Karnataka HC Gives Hereditary Temple-Priest Rights Claimant Fresh Chance To Prove Kinship Before Seeking To Continue Suit

The petitioner sought to be brought on record as the legal representative of deceased plaintiff Nos. 1 and 5 in a suit brought by eleven plaintiffs asserting hereditary archaka rights.

The petitioner’s applications under Order XXII Rules 3 and 9 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act were rejected by the Trial Court because the asserted relationship was not established in the supporting affidavits.

The respondents also pointed to an inconsistency: the petitioner claimed to be plaintiff No. 5’s son in the applications but her brother during the proceedings.

The petitioner challenged the Trial Court’s order and the appellate order dismissing his appeal.

The applications arose under Order XXII Rules 3 and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 5 of the Limitation Act; the writ petition was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court’s stated approach was to allow the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate his claimed relationship through relevant documents, while leaving the Trial Court to decide, in accordance with law, whether he qualified as a legal representative and whether the right to prosecute the suit survived in his favour.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered the inconsistency in the petitioner’s claims of relationship and the Trial Court’s resulting conclusion that the relationship had not been prima facie substantiated.

It nevertheless held that the petitioner should have an opportunity to support his claim with relevant documents.

It therefore did not determine whether he was in fact related to either deceased plaintiff or whether the suit’s claimed right survived in his favour; those questions, as well as the respondents’ challenge to the suit’s maintainability, were left for the Trial Court.

The Trial Court was directed to reconsider any such applications afresh in accordance with law.

The petitioner must establish the claimed relationships, and the question whether the right to prosecute the suit survives, along with all other contentions, remains open.