Bangalore District Court
Bellamkonda Venkatarathniah Setty vs Nil on 3 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU (C.C.H.No.7).
Dated: This the 3rd Day of February, 2017.
Present: Sri. M.S.Patil, B.Sc., LL.B.
XXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Bengaluru.
O. S. No. 6 7 0 4 /2016
Plaintiffs: 1. Bellamkonda Venkatarathniah Setty
Kanthalakshmamma Charities,
No.33, Sharadhnandabhavan Road,
V.V.Puram, Bengaluru-560004,
Represented by its Managing Trustee
Sri.B.V.Ramakrishna,
s/o.late B.V.Rathnaiah Setty.
2. Sri.B.V.Ramakrishna,
Aged about 69 years,
s/o.late B.V.Rathnaiah Setty.
3. Sri.B.R.Sriivas,
Aged about 45 years,
s/o.Sri.B.V.Ramakrishna.
4. Sri.B.R.Raghurathnam,
Aged about 36 years,
s/o.Sri.B.V.Ramakrishna.
5. Smt.Savitha,
Aged about 43 years,
D/o.Sri.B.V.Ramakrishna.
All r/a No.33, Sharadanandabhavan
Road, V.V.Puram, Bengaluru-560004.
By Sri.K.R.AShok Kumar, Advocate.
Vs.
2 O.S.No.6704/2016
Defendants: Nil
.
Date of institution of suit 17-09-2016
Nature of the suit Permission to sell property
Date of commencement of 01-02-2017
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 03-02-2017
was pronounced
Total duration Days Months Years
16 04 -0-
JUDGMENT
This suit filed by the plaintiffs is for permitting the plaintiff No.1-Trust to sell the suit schedule property of the plaintiff-Trust and to acquire alternative property for and on behalf of plaintiff No.1-Trust, in the interest of and for the benefit of plaintiff No.1-Trust and for grant of any other reliefs, which the Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the plaint averments are that, plaintiff No.1 is the Trust, which is called by name "Bellamkonda Venkatarathniah Setty Kantha Lakshmamma Charities", founded by Bellamkonda Venkata Rathnaiah Setty @ B.V.Rathnaiah Setty, s/o.Bellamkonda Ramakrishnaiah Setty and the said Trust is registered on 29-2-1968 and the said Trust is Charitable Trust, doing social activities for the benefit of mankind and that, the object of said Trust are:
3 O.S.No.6704/2016a) To build a Choultry for public use out of the funds contributed by the Founders.
b) To allot the choultry for the Hindu public, irrespective of caste or creed, for the performance of Thread Ceremony, marriages and other auspicious ceremonies.
c) To allot the choultry for the public for Bhajane, Harikathe, Lectures on Vedantha and Geetha, etc., to enlighten the public and to make them lead a good life.
d) To open a free dispensary for the poor and the public.
e) To conduct classes of Yogasanas and Mediation for public and to use the choultry for mediation.
f) To help, as far as possible, the aged, sick and others, who are unable and helpless to maintain themselves.
g) To invest the extra funds in good securities.
h) To acquire movable and immovable properties for the maintenance and up-keep of the above objects.4 O.S.No.6704/2016
and that, B.V.Rathnaiah Setty, who was Managing Trust and founder of said Trust, has died and after his death, the seven Trustees have also discontinued from the Trusteeship of the said Trust and thereafter, plaintiff No.1-Trust is reconstituted with plaintiff No.2 as Managing Trustee, who is son of Founder Trustee-B.V.Rathnaiah Setty and plaintiffs No.3 to 5 being other Trustees, are the sons and daughter of plaintiff No.2-Managing Trustee and that, said Trust is reconstituted with these plaintiffs 2 to 5 and that, plaintiff No.1-Trust was having one choultry, i.e., suit schedule property and that, marriages were performed, in the good olden days, in the said choultry and the amount earned by the said choultry were utilized for the expenses and for achileving with the objects of said plaintiff No.1- Trust and now, due to increase in population and expectation of present day generation, the present choultry is not able to meet with the aspirations of the present day generation and therefore, the solemnization of marriages in the choultry has become very less and thereby, it has become very difficult to run the plaintiff No.1-Trust with it's expenses and now, for this purpose, plaintiffs No.2 to 5, being Managing Trustees and other Trustees of plaintiff No.1-Trust have decided and passed resolution to hold and purchase another alternative property in the outskirts of Bengaluru, for fulfilling the objects of the Trust and for this purpose, the 5 O.S.No.6704/2016 permission of this Court is necessary and hence this suit.
3. None have appeared as defendants, despite paper publication, to contest this suit.
4. Following Points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff-Trust is entitled to sell suit property in the interest of plaintiff-
Trust, to obtain alternative property for the benefit of plaintiff No.1-Trust?
2. Whether plaintiff No.1-Trust is entitled to relief sought for in this suit?
3. What Order or Decree?
5. The plaintiff-Trust, to prove it's case, examined 2nd plaintiff, i.e., Managing Trustee of plaintiff No.1-Trust as P.W.1 and relied upon 11 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P11.
6. Heard the arguments of Learned Counsel for the plaintiff.
7. My answer to the above Points are as under:
Point No.1 - in the Affirmative; Point No.2 - in the Affirmative; Point No.3 -as per Final Order below; for the following:6 O.S.No.6704/2016
Reasons
8. Point Nos. 1 and 2 : For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts and in view of the fact that, these Points are inter-linked and inter-connected with each other, these Points are taken-up together for common consideration.
