make believe that the property purchased and owned by him belongs to the Mutt. But, in fact, the whole world was aware of the fact that Krishnanandagiri Goswamy was not a Mahanth and was doing money lending business and he had created documents to make believe that these properties belong to the Mutt so as to save the property from exorbitant tax levied by the revenue officers and the income tax authorities and also to see that the properties were not resumed to the State. It is stated, the properties at Immavu Village of Nanjangud

11 were purchased much before the coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The provisions of the Land Reforms Act is not applicable and petitioner is not entitled to any right as claimed by him. The provisions of the Act provides that a person who does not belong to the family cannot claim or is entitled to hold any land in excess of the ceiling limit. The 1968 Supreme Court decision clearly states that property purchased by the so called persons who claim themselves as Mahanth of Tripura Bhairavi Mutt are from money lending business and not by any contribution or endowment or gifts as such. Admittedly, petitioner is not a family member of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. He has stated these respondents are family members of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. Late Krishnanandagiri Goswamy had, in his life time, never appointed any disciple to succeed him even though he had many persons working under him. They were serving him to assist him in money lending business. In this regard, he had given evidence before the authorities. In the case cited supra, with regard to nominating successors, it is observed that respondents 3 to 9 are admittedly family members of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy, under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. They are the only persos who are entitled to claim or hold the

12 land. Petitioner having failed to establish the fact that he succeeded to the Mutt at Mysore and was appointed as a chela during the life time of Krishnandagiri Goswamy, cannot claim any land belonging to Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. Only respondents 3 to 9 who are family members, can hold the land. Referring to the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, it is submitted, family members alone have right in the properties. In OS 147/1995, in the cross-examination, witness/power of attorney holder of the petitioner has admitted that the documents which he claims relating to he being appointed as Mahanth, are manipulated for his convenience to take advantage of the situation that the 3rd respondent Bhishma Pithamaha was a handicapped person. Petitioner’s assistance was taken to perform the death ceremony of late Krishnanandagiri Goswamy in view of the fact that Kuldeep Prakash son of the 3rd respondent, was also a handicapped person. As they were unable to perform the rituals of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy, they took petitioner’s assistance only for that purpose. In the above cited Supreme Court decision, it has been held that properties purchased by persons of Tripura Bhairavi Mutt claiming themselves as Mahanth, belong to individual and not to the Mutt. It is

13 further submitted, in OS 489/1986, 3rd respondent has been held as the legal representative of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. The same was confirmed in RA 394/2004. In Execution petition 1639/1994, the Executing Court has held that Bhismapithamaha is the legal heir of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. This has been further confirmed by this Court in CRP 1905/2002 and that order has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. It is stated, late Krishnanandagiri Goswamy enjoyed the properties purchased by him in his individual capacity and not as Mahanth of Tripura Bhairavi Mutt. The Revenue records reveal that some of the properties in Immavu Village were purchased by late Purushottamananda Giri Goswamy in his individual capacity and he died as a spinster and Krishnanandagiri Goswamy who was his brother’s son, succeeded to the property of Puroshottamanananda Giri Goswamy and continued money lending business and other business and the revenue records at annexure R series reveal that properties were enjoyed in the individual capacity of Purushottamananda Giri Goswamy and Krishnanandagiri Goswamy and is so reflected in the patta books and tax paid receipts. The properties are the subject matter of adjudication before the Tribunal and it is the finding of the

14 Land Tribunal that Krishnanandagiri Goswamy has held lands in excess in individual name. Pursuant to the death of Krishnanandagiri Goswami, Bhismapithamaha and his children are the legal representatives as per the genealogical tree at annexure R 113 and also survivor certificate at annexure R 114 reveals that 3rd respondent is the legal representative of late Krishnanadagiri Goswamy. On his death, proceedings were continued by Bhismapithamaha and in the proceedings, there are some orders in favour of the petitioner and some orders in favour of the respondents. The orders passed in favour of the petitioner are set aside by the superior courts and the proceedings initiated by the petitioner in OS 142/1983 were subsequently withdrawn. As such, it is stated, petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is further stated, petitioner placed reliance on annexure C the order of remand passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court directing the income tax authorities to adjudicate the matter afresh after hearing the 3rd respondent, the income tax authorities have assessed the properties for wealth tax and income tax. The taxes are

