Bangalore District Court
; 1.Vishala Karnataka Brahmana vs Karnataka Brahmana Sangha on 30 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU CITY [CCH.NO.10]
Dated this day the 30th July, 2015
PRESENT
SRI K.AMARANARAYANA B.Com., LL.M.
XVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge.
O.S.No.598/2011
Plaintiffs ; 1.Vishala Karnataka Brahmana
Prathistana, A registered charitable
organization, Constituted by way of a
Trust in the form of an Association,
having its Office at No.101, 11- Main
Road, (Near Kumaran's School)
Tata Silk Farm, Basavanagudi,
B A N G A L O R E - 4.
Reptd. by its President
S.Chandra Mouli
S/o Late S.Shamanna,
Aged about 73 years,
R/at No.103, II-Phase,
12th Main, Binny Layout,
Nagarabhavi Road,
Vijayanagar,
B A N G A L O R E - 40.
2. S.Chandra Mouli,
S/o Late S.Shamanna,
--2-- O.S.No.598/2011
Aged about 73 years,
President,
Vishala Karnataka Brahmana
Prathistana, No.103, II-Phase,
12th Main, Binny Layout,
Nagarabhavi Road,
B A N G A L O R E - 40.
[Rep.By Sri.V.B.S., Advocate]
--V/S--
Defendants : 1.Karnataka Brahmana Sangha,
Registered, No.101, II Main Road,
(Near Kumaran School)
Tata Silk Farm, Basavanagudi,
B A N G A L O R E - 04.
(The said sangha is merged with the
first plaintiff, on merger the said
sangha has been dissolved)
2. S.L.Nataraja Sastry,
Secretary,
Karnataka Brahmana Sangha (Regd)
No.101, II-Main Road,
(Near Kumaran Sschool),
Tata Silk Farm, Basavanagudi,
B A N G A L O R E - 04.
(The said sangha is merged with the
first plaintiff, on merger the said
sangha has been dissolved)
[Rep.By. Sri. J.R.S., Adv. for D-1]
[Rep.By.Sri.P.R.R. Adv., for D2]
--3-- O.S.No.598/2011
Date of institution of suit ; 20.01.2011
Nature of the suit (suit on pronote, ; Declaration &
suit for declaration and Possession Permanent Injunction.
suit for injunction, etc).
Date of the commencement of ; 04.01.2012
recording of the evidence.
Date on which the Judgment ; 30-07-2015
was pronounced.
Year/s Month/s day/s
Total duration 04 06 02
[K.AMARANARAYANA]
XVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs filed this suit against defendants 1 &2 prays to pass judgment and decree to declare that the first defendant being wound-up, merged with the first plaintiff by an unanimous resolution of the then secretary and president in terms of the minutes of the meeting consecutively held on 31.8.2009 and subsequently thereafter and to declare that the
--4-- O.S.No.598/2011 second defendant WB of the defunct first defendant organization, as not being the Secretary to represent a defunct organization or call for meeting and to restrain the second defendant from conducting any meeting as notified under the name and style of the first defendant, by the second defendant or persons representing or under it on 23.1.2011 at Raja Sivaramaiah Setty Smt.Parvathamma Choultry, No.133, Bull Temple Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore by way of perpetual injunction and for costs.