9. The plaintiff No.1-Trust contends that, plaintiff No.1-Trust is Charitable Trust, doing social activities for the benefit of mankind, with the object of building a Choultry and to allot it for performing auspicious ceremonies, Bhajane, Harikathe etc.; to open a free dispensary for the poor and the public; to conduct Yoga and Mediation classes; to help aged, sick, etc. to maintain themselves; to invest the extra funds in good securities and to acquire movable and immovable properties for the maintenance and up- keep of the above objects and that, after death of B.V.Rathnaiah Setty- Managing Trust and founder of the Trust, seven Trustees have also discontinued from the Trusteeship and plaintiff No.1-Trust is reconstituted with plaintiff No.2 as Managing Trustee and plaintiffs No.3 to 5 being other Trustees, are the sons and daughter of plaintiff No.2-Managing Trustee and that, plaintiff No.1-Trust was having suit schedule choultry and the amount earned by the choultry were utilized for the expenses and for achieving with the objects of the Trust and now solemnization of marriages in the choultry has 7 O.S.No.6704/2016 become very less and it has become very difficult to run the Trust with it's expenses and hence, plaintiffs No.2 to 5 have decided and passed resolution to hold and purchase another alternative property in the outskirts of Bengaluru, for fulfilling the objects of the Trust and hence, permission of this Court is necessary.
10. In order to substantiate the contention of plaintiff No.1-Trust, plaintiff No.2, who is the Managing Trustee of plaintiff No.1-Trust, is examined as P.W.1, who has reiterated the same facts of plaint averments in his evidence.
11. Further, P.W.1 relies on Exs.P1 to P9, which are:
Ex.P1 Original Trust Deed dated 29-2-1968 executed by Bellamkonda Venkata Rathnaiah Setty @ B.V.Rathnaiah Setty and others, with the object of building a choultry for public use, etc. Ex.P2 Original Sale deed dated 20-3-1968 executed in favour of suit property.
Ex.P3 Reconstitution Deed of Trust dated 10-12-2012, between plaintiffs 2 to 5, in respect of the plaintiff No.1-Trust.
Ex.P4 Tax paid receipt in respect of suit property 8 O.S.No.6704/2016 Ex.P5 Copy of Resolution passed by the Trustees of the Trust held on dated 16-11-2015.
Ex.P6 Encumbrance certificate from the years 1-4-2004 to 24-11-2015.
Ex.P7 Encumbrance certificate showing sale transaction dated 20-3-1968 between Rajarama Gupta and others in favour of the Trust.
Exs.P8 and P9-Encumbrance certificate for the years 1-4-1970 to 31-3-2004 and 1-4-1967 to 31-3-1969, in respect of the Trust.
12. The evidence of P.W.1 is fully corroborated by the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P9. None appeared as defendants to rebut the evidence of P.W.1.
13. Hence, in view of the evidence of the plaintiff No.2 as P.W.1, which is corroborated by documents marked as Exs.P1 to P9 and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence to disprove the evidence of P.W.1 and to rebut the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P9, I hold that the plaintiffs have proved Point Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are held in the Affirmative.
9 O.S.No.6704/201614. Point No. 4. : In view of the foregoing reasons and in the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Suit of the plaintiff No.1-Trust is decreed.
The plaintiff No.1-Trust is permitted to sell the suit property of plaintiff No.1- Trust for getting and purchasing alternative property, in the interest of and for the benefit of and to fulfill the objects of plaintiff No.1-Trust.
No Order as to costs.
Draw up Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerised print-out taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 3rd day of February, 2017.) (M.S.PATIL) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, *sb Bengaluru.10 O.S.No.6704/2016
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs:
P.W.1 B.V.Ramakrishna List of documents exhibited for the plaintiffs:
Ex.P1 Original Trust Deed dated 29-2-1968 executed by Bellamkonda Venkata Rathnaiah Setty @ B.V.Rathnaiah Setty and others, with the object of building a choultry for public use, etc. Ex.P2 Original Sale deed dated 20-3-1968 executed in favour of suit property.
Ex.P3 Reconstitution Deed of Trust dated 10-12-2012, between plaintiffs 2 to 5, in respect of the plaintiff No.1-Trust Ex.P4 Tax paid receipt Ex.P5 Copy of Resolution passed by the Trustees of the Trust held on dated 16- 11-2015 Ex.P7 Encumbrance certificate showing sale transaction dated 20-3-1968 between Rajarama Gupta and others in favour of the Trust.
Exs.P8 and P9-Encumbrance certificate for the years 1-4-1970 to 31-3-2004 and 1-4-1967 to 31-3-1969, in respect of the Trust.
Ex.P10 Paper publication
Ex.P11 Receipt for having paid money towards
paper publication
11 O.S.No.6704/2016
List of witnesses examined and
documents marked for defendant:
Nil (M.S.PATIL) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.12 O.S.No.6704/2016
....-2017 Judgment passed and pronounced in Open Court. (vide separate Judgment). Operative portion thereof reads as under:
Order The Suit of the plaintiff No.1-Trust is decreed. The plaintiff No.1-Trust is permitted to sell the suit property of plaintiff No.1-Trust for getting and purchasing alternative property, in the interest of and for the benefit of and to fulfill the objects of plaintiff No.1-Trust.
No Order as to costs.
Draw up Decree accordingly.
XXII A.C.C. & S.J., Bengaluru.