15 paid by Bhismapithamaha. This itself establishes the fact that petitioner is not the Mahanth and is not entitled to claim any right over the properties. It is also stated, petitioner intends to rely on annexure D, the order passed in MSA 89/1988 which arises out of the order passed in OS 142/1983 and the said original suit itself is withdrawn seeking liberty to file a fresh suit as such, the order in MSA and also the order in the original suit does not survive for consideration. So far as annexure E is concerned, it is stated by the respondents’ counsel, the order passed by this Court is arising out of an order dated 22.6.1994 in OS 30/1994. The said suit was also withdrawn as such, annexure E is also not sustainable. Also annexure F – statement of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy and annexure G – the answers given to the questions by the petitioner are also relied upon. Further, counsel for the respondents has relied upon the order of this Court on 8.7.1999 in WP 13170/1990 - annexure R 115 and also the order in Execution Petition 1639/1994 which is confirmed in CRP 1905/2002 and also the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted, the above order in Execution petition and the CRP and also the order of the Supreme Court establishes that Bhismapithamaha is the successor of

16 Krishnanandagiri Goswamy to the properties and also the income tax authorities have passed necessary orders recognising Bhismapithamaha as the successor of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy and documents are produced in this regard at annexures R 116 and 117. Also relying upon the order dated 19.11.1994 in OS 489/1986, Misc.Appeal 81/1994 and RA 394/2004, it is submitted the order of the competent courts reveal that Bhismapithamaha is the successor of Krishnanandagiri and that petitioner is not the Mahanth. In this regard, annexures 118 to 120 are produced. It is stated, petitioner sought for declaration and injunction in respect of these lands, having succeeded in the suit against which, the 3rd respondent has preferred RA 14/1998. The appeals are allowed which are not challenged by the petitioner. On the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment and decree in OS 147/1995, it is submitted, petitioner also made counter claim and it is rejected by an order dated 19.4.1997 by the trial court which is at annexure R121. Accordingly, the orders reveal that the case of the petitioner is false and he is not at all the Mahanth of Tripura Bhairavi Mutt. With reference to annexure K it is submitted, the judgment and

17 decree in OS 147/1995, 100/1994 and 258/1994, are subject matter of appeal in RA 984, 985 and 986/2011 and in that, petitioner’s counsel had given an undertaking that he would not execute the order passed in RSA pending before this Court. It is further submitted, the power of attorney holder of the petitioner has conceded that there is manipulation in the records based on which the petitioner claims that he is placed as Mahanth of the Mutt. Also he has admitted that petitioner was a saree vendor in Banaras and he was brought by Bhismapithamaha to assist him in performing the obsequies of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. It is contended, the claim of the petitioner that the property devolved on the basis of guru to shishya is false and the judgment in 1968 supreme court case is in favour of respondents 3 to 9. It is stated, the order passed by the Land Tribunal is after scrutinizing the material on record and allotting 10 units land each to respondents was to the knowledge of the petitioner and he has preferred writ petition on 2.11.2011 two months after the said order which itself depicts the conduct of the petitioner. Petitioner was issued with a warrant by the Mumbai High Court for having manipulated the records of the Corporation to claim compensation amount in the case pending before that

18 High Court. Petitioner claiming to be the Mahanth had sold property at Pune for his luxurious living and he is not living the life of an ascetic. He is in the habit of initiating proceedings and harassing the respondents who are physically handicapped persons and women folk of the family of the 3rd respondent. Thus, raising various grounds, they have sought for dismissal of the writ petition. Petitioner also, in support of his argument, filed series of documents against the statement of objections filed by the respondents, to stand by his contention. Heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents and the Government Advocate. As per the submission, petitioner is the Mahanth of Tripura Bhairavi Mutt. In the ceremony held by the 3rd respondent himself, this petitioner has been installed as a Mahanth on acceptance of Sanyasa. He has renounced all worldy affairs for all practical purposes as such, question of