2. Case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows:
The first plaintiff is a trust and an association constituted for the purpose of espousing objects of a Hindu culture, mainly Vedic and Brahmanism, conducting Vedic and Astrological classes, pooja, satsanga and conducting free classes for yoga and computer training. It is a public charitable organization. The second defendant is a Trustee of first plaintiff under the trust deed. He has also been identified as a working trustee pertaining to the working of first plaintiff organization. The first defendant was a sangha constituted and had no members at all. It is incapacitated from the year 1977. It had become defunct and it had absolutely no members, no
--5-- O.S.No.598/2011 contacts. The persons who were interested in constituting one such organization from out of Brahmin Community at large. The second defendant is a retired person attempted to dig a grave in respect of first defendant organization which had no members and neither it was supported by any articles of association nor list of its members or had maintained any books of accounts. After constitution of first plaintiff trust, second defendant was brought as active trustee of the trust, first defendant sangha was called upon by the trustees of first plaintiff trust to abolish the said organization as that of second defendant unanimously resolved in the future meeting of the trust. In the meetings, it is held the first defendant organization, which is inclusive as that of the second defendant, the first defendant organization was completely closed from being functioning and merged with the first plaintiff. The first defendant organization is totally defunct and being a defunct organization is not entitled to undertake any work that is required to be done. The second defendant was neither the secretary nor president, written a letter dated 20.10.2010 addressing to the managing trustees and others that a special general body meeting is called on 23.1.2011 and he himself self proclaimed designation as that of the secretary
--6-- O.S.No.598/2011 of first defendant sangha. He also wrote another letter that dated; 12.12.2010 intimating first plaintiff about the resolutions passed in the General Body Meeting of members of the first defendant organization, which is a mischievous act. He has also called upon a General Body Meeting to be held on 23.1.2011 at Sri.Raja Sivaramaiah Setty & Smt.Parvathamma Dharmasala Trust, Chamarajpet Bangalore, which is contradictory to the General Body Meeting and the minutes of the meeting. The first defendant organization itself is not in existence and the members have got themselves recognized with first plaintiff and first plaintiff has prepared the list of members and have conducted several confusions with the participation of the second defendant who is one of the trustees and upon including his name upon winding up. The action of second defendant calling General Body Meeting on his own by dropping the invitation card through post to the second plaintiff who is the president of the organization is nothing but an act of illegality. The second defendant brining in an in fight amongst the members thereby, causing confusion in their minds and allowing himself to be a spectator of a right between the two organizations. The plaintiffs who are in an organization by themselves having succeeded to the first
--7-- O.S.No.598/2011 defendant organization. In order to avoid any acts of illegalities either present or future, they have no alternative except to file the suit. If the reliefs prayed are not granted there will be unrest amongst the community. The second defendant who is for his personal needs and committing acts of illegality claimed himself to be the whistle blower of a defunct organization. The invitation given by him after merger on 23.1.2011, 20.10.2010 & 12.12.2010 are to be declared as null and void. Hence, the suit is filed for declaration and injunction.
3 (a). The first defendant filed written statement denying all the averments of plaint besides contending that there are no bonafides in the claim of the plaintiffs. The suit is collusive between plaintiffs and second defendant. The second defendant conspired with the plaintiffs and got the suit filed under the guise of merger of first defendant with first plaintiff to knock off movable and immovable properties of first defendant. The Plaintiffs are guilty of suppression of material facts, conduct and negligence. First defendant sangha was established in the year 1977-78 and the same was registered.
It consisting of 8 promoters namely M.K.Subbarao,
--8-- O.S.No.598/2011
H.Narayanarao, C.Subbarao, V.L.Venkataramaiah,
S.Chandramouli the second plaintiff, S.N.Arvindkumar,
M.S.Santharam and S.Narayanamurthy.
(b). It is further contended that out of said persons, only four promotors i.e., V.L.Venkataramaiah, S.N.Arvindkumar, H.S.Santaram, S.Narayanamurthy and S.Chandramouli are now surviving. The managing committee is empowered to manage the day-to-day affairs of the sangha only and they have no right to take any decision which affects the interest of first defendant without the consent of general body. The second plaintiff who is the president of first defendant sangha in collusion with certain strangers have constituted a managing committee themselves by enlarging the committee members as 26 without being elected through general body and they started functioning in dictatorial manner in violation of the bye-laws and also against the interest of the community people. The self proclaimed managing committee members have totally ignored the surviving promoters and also original committee members and kept them away from all matters related to first defendant under threat and thereby started acting in their own fashion
--9-- O.S.No.598/2011 without consulting general body for any decision. The second defendant who is said to be the secretary of sangha is also colluded with the president and he is part of all misdeeds of the present Managing committee. The said Managing committee has no authority to take any decision even with regard to day-to-day affairs of the sangha let alone the decision to merge/winding up of the first defendant sangha.
