Judgment :- (This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the proceedings initiated by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Bangalore under the notice dated 01.10.2009 vide Annexure-E.) Petitioner is questioning the initiation of proceedings in relation to the appointment of hereditary trustee to the temple Sri Mahatobara Veerabhadra Temple Hiriadka, Bommarabettu Village in Udupi. The temple in question is being managed by the hereditary trustees belonging to the family called Kurla Hegde family. It is not in dispute that there are three branches in Kurla Hegde family (1) Anjaru, (2) Vonthibettu (3) Mombettu. The petitioner belongs to Mombettu branch of Kurla Hegde family. It appears, to assist the managing trustee, another trustee was being appointed from one Alva Hegde Family. The petitioner claims that the Mombettu branch of Kurla Hegde family is controlling the affairs of the temple and the management of the temple vests with them since time immemorial. His specific case is that the Alva Hegde family has abandoned the trusteeship way back and they have lost their right to manage the temple. 2. The Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments by Order No.62 dated 26.01.1931 declared the temple as an “Excepted Temple” under the provisions of Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, copy of which is produced at Annexure-A. The then managing trustee of the temple, one Sri Jaganjeeva Alva expired in the year 1970. Since there was some serious dispute inter se as regards appointment of trustee to the temple, one M.Balakrishna Hegde was appointed as a trustee on the premise that he is a ‘fit person’. It appears, the said Balakrishna Hegde continued to act as such till his death i.e., on 28.03.2009. Suffice it to say that the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent to appoint him as managing trustee of the temple. The respondent also makes an application to be appointed as hereditary trustee. It appears, in turn, the Deputy Commissioner, on 08.07.2009 addressed a letter to the Commissioner recommending appointment of one Prashanth Hegde as Managing Trustee of the temple. According to the petitioner, the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner is without any authorization, but, at best, can be treated as a recommendation. Nothing more nothing less. It appears, in turn, the Deputy Commissioner, on 08.07.2009 addressed a letter to the Commissioner recommending appointment of one Prashanth Hegde as Managing Trustee of the temple. According to the petitioner, the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner is without any authorization, but, at best, can be treated as a recommendation. Nothing more nothing less. In the meantime, one Dr.M.Sunil Hegde, son of the ‘fit person’ (M.Balakrishna Hegde) was appointed as trustee till appointment of hereditary trustee and his functions were restricted only to religious affairs of the temple. It appears, without notice to him, his appointment was revoked. The same was subject matter of an earlier writ petition in W.P.No.28727/2009. The said writ petition was accepted and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law having regards to the fact that the petitioner was not heard before revoking the, order appointing him as a trustee to the temple. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the matter is pending consideration before the Commissioner. Thereafter the present proceedings have commenced. 4. Mr.Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that a perusal of the Act itself discloses that the Commissioner does not have the power or jurisdiction to appoint a hereditary trustee, inasmuch as, there is a serious dispute as to who should be appointed as hereditary trustee and whether the applicants belong to Kurla Hegde family. He further submits with reference to the provisions of the Act that the matter requires to be adjudicated in a Civil Court. He further submits that respondent No.3 does not belong to the Kurla Hegde family. Hence, respondent No.3 cannot claim that he belongs to Vonthibettu family. Thus there is a serious dispute as to the status of the third respondent itself. Hence, the Commissioner cannot go into this factual aspect of the matter and the same is required to be decided by the Civil Court. It is also submitted by Mr.Bipin Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr.Balakrishna Hegde, who was appointed as a trustee on the premise that he is a fit person had filed a suit for seeking declaration that their family has a hereditary right as against the family of Alva Hedge family. 5. It is also submitted by Mr.Bipin Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr.Balakrishna Hegde, who was appointed as a trustee on the premise that he is a fit person had filed a suit for seeking declaration that their family has a hereditary right as against the family of Alva Hedge family. 5. Mr.Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner cannot be heard to say at this point of time that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction. According to him, the petitioner cannot blow hot and cold. He submits that the petitioner himself is an applicant and seeks to be appointed as hereditary trustee. Thus having subjected himself and surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, he cannot now turn around and submit that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction. He submits that having regard to Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, it is open for the Commissioner to give certain suitable directions as to the administration of the temple, which includes the appointment of hereditary trustees. He would press into service an unreported ruling of this Court. 