19 3rd respondent or any other respondent claiming on behalf of the 3rd respondent is without any basis. The property held in the name of then Mahanth should be the property of the petitioner Mutt. As such, question of claiming the property through succession by the 3rd respondent and his legal representatives does not arise. The 3rd respondent is only a purvashrama bandu. Annexure B is the order wherein Krishnanandagiri Goswamy, the Mahanth of the petitioner Mutt was assessed for wealth tax and income tax in respect of the properties which are the subject matter of petition. The properties received from his predecessor by Krishnanandagiri Goswamy is challenged before this Court and this Court in Division Bench, has ordered the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the case for assessment of the properties. Ultimately, the tax authorities have modified the order holding that the properties are held by the Mutt and the Mahanth, and accordingly, collected the tax. Further, according to the petitioner's counsel, in OS 142/1983, the II Munsiff, Mysore has passed an order holding the petitioner as the rightful successor of the deceased P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. The decision in MFA 1919/1994 and 1616/1994 and also the decision in RFA 183/1980 is in favour of the

20 petitioner and at an undisputed pointed of time, the declaration filed by the then Mahanth P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy before the revenue authorities on 26.6.1973 itself depict the fact that all the properties belong to the Mutt. Also it is very much clear from the sworn statement of the Swamiji that he has no personal properties inherited from his Guru which belongs to the Mutt. After the death of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy, petitioner came on record as the Mahanth of the petitioner Mutt. The order of the Land Tribunal in favour of the 3rd respondent was set aside by the order of this Court in WP 31287/1993 and also in WP 34337/1999 which is in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order is now passed granting land to even to a dead person and, all the suits filed by the 3rd respondent were dismissed by a common judgment during September, 2007. The appeal filed by the 3rd respondent before the District Judge also came to be dismissed holding that petitioner is the Mahanth of the Mutt. The application made by the petitioner to come on record after the death of P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy has not been entertained by the Tribunal. All the lands in question are ancient properties held by the Swamiji. Accordingly, petitioner's counsel relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this

21 Court, contended that the Tribunal has no right to adjudicate on the aspect of legal representatives and also submitted that there is non compliance of R 24 of the Land Reforms Rules r/w S.66 of the Land Reforms Act. The order of the Tribunal suffers from illegality and accordingly, learned counsel has sought for allowing the writ petition by quashing the order of the Land Tribunal. In support of his argument, counsel has relied upon several decisions which I shall refer to, inthe courseof the order, if need be. Per contra, counsel representing the 3rd respondent, in support of his contentions raised in the statement of objections filed in detail, submitted that the petitioner who was a saree vendor at Banaras was brought by the 3rd respondent to assist him to perform the obsequies of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. All the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his claim that he has been installed as Mahanth by the 3rd respondent and his son, are concocted and as per the Supreme Court decision in connection with this case, the property endowed and stood in the name of the Mutt are

22 alone properties of the Mutt. The properties in the name of the Manager which are acquired by way of money lending business and toddy business cannot be the properties of the Mutt and the property has not been assigned by the deceased Krishnanandagiri Goswamy in favour of any person much less in favour of the Mutt. As such, 3rd respondent being the brother and successor of the deceased Krishnanandagiri Goswamy and his legal representatives are entitled to claim the properties as the succession opens. The declaration if any, filed by P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy before the revenue authorities is also to escape from the liability of payment of heavy tax and not the real statement made by him. It is also submitted, the order passed by the Tribunal pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench is not in compliance with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court and there is no finding given by the Division Bench as to whom the properties belong much less, as per S.63 of the Land Reforms Act, Mutt cannot hold any property. The property stood in the name of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy and it was acquired out of money lending business and toddy business as is observed by the Division Bench. The said Swamiji had no disciples and the order passed by the Tribunal is in compliance with S.63