(c). The first defendant invested Rs.27 Lakhs in various deposits in banks in the account of president of the first defendant, the second plaintiff herein. Similarly it has own and possess two adjacent sites bearing Nos.242 & 243 situated in Marenahalli, Kempapura Agrahara allotted by Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society, Bangalore in the name of Smt.S.Indiramma W/o Late N.K.Subbarao who was one of the promoter. Now the said sites worth Rs.70 Lakhs. The present committee had an intention to misappropriate all the assets and deposits for themselves by winding up the first defendant sangha and they were trying to invent a ground for winding up of the same all these years. The idea of establishing a trust under the name of first plaintiff, they themselves purported to have dissolved the first
--10-- O.S.No.598/2011 defendant sangha without the consent of the General Body and thereby proclaimed that they have merged the first defendant sangha with first plaintiff. By misleading certain committee members, the President of the first defendant has formed the first plaintiff trust having the same address of the first defendant sangha and at the same place of first defendant with an intention to get all the assets and properties transferred to the said trust behind the back of original promoters and general body. On 8.8.2009 one Srinivasiah one of the managing committee member of first defendant who had opposed the merger or dissolution had issued notice calling upon the president, secretary and treasurer not to take any decision either for merger or dissolution without calling general body meeting and any such acts will attracts penal acts against them. On 15.10.2009 the president, and treasurer in their reply denied the merger or dissolution and threatened the said Srinivaiah for alleged defamation of their names. A complaint was lodged to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 27.8.2010 by Srinivasaiah providing information to take action suo-motto against the managing committee members and for an appointment of an administrator. The Registrar of Societies initiated action and asked them to
--11-- O.S.No.598/2011 furnish all the details with regard to financial matters and the assets owned by the sangha. The secretary who is now made as second defendant cannot be expected to safeguard the interest of first defendant and there is every chance of giving go bye to the case of first defendant. On the above grounds prays to dismiss the suit.
b) The second defendant filed written statement denying all the averments of plaint besides contending that the first plaintiff Trust is a created one with a view to take away the first defendant society, therefore the plaintiff has no legal sanctity to question the second defendant for his dutiful nature of work which he has been discharging. First defendant is headed by none other than S.Chandramouli the plaintiff herein who is claiming as the president of first plaintiff, whereas the second defendant is the secretary of Karnataka Brahmana Sangha® . It is because of its president's - S.Chandramouli non-cooperation the first defendant sangha was not able to convene the annual General Body Meeting, but the same is not merged or dissolved. The said S.Chandramouli is the life long member of the first defendant sangha and held the posts such as its director, joint secretary, secretary and
--12-- O.S.No.598/2011 finally as president. Majority of members of first defendant had invited several persons including him on 12.12.2010. After formal discussions, the members present felt that, whether to continue the erstwhile Karnataka Brahmana Sangha/first defendant or to dissolve it. They prepared a representation and addressed to the President/Secretary of the first defendant and same was given to the second defendant who is not a signatory to it. Based on the said representation, by his letter dated 12.12.1020 he informed the President of first defendant about the representation and the need to convene a Special General Body Meeting. The plaintiff who is also the president of first defendant did not bothered to intimate the second defendant about the shortcomings in the letter or the intention of call the meeting on 23.1.2011 only to discuss the representation dated 12.12.2010. Since there was no response, he as a secretary of first defendant sangha had convened the Special General Body Meeting on 23.1.2011 under the chairmanship of S.Chandramouli, who is the president of first defendant sangha. On the above grounds prays to dismiss the suit.
4. Based on the above pleadings the predecessor in
--13-- O.S.No.598//2011 office has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the first defendant society is wind-up in terms of minutes of the meeting consecutively held on 31.8.2009.?
2. Whether plaintiffs prove the constitution of the plaintiff's trust?
3. Whether the first defendant proves that the plaintiff trust was created with a view to take away the first defendant society registered under Karnataka Societies Register Act, as pleaded?
