Legal Battle Over Religious Property Rights: Court’s Final Decision

The case between Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and Uttaradi Mutt centered around property rights and religious rituals, leading to an intense legal battle. The legal dispute originated from a suit filed by the respondent, Uttaradi Mutt, seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the appellant, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, from interfering with the possession and religious activities on the disputed property.

The respondent initially filed O.S. No.193/1992, later transferred and renumbered as O.S. No.74/2010. The trial court dismissed the suit, but upon appeal, the first appellate court granted partial relief to Uttaradi Mutt, preventing the appellant from interfering in the respondent’s possession while permitting certain religious activities.

The appellant subsequently filed a second appeal, RSA No.100446/2015, challenging the appellate court’s decision. The primary contention was whether a second appellate court could pass an interim stay order without formulating a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC. The High Court initially granted an interim stay, which was later vacated on procedural grounds.

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could issue interim orders in second appeals without first determining a substantial question of law. The petitioner argued that the High Court’s stay order was justified to prevent irreparable damage. Conversely, the respondent contended that granting such a stay without determining substantial questions of law was procedurally incorrect.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that the High Court erred in granting the initial stay without formulating a substantial question of law. It directed the High Court to consider the appeal on its merits before entertaining any interim relief requests.

The judgment reaffirmed procedural discipline in appellate proceedings, ensuring that second appeals adhere to statutory requirements under Section 100 CPC before granting any interim reliefs. Consequently, the appellant’s plea was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that judicial discretion must align with established procedural safeguards.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Raghavendra Swamy Mu vs Uttaradi Mutt Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-03-2016-1741853992905.pdf