23 r/w S.24 of the Act and though some of the decisions were held in favour of the petitioner in the original suits, ultimately, on withdrawal of the suit itself i.e., OS 142/1983, there is no order as against the 3rd respondent and when once the property is held by Krishnanandagiri Goswamy in his personal capacity out of earnings from money lending and toddy business, the properties stood in his individual capacity and succession opens as such, rightly the Tribunal has, in support of the claim and application filed by 3rd respondent and others, granted property as per the Land Reforms Act and the finding given by the Tribunal with regard to legal heirship of the respondents is in order and supported by the finding of the civil court in Execution Petition which is affirmed by the Division Bench and also by the Supreme Court as such, undisputedly respondents 3 to 9 are the legal heirs of P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. The properties in question are not Mutt properties except the property which are endowed to the Mutt. There is no suit filed in respect of the properties in question. The genealogical tree produced, issued by the revenue authorities, has been considered in the suit proceedings and the same has not been disputed. The record of rights stand in the name of this Krishnanandagiri Goswamy and thereafter, the 3rd

24 respondent was also the tenant in respect of the properties in question. The Tribunal having rightly taken into consideration that the respondents are in possession as tenants of the property as per the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, has passed an order. It is further submitted, the Mutt itself is not carrying out charitable activities and the petitioner’s predecessor represented in his individual capacity and was holding several properties which were not acquired out of the income from the properties endowed to the Mutt rather, properties were acquired out of toddy business and money lending business. The order of the Tribunal is in accordance with S.63, 66 and 67 of the Land Reforms Act. Even prior to and as on 1.3.1974, the name of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy is mentioned and not that of the Mutt. Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, it is the contention of the respondents’ counsel, there were only fifteen properties initially held by the Mutt that is endowed to the Mutt and no other property. However, this statement is controverted by the petitioners’ counsel contending that the 1968 judgment of the Apex Court is not with reference to the present case filed by the petitioner.

25 According to the Government Advocate, there is no mention of the properties in the declaration that they belong to the Mutt. As per S.133 of the Land Revenue Act, there is a statutory presumption as to the entries made in the revenue records. As per S.63 (7) of the Land Reforms Act, Mutt cannot have any property. Even the so called Mutt is only nominal and not carrying out any charitable or religious activity and it is purely a business enterprise and they do not have any disciples. As per R 24 of the Land Reforms Rules, claimants have filed statement to the Tahsildar who in turn, placed it before the Tribunal and based on the inquiry by the Tribunal, order has been passed granting land as per entitlement. It is also the submission of the Government Advocate, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. The property does not belong to the Mutt. As per the revenue records, it belongs to an individual and exercising power under the Land Reforms Act, order has been passed by the tribunal granting property as per entitlement and the remaining property has to be forfeited to the Government i.e., excess property has to

26 be forfeited under the land ceiling. It is further submitted, however, inquiry would be held giving an option to the parties and further order will be passed as per requirement under S.63, 66 and 67 of the Act and the order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be reagitated. In the light of the arguments advanced by the counsel representing the respective parties, it has to be considered - Whether the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal, Nanjangud recognising respondents 3 to 9 as legal representatives of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy requires interference; So also the order passed by the Land Tribunal granting various extents of land as per the Land Ceiling Act is in order or whether it needs interference; Whether the property in question belongs to the Mutt or to an individual; whether the properties in question are the subject matter of inheritance by respondents 3 to 9 or the properties should be made available to the petitioner Mutt. Annexure B is the declaration filed by P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy

27 in Form 11 in his name. It is also stated, the land is held by him as per column 1 in the declaration form. In the final declaration it is stated, lands described in annexure A belongs to him as Mahanth of the petitioner Mutt and they are in actual possession and also it is stated, S.66 of the Land Reforms Act does not apply to him. In the annexure, he also makes a mention of several properties held in Immavu village of Nanjangud and also properties at K R Nagar, Goddanapura, Hunsur, T Narasipur, Srirangapatna, etc. The order at annexure C, of course is the income tax revision before the Division Bench of this Court, and this Court held that the courts have not expressed any opinion with regard to the nature of properties held by P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy whether in his individual capacity or as properties of the Mutt. Referring to the earlier order of the Tribunal, the Division Bench remanded the matter to the Tribunal. Of course, the Tribunal has assessed the income tax and the wealth tax which the 3rd respondent has paid on the ground that such assessment was made by the Appellate Tribunal, by the assessing officer by blending all the properties of the Mutt as well as the properties held by P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. In this regard, the argument of respondents’ counsel is, the