6. Mr.Sachivendra Hegde, respondent No.7, party-in-person submitted that respondent No.4 has no right to claim to be appointed as hereditary trustee of the temple, inasmuch as, he is not a member of the Kurla Hegde Family. He submits that as per Aliyadsanthana law by which this family is governed, respondent No.3 cannot be appointed as hereditary trustee of the temple. 7. Mr.Shivarama Bhat, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 submits that he belongs to Alva Hegde family and the right of hereditary trusteeship with reference to Alva Hegde family was decided by the order of Deputy Commissioner on 02.07.1990 (Annexure-R1). According to him, after fighting a series of litigation in the year 2000, one Mr.Vittal Hegde was declared as hereditary trustee representing the Alva Hegde family but nevertheless, he was not represented. He further submits that after his death, respondent No.9 is entitled to succeed to the Alva Hegde Family. 8. Mr.Shashikiran Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.8 submitted that the petitioner is preempting the whole proceeding and it is for the Commissioner to decide the issue and the whole process initiated by the petitioner is abuse of the process of law. 9. 8. Mr.Shashikiran Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.8 submitted that the petitioner is preempting the whole proceeding and it is for the Commissioner to decide the issue and the whole process initiated by the petitioner is abuse of the process of law. 9. A compendious reading of the pleadings as well as the contentions would boil down to the fact whether the Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide the vexed question regarding appointment of hereditary trustee. 10. In this regard some of the provisions of the Act are required to be looked into. Sub-Section (15) of Section 2 of the Act would define as to who is a hereditary trustee which would read as under: “”Hereditary office – holder” means an office-holder, and “Hereditary Trustee” means a trustee of a Hindu Religious Institution or a Charitable Endowment succession to whose office devolves according to the rule of succession laid down by the founder or according to usage or custom applicable to the institution or endowment or according to the law of succession for the time being in force as the case may be”. 11. Section 3 of the Act would deal with the appointment of Commissioner who hails from the cadre of Indian Administrative Service to be appointed as a Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments of the State of Karnataka. One is required to see whether the powers of the Commissioner to appoint hereditary trustee can be traced to Section 3[3] of the Act. Section 3[3] of the Act would read as under: “The Commissioner appointed under sub-section [1] shall exercise such powers and perform such duties and functions as are conferred by or under the provisions of this Act and shall, subject to such general or special orders as the State Government may make, have powers of general superintendence and control for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act in respect of all Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments in the State, and such Superintendence and Control shall include the power to pass any order which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such institutions are properly administered and their income is duly appropriated for the purpose they were found or exist.” The catch word “supervision and control” does not necessarily imply that it should be in respect of hereditary trustee or otherwise. “Supervision and control” is in respect of in the absence of a trustee, as to who should administer the temple. 12. Section 49 of the Act deals with the power of the commissioner to issue directions. Section 49 of the Act reads as under: “49. Power of Commissioner to issue directions.- [1] Without prejudice to the generality of powers granted under section 3 and subject to other provisions of this Act, the Commissioner shall have power to issue general or special directions to the chairman or executive officer or any person connected with the management of a Notified Institution or a Declared Institution to ensure that the Institution is properly administered and the income thereof is properly accounted for or duly appropriated and applied towards the objects and purpose of the institution and the Commissioner may also give appropriate directions to such person if he finds that any property of the Institution is in danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or wrongfully sold, removed or disposed off. [2] It shall be the duty of every person to whom such directions are issued to comply with the directions issued under Sub-Section [1].” 13. Section 50 of the Act confers power on the Commissioner or Deputy commissioner or Assistant Commissioner as the case may be to institute and hold enquiry with regard to the Institution. 14. Indeed, Section 68 of the Act was pressed into service by Mr. Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel, inasmuch as, save as expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be decided or dealt with by an officer or authority under the Act or in respect of which the decision or order of such officer or authority is made final and conclusive. He submits that the question as to who is the hereditary trustee is a fact which is required to be decided by the Commissioner under the Act. Hence, the question of either of the parties going to the Civil Court and seeking a declaration does not arise. 15. The claim of the petitioners as well as the respondents as to the hereditary trustee would stem from a document which would go back to the year 1890. Hence, the question of either of the parties going to the Civil Court and seeking a declaration does not arise. 15. The claim of the petitioners as well as the respondents as to the hereditary trustee would stem from a document which would go back to the year 1890. According to the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, the hereditary trusteeship is by rotation, inasmuch as, each family is entitled to act as such for a certain period and thereafter the next family and thereafter the third family. Indeed this fact is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as, the deed itself does not contemplate such an act. The vexed question is regarding hereditary trusteeship by rotation can be decided by the Commissioner or for that matter, is required to be decided in a Civil Court on the basis of the evidence to be let in by the parties. 16. A few decisions in support of the said contention can be looked into. In the case of V.S.THIAGARAJA MUDALIAR Vs. BAVA C.CHOKKAPPA MUDALIAR reported in AIR 1974 SC 944 the Apex Court has held that when there are disputed questions in relation to the hereditary trusteeship, the same is required to be decided in a Civil Court. It is no doubt true that the Apex Court with reference to Section 84[1] [b] of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, was of the view that the dispute as to the succession and trusteeship was not within the scope of the provision of the said Act. It is also true that in the present enactment there is no such provision which would enable the Commissioner to decide as to the succession and hereditary trusteeship. In the absence of any specific provision in respect of succession and hereditary trusteeship, the question would be, whether the Commissioner can go into the question and decide the disputed question as to the hereditary trusteeship, when the document on which reliance is placed itself is sought to be disputed. The Apex Court in the said decision, with reference to a decision rendered by the Madras High Court in SASTRI AMMAL Vs. The Apex Court in the said decision, with reference to a decision rendered by the Madras High Court in SASTRI AMMAL Vs. PRAVALAVARNA NAICKER reported in AIR 1956 MAD 146 (ILR (1957) MAD 631) has observed thus: “It was held that a dispute between the claimants to succeed to an office which, it is admitted on all hands, is hereditary is not within the scope of Section 57(b). The learned Judge observed at page 636 as follows: “It is not enough to show that the last holder held the office as hereditary trustee. There can be no dispute about that; and there can be no need to determine that, because the dispute is only who is entitled to succeed to the hereditary office. Obviously a claim to succeed to the office under such circumstances would fall outside the scope of Section 57(b).” The Apex Court has further observed thus: “The Deputy Commissioner was not competent to go into the other question as to which one of the competing claimants was the hereditary trustee or whether the competing claimants were joint hereditary trustees. That had to be worked out in a separate suit. In our opinion, the view expressed in both these cases is correct and though they are not directly on the provisions of Section 84(1)(b) of the Act we have no doubt whatsoever that the same principle applies here.” 17. A perusal of the provisions of the Act which is under consideration does not give any indication that it is within the powers of Commissioner to decide the question of hereditary trusteeship. As noticed, the hereditary office holder and hereditary trustee, is defined under Sub-Section (15) of Section 2 of the Act. A perusal of the said definition would clearly indicate that the rule of succession is required to be laid down by the founder or according to the usage or custom applicable to the institution or endowment or according to the law of succession for the time being. 18. In the case on hand, the parties are litigating as to the rule of succession laid down by the founder, i.e., the Kurla Hegde family and the law of succession. It is no doubt true that Mr. Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel would press into service the contents of the partition deed of the year 1890. 18. In the case on hand, the parties are litigating as to the rule of succession laid down by the founder, i.e., the Kurla Hegde family and the law of succession. It is no doubt true that Mr. Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel would press into service the contents of the partition deed of the year 1890. At this stage, I do not propose to pronounce as to indeed whether the said partition deed envisages such a clause as to the rule and the law of succession and trusteeship, less it would prejudice either of the parties, if they propose to initiate proceedings in the Civil Court. 19. Insofar as the powers of Commissioner under Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act is concerned. MR. Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel would press into service a ruling of this Court in W.P.No.28740/2009 and connected cases decided on 3rd February 2010 to advance his contention that a reading of Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act would clearly indicate that it is within the powers of the Commissioner to decide and issue necessary directions to administer the temple. In the case on hand, we are really not concerned as to the administration of temple, inasmuch as, it is not disputed before me that the temple in question is an “excepted temple” which is popularly known Muzarai Temple. Muzarai temple is within the control of the Government, where an Executive Officer is appointed by the Government to take care of the day-to-day administration. In that context, this Court was of the view that the powers to appoint an Administrator could be traced to the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. Indeed, that was a case where the elected bodies of the trustees continued to function as trustees even after the expiry of their legitimate term. The Commissioner appointed an Administrator to take over the temple. Taking over of the temple by the Administrator was the subject matter of those writ petitions. I have held in those proceeding that the powers of the Commissioner can be traced to Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act to issue necessary directions or to administer the temple. But however, that is not the question here. As observed, the temple is being managed and administered by an Executive Officer. I have held in those proceeding that the powers of the Commissioner can be traced to Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act to issue necessary directions or to administer the temple. But however, that is not the question here. As observed, the temple is being managed and administered by an Executive Officer. The bona of contention between the parties in the present proceedings is in respect of as to who should be the hereditary trustee of the said temple. Indeed, no monetary benefits are extended to the hereditary trustee, except that, it is more of an ego between the parties to the litigation. 20. Another decision which was pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that there is no provision in the Act which empowers the Commissioner or the authority therein to appoint the hereditary trustees is in the case of SURYANRAYANA SWAMY Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY reported in ILR 2007 KAR (HIGH COURT) SHORT NOTE No.9, which may be no a slightly different note. It is in respect of the appointment of Peetadhikari where this Court was of the view that there is no provision in the Act to appoint Peetadhikari and the Rules do not empower the Government to appoint a Peetadhipathi to a Muzarai Institution. A Full Bench of this court in the case of SRI GURUPADAYYA CHARANTAYYA ADAVIMATH Vs. CHIKKAYYA reported in 1979(2) KLJ 53 with reference to the provisions of Bombay Trust Act observed that the said enactment was not intended to interfere with the religious matter of the Public Trust. Its primary purpose is only to ensure proper administration of trust properties. Indeed, the present enactment is not a self-contained code which would cover all questions relating to the succession to the office of the hereditary trustee. It is no doubt true that hereditary office or hereditary trustee is defined under the Act but however in furtherance thereof no provision is brought to my notice to show that it is within the powers of the Commissioner to appoint hereditary trustee to a particular temple. Hence, the decision which is pressed into service by Mr.Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel will not come to his aid. 21. Hence, the decision which is pressed into service by Mr.Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel will not come to his aid. 21. Another contention of Mr.Udaya Holla, learned senior Counsel is that along with the respondents, the petitioner was also an applicant and he cannot, at this point of time, be heard to say that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to deal with this vexed question. In support of this contention, Mr.Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel would press into service a ruling of this Court in the case of SHAIK ABDUL RAHIM Vs. CHINTAMANARAO MADHAVARAO & ANOTHER reported in 1963(1) KLJ (Supp.) 721 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has observed that once a litigant subjects himself to the jurisdiction of a particular authority, he cannot wriggle out of the situation at a later point of time on the ground that the authority did have jurisdiction. Indeed, in the case on hand, it is to be noticed that undoubtedly, the petitioner had made an application. So also respondent No.3. So also, host of other respondents claiming that they belong to Kurla Hegde family and they are entitled to be appointed as hereditary trustees. Indeed, it is to be noticed that no proceedings have commenced as yet. It is not a case where the petitioners’ application is adjudicated either way, or more so, it is rejected. Indeed, I have also taken an identical view in the case of KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. R.K.POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED reported in ILR 2005 KAR 5468. This decision is not applicable to the case on hand, inasmuch as, the application is not finally adjudicated. 22. Mr.Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel is certainly right in submitting that once the party subjects himself to the jurisdiction of a particular authority and invites an order and ultimately, if the order goes against him, he cannot be heard to say that the authority did not have jurisdiction. In the case on hand, the application of the petitioner is not at all adjudicated. May be wisdom has dawned on him now and he found he that the vexed question as to the appointment as hereditary trustee on the basis of several applications for the hereditary trusteeship is required to be decided in a Civil Court but certainly not in a summary enquiry, which is normally conducted by the Commissioner. May be wisdom has dawned on him now and he found he that the vexed question as to the appointment as hereditary trustee on the basis of several applications for the hereditary trusteeship is required to be decided in a Civil Court but certainly not in a summary enquiry, which is normally conducted by the Commissioner. Hence, the decision which is sought to be pressed into service is not helpful to the third respondent. 23. Another decision of this Court was pressed into service by the third respondent in W.P.No.13983/03 decided on 1st December 2005 wherein this Court has observed interpreting Section 68 of the Act to hold that there is a specific bar for the Civil Court to entertain a dispute which falls within the province of the Act. Indeed, the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case. Indeed that was a case of Paricharaks in the temple and they claimed to be hereditary paricharaks. In these circumstances, this Court was of the view that it would be within the domain of the Commissioner to decide the said issue. 24. To appreciate whether the decision could be made applicable, certain other provisions of the Act are required to be looked into. Rule 5 of the Rules would relate to the classification of temple servants. Broadly, the temple servants are classified into indoor temple servants and outdoor temple servants. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 would deal with Archaka, Agamika, paricharaks etc. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 5 would deal with Parupathegar, Peshkar, Bill Collector, Clerk, Typist etc. All the categories which are mentioned in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 are indoor temple servants and those which are mentioned in Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 5 are outdoor temple servants. The decision which is pressed into service would relate to Paricharaks, which certainly comes within the domain of the Commissioner to decide as to whether a person is an indoor temple servant or an outdoor temple servant. Hence, I am of the view that the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. 25. The party-in-person has pressed into service a full bench ruling of this Court in the case of SUNDARA ADAPA AND OTHERS Vs. Hence, I am of the view that the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. 25. The party-in-person has pressed into service a full bench ruling of this Court in the case of SUNDARA ADAPA AND OTHERS Vs. GIRIJA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1962 Mys.72 in support of his contention that notwithstanding the fact that the Madras Aliyasanthana Act, 1949 having been repealed pursuant to Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the customary Aliyasanthana law as amended by the Madras Aliyasanthana Law and further amended by the Hindu Succession Act would still prevail. I do not propose to examine this aspect of the matter. Ultimately, this once again is a matter which is required to be adjudicated in a properly constituted civil suit. 26. It is no doubt true that one of the trustees who claims to be hereditary trustee was before this Court in another writ petition but however in the said writ petition. The question of jurisdiction of the Commissioner to decide the vexed question was not addressed. Hence, was not considered. The said writ petition was allowed and remanded solely on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to present his case before the Commissioner. Insofar as the pending suit is concerned, that would be of no consequence, inasmuch as, that is between two different families. 27. Having given my anxious consideration and with reference to the relevant revisions of the Act and the submissions, I am of the view that (1) The enquires which are required to be conducted under the Act are all summary in nature and (2) The vexed questions of fact and law in relation to the custom and hereditary trustee which are required to be decided, is outside the purview and scope and the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. 28. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of V.S.THIAGARAJA MUDALLAR Vs. BAVA C.CHOKKAPPA MUDALIAR reported in AIR 1974 SC 944 , parties are required to have their disputes resolved in a Civil Court, more so, having regard to the definition of hereditary office-holder and hereditary trustee which is required to be decided on the basis of usage or custom applicable to the institution according to the law and rule of succession. Hence, the following order: (1) Petition is allowed. The proceedings before the Commissioner at Annexure-E is quashed. Hence, the following order: (1) Petition is allowed. The proceedings before the Commissioner at Annexure-E is quashed. (2) All the parties are required to have their rights regarding hereditary trusteeship adjudicated in a civil Court. Rule is issued and made absolute.