28 finding of the Tribunal pursuant to the order of the Division Bench is only in respect of assessing tax, there is no consideration as to rightful ownership and also entitlement of legal heirs and the order of the Tribunal and also that of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has nothing to do with the entitlement of properties and contended that the order is in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the year 1968. The order passed in MSA 89/1988 as submitted, appears to be with regard to application by Krishnanandagiri Goswamy to come on record as successor of the deceased Mahanth wherein the application filed by Krishnanandagiri Goswamy is allowed by this Court. In the order at annexure E (MFA 1919/1994 c/w 1616/1994) this Court has ordered on the IAs decided by the trial court, that the matter was remanded to the trial court to give a finding after the trial is conducted with regard to entitlement to the properties and also with regard to the properties in the hands of P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy would be that of the Mutt or that could be inherited. Annexure F is statement given by P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy that the Mutt is not a muzurai institution. Neither the government nor any section of the public has donated any funds

29 at anytime for its existence or maintenance and it is purely a private Mutt and has no connection with the public. It is also stated in the statement that there are no chelas/disciples. In para 7 it is stated, after the demise of his Guru, he has succeeded as Mahanth of Tripura Bhairavi Mutt. All the properties acquired by the Mutt was purchased by his Guru and Grand Guru and not by charity given by any disciple or any section of the general public or by the government. Annexure H is the order of this Court against the order of the Land Tribunal by which order, matter has been remitted to the Tribunal to consider the documents produced by the petitioner. Annexure J is the order of this Court in writ petition once again remanding the matter to the Tribunal to lead additional evidence and dispose of the matter. Annexure K is the judgment in the suit filed in OS 147/1995, 100/1994 and 258/1995 – one is filed by Bhismapitamaha and the other two are filed by the petitioner against Bhismapitamaha. In a detail judgment, the suit filed by Bhismapitamaha has been dismissed and the suit filed by the petitioner has been allowed, referring to various issues. Also, there is a reference to the statement at Ex.D4 wherein P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy has stated that he was doing money lending business (all the loans including the suit

30 loan belonging to my Mutt and not to me individually. The Mutt is not a public Mutt, it is my private Mutt and I am the sole owner of the Mutt. Except the income of the Mutt, I have no income individually, except the Mutt properties, I have no other properties.). In the suit filed by Bhismapitamaha, he has sought for a declaration that the plaint schedule properties as claimed by defendant (Petitioner herein) to be the property of Tripura Bhairavi Mutt is unenforceable and null and void and also stated that defendant is not a Mahanth in accordance with Hindu law, of the alleged Tripura Bhairavi Mutt and also to declare Item 1 of the plaint properties is not a Mutt and the defendant was never a chela as claimed by him and also to direct the defendant to vacate B schedule properties and also to injunct the defendant from interfering with the B Schedule properties. The suits filed by the petitioner in OS 100/1994 and 258/1998 - one is for eviction and for mesne profits and the other one is for a declaration. Of course, against the judgment and decree passed by the civil court, the appeal preferred before the District Judge, has been dismissed. However, the said matter is pending consideration in the second appeal.

31 In the statement of objections filed by respondents 3 to 9, certain paragraphs/observation of the Apex Court in Gurucharan Das's case has been culled out, which reads: 1. The Mahant was nominating his successor form out of a large number of persons living with him by his will. The nomination was not because of religious ….. piety but aptitude for business. 4. The mahant made no provision for any religious teaching although he was laying down a code of conduct for the disciples. (14) A scrutiny of the above document would lead to the inference that the mahant was treating himself as the absolute owner of all the properties admitting no claim thereto by any one excepting his disciples and their disciples of the same status as Gauri Gir, the donee. The mutt and the grove alone were to be treated as inalienable. 30 ….. The exhibits show that acquisition of bits of property by the mahants stated as early as 1797 by Chetangir. Every succeeding mahant went on acquiring

32 various items of property. The largest number of acquisitions seem to have been made during the item of Uttam Gir and Sheodat Gir. It is also undisputed that sales started as early as 1816 and continued down to 1879 leaving out of account the transfers by Mayanand Giri. It must be said that there are a very few instances of transfers to outsiders. Suffice it to say that they were not altogether unknown. Such alienations could not be justified except on the theory that they were the personal properties of the Mahant and in law it made no difference whether the transfer was infavour of a stranger or to a co- disciple or any other member of the brotherhood. All the transfers passed the title to the property out of the Mahants of the Math to others. In the decision, there is also reference to the earlier Mutt i.e., Uttamgiri Mutt and thereafter, P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy having succeeded to the present Mutt viz., Tripura Bhairavi Mutt and with reference to that, regarding certain properties which were alienated and the dispute regarding that had been dealt by the Allahabad High Court and thereafter, matter reached the Supreme Court wherein having noted the way in which the Mutt came into existence and continued, the Apex Court has

33 observed that the Mahanths of the Mutt systematically pursued business and acquired considerable properties and referring to deceased P Krishnandandgiri Goswamy held that they are systematically carrying out banking and money lending business which passed on from each of the Mahanth to its chosen successors. The observation of the Allahabad High Court is also to the extent that property was acquired by doing banking business. It is also specifically pointed out that properties which are endowed to the Mutt by way of gifts and other charities are alone the Mutt properties and any properties acquired out of money lending and in their charge are their personal properties unless it is established that any particular item of property is the subject matter of endowment or gift for a particular charitable purpose. In this regard, counsel for respondents 3 to 9 submitted that whatever the property left in the Mutt's name and whatever charity given to the Mutt alone is Mutt property and not the properties in hand and also according to him, certain annexures in R series produced by way of record of rights in respect of various properties, depict the name of P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy and not that of the Mutt. Referring to the record of rights produced in respect of various survey numbers in various

34 villages of Nanjangud and other places, learned counsel tried to demonstrate that the properties are inheritable and Bhismapitamaha was the kith and kin of P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. On his death, Bhismapitamaha succeeded to the estate and these are not Mutt properties. Nearly about 100 and odd RTCs are produced depicting the name of P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy and on his death, in the name of 3rd respondent Bhismapitamaha in columns 9 and 12 regarding ownership as well as possession and cultivation either as successor to the properties or as tenant. The tax paid receipts and other revenue entries are also produced. Annexure R 113 is the legal heir certificate issued by the revenue authorities showing how the properties went into the hands of P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy from his predecessor Eshwar Giri brother of Hariramm, Sukh Dayal and Niranjangiri. This Eshwar Giri was unmarried. Sukh Dayal had two children – one P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy and he died unmarried, another son Maniram had three children - Krishnandagiri Goswamy, Bhismapitamaha and Satyabhama who succeeded and according to the respondents' counsel, Bhismapitamaha and Sathyabhama succeeded to the estate which stands in the name of P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy.

35 Another document produced by the 3rd respondent is the decision in WP 13170/199 filed before this Court on the tax side against the order of the Tax Tribunal wherein the observation of this Court is to the effect that since Bhismapitamaha is neither before the Tribunal nor before this Court, during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, he was not heard, the decision given by the Tribunal was with regard to income tax liability in respect of properties, to whom the properties belong is purely a civil matter which has not even been decided by the Tribunal to contend that pursuant to the remand by the Division Bench, the order of the Tribunal is only in respect of collection of tax and does not decide on the issue of title and entitlement. Annexure R 116 is the Execution Petition filed by the brother Bhismapitamaha of the deceased Swamiji viz., P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy wherein one application is filed by Bhismapitamaha and another one is filed by the present petitioner. While adjudicating on the aspect as to who has to succeed as legal heir, the executing court with reference to O 22, R 3, CPC referring to various documents, held it is the 3rd respondent who is the legal heir and with reference to the 2nd application i.e., the 2nd applicant (petitioner herein), it is stated, petitioner has admitted that P

36 Krishnanandagiri Goswamy has filed income tax returns in his individual capacity showing his income in the year 1971. Thereafter, P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy submitted his returns as Mahanth with nil income and accordingly, opinion is formed by the executing court that the admission of petitioner herein goes to show that deceased P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy had a personal income of his own. This order has been challenged by the petitioner herein before this Court in CRP 1905/2002 – annexure R117 wherein this court has upheld the finding of the executing court and dismissed the revision. It is submitted, referring to the reasoning given by the Executing Court in its order holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, trial court had justly held that applicant 1 - Bhismapitamaha is the legal heir. In the appeal by way of Special Leave petition before the Supreme Court by the petitioner, the same was dismissed. Annexure R 118 is the order of the Addl. Munsiff at Mysore wherein a suit was filed against the predecessor of the Mutt viz., P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. Various documents are produced by both the sides relating to the Mutt and earnings by the Mahanth. The revenue records in respect of the petition properties are shown to be standing in the

37 name of P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy and on his death, it appears the 3rd respondent has paid the income tax and in the application before the Executing Court to come on record on the ground that he being the brother and the income earned by P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy is by way of money lending and other business, the Executing Court has held that respondents 3 to 9 are the legal representatives of deceased P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. As regards petitioner's installation as Mahanth, there is said to be an admission by PW1 witness on behalf of the petitioner in OS 147/1995 – annexure K that the documents produced regarding his installation as Mahanth, are concocted documents. As regards the decision of this Court, cited by the petitioner's counsel with regard to finding of the Land Tribunal accepting the 3rd respondent and others as legal heirs is concerned, it is argued that it is for the Civil Court to decide as to who is the legal heir and not the Tribunal. According to the respondents, the Civil Court has given a finding holding that respondents 3 to 9 are the legal heirs of deceased P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy and not the petitioner and also there is said to be a legal heir certificate issued by the revenue authorities based on which the Land Tribunal has accepted

38 respondents 3 to 9 as the legal heirs of deceased P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. Accordingly, it is contended, based on that finding of the civil court which reached finality as to legal heirship, decision has been taken and the Division Bench or the Tribunal has no power to give a finding as to legal heirship. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of Smt Shankarawwa Vs Land Tribunal, Koppal - ILR 2006 KAR 4484 to contend , following R 24 r/w S.63 of the Land Reforms Act is a mandate and in this regard, it is the submission of the Government Advocate that, on submission of the application by respondents 3 to 9 through the Tahsildar, it has been placed before the Land Tribunal. There is compliance of mandatory provision. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the case of Shri Krishna Singh Vs Mathura Ahir & Ors - (1981) 3 SCC 689 to contend that properties acquired by Mahanth devolved on his religious fraternity and not on his natural heirs and contended that properties belong to the Mutt and petitioner is installed as Mahanth of the Mutt and prayed for allowing the petition.

39 On overall assessment of the material evidence on record, as per the observation of the Apex Court in the 1968 case and subsequent developments and also the statement of the predecessor Swamiji/Mahanth i.e., P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy goes to show that the properties in question are acquired by money lending business and toddy business. So far as installing the petitioner as Mahanth is concerned, the relating documents are said to be concocted/created, as per the admission of one of the witnesses (defendant 1 in OS 147/1995) who has deposed that petitioner has obtained the signatures of plaintiff in order to take the death certificate of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy and thereafter, he has misused the said document and started to claim that he is successor of Krishnandandgiri Goswamy and also started to claim the properties of Krishnanandagiri Goswamy. The supreme Court in the 1968 decision cited supra, has held that properties which are endowed to the Mutt by way of gift or charities are alone Mutt properties. The Apex Court has also observed, in the guise of Mutt or otherwise, swamijis and their predecessors were systematically carrying out banking or money lending business. It appears, properties in question are standing in the name of P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy and

40 thereafter, the 3rd respondent has succeeded as his legal representative. According to the Government Advocate, the material on record depict that the Mutt is only a guise, neither charitable or religious activity is being carried out by the Mutt and as per S.63 of the Land Reforms Act, the Mutt cannot hold properties i.e., as per S.63(7) and, so far as confiscating the excess property by the Government by the order of the Land Tribunal, it is in order and the matter has been properly dealt by the Tribunal. It appears, as is observed by the Apex Court, the then Mahanth P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy was carrying out money lending and toddy business out of which he has earned money and acquired several immovable properties by way of landed properties and it appears, the declaration filed by P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy, as submitted by the Government Advocate and also the respondents' counsel, is only to seek exemption from the implication of the Land Reforms Act and also to save the property from the clutches of law, the so called declaration at annexure B filed depicting the property as belonging to Mutt is baseless and the

41 same cannot be accepted. Nonetheless, properties cannot be retained by the Mutt as they are not being used for religious or charitable purpose. Further, it is also the argument of the Government Advocate that under S.133 of the Land Revenue Act, presumption is always in favour of the entries in the revenue records coupled with other relevant records which depict the name of the 3rd respondent and others and there is no proof of the property standing in the name of the Mutt. The contention of the petitioner that the property devolves on the Mutt would not arise in the case on hand having regard to the nature of the Mutt and the specific statement made by P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy that it is a private Mutt and it is not for religious or charitable purpose. Thus, it is seen, there is admission on the part of the witness on behalf of the petitioner with regard to installation of the petitioner as Mahanth of the Mutt that the documents relating thereto are concocted. So far as the present properties are concerned and as to legal heirship, apart from the finding by the III Addl. Munsiff, Mysore in OS 489/1986 that the 3rd respondent herein is the legal heir of P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy, the

42 order of the Executing Court has reached finality by way of confirmation in revision by this Court and finally decided by the Supreme Court that the 3rd respondent and others are the legal heirs of P Krishnanandagiri Goswamy and further, it is shown the very Swamiji or the Mutt were not rendering charitable or religious activities. Rather, they were systematically pursuing money lending and toddy business. The finding of the Land Tribunal that respondent 3 and others are the legal representatives has reached finality and is also based on the legal survivor certificate issued by the revenue authorities. Though the civil court has controverted the aspect of legal heirship in OS 147/1995 c/w 100/1994 and 258/1998, it is pending consideration in second appeal before this Court. Be that as it may, as to the earlier set of litigation filed by the Mutt in OS 142/1983, on behalf of the Mutt, the suit was withdrawn as such, the finding of the trial court as well as the appellate court in appeal also stands withdrawn and there is a serious dispute being raised from time to time. The trial court while allowing the suit filed by the petitioner, has not considered the admission of the power of attorney holder of the petitioner to the effect that the documents are concocted to show that petitioner is installed as Mahanth of

43 Tripura Bhairavi Mutt.. Further when the suit filed by the petitioner in OS 142/1983 itself was withdrawn, the finding given as to legal heirship in favour of the petitioner is rendered non-est. The effect of it is also not considered by the civil court in OS 147/1995 and connected suits. So also the finding in the appeal against the said judgment in the original suit. The various documents and admissions also are shown to be in favour of the 3rd respondent and other respondents. So far as properties which are in dispute are concerned, if we look into the entries made in the revenue records in Column 9 as well as 12, the name of the 3rd respondent is depicted either as land holder or in the capacity of tenant. It appears, there is no locus standi for the petitioner to claim the properties as Mutt properties. That apart, this is the third round of litigation before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal has passed an order confiscating the excess holding while allocating certain units to the respondents. If any mistake occurred in granting land in favour of respondents and whether respondents are entitled for more or less share, that also could be taken care of in the further orders to be passed by the Land Tribunal. Thus, in view of the discussion made above, I am of the view, the grievance of the

44 petitioner that the property belongs to the Mutt, does not stand to reason. The order of the Tribunal does not require any interference. In the result, petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Judge an