4. Whether plaintiffs prove the General Body Meeting called by second defendant of the first defendant on 23.1.2011 is void?
5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed for?
6. Whether there is any cause of action for this suit?
7. Whether first defendant proves that the suit filed by the plaintiff under the intention to defraud first defendant and the committee people to take away the properties of first defendant?
8. Whether the defendants are liable for
--14-- O.S.No.598/2011 costs?
9. What order or decree?
5. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case got examined second plaintiff himself as PW1 besides examining three witnesses as PW2 to PW4, got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and closed their side. The defendants have not adduced any evidence. The first defendant got marked Ex.D1 to D15 during the course of cross-examination of PW1.
6. Heard the arguments on both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff also filed written arguments besides oral arguments. The learned counsel appearing for the first defendant also filed written arguments besides oral arguments. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has relied upon the decisions reported in;
1. AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1098 (Niranjan Shankar Golikari -V/s- Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd).
2. AIR 1967 Supreme Court 436 (Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy and others -V/s-
Konduru Seslu Reddy and others).
--15-- O.S.No.598/2011
3. AIR 1996 Calcutta 67 (Vijaya Minerals Private Limited -V/s- Bikash Chandra Deb).
The learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.1 has relied upon the decisions reported in ;
1. 1989(2) Kar.L.J 343 (Sri Kalidasa Kurubara Sangha -V/s- The Deputy Commissioner and District Registrar of Societies and another).
2. AIR 1985 NOC 152 (ORISSA) (Mulshankar Narveram Ojha -V/s- Union of India and others).
3. 2011 AIR SCW 4000 (Ramrameshwari Devi and others -V/s- Nirmala Devi and others).
Perused the written arguments submitted by both the learned counsels appearing for the plaintiffs and the defendants, and the decisions relied upon by the both the learned counsels appearing for the plaintiffs and the defendants in the light of the contentions taken by both the sides.
7. My answer to the above issues is as follows:
Issue No.1 : Negative.
--16-- O.S.No.598/2011
Issue No.2 : Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : Affirmative.
Issue No.4 : Negative.
Issue No.5 ; Negative.
Issue No.6 ; Affirmative.
Issue No.7 ; Affirmative.
Issue No.8 ; Partly Affirmative.
Issue No.9 ; As per final order.
For the following reasons:
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 to 4: The fact that the first defendant Sangha was established in the year 1977-1978 by eight promoters namely M.K.Subbaarao, H.Narayana Rao, C.Subba Rao, V.L.Venkataramaiah, S.Chandramouli (Plaintiff No.20, S.N.Aravindkumar, M.S.Shantharam and S.Narayanamurthy and the same was registered in the office Registrar of Societies, Bangalore is not in dispute. There is no dispute about the fact that out of eight promoters the promoters namely V.L.Venkataramaiah, S.N.Aravindkumar, H.S.Shantharam, S.Narayana Murthy and S.Chandramouli are only surviving. Ex.D1 is the Registration Certificate and Ex.D2 is the Byelaw of the first defendant society. Ex.D1 and
--17-- O.S.No.598/2011 Ex.D2 discloses the admitted facts. Therefore, it is unnecessary to discuss Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. Ex.D2 evident that the first managing committee was constituted with eight promoters named above for carrying on day to day activities of Karnataka Brahmana Sangha, Rajajinagar, Banglore. It is seen from the byelaw Ex.D2 the committee have no right to take any decision which affects the interest of first defendant without the consent of General Body. The byelaw Ex.D2 restricts the managing committee to eight persons and should be elected by the General Body.
9. There is no dispute about the fact that plaintiff No.2 was a president of defendant No.1 Sangha. Ex.D2 would disclose that constituting the managing committee by the plaintiff No.2 as a president to an extent of 26 beyond the prescribed limit of eight members without the being elected through General Body Meeting is in violation of the byelaw Ex.P2. Ex.P1 is the registered trust deed which is not denied by the defendant No.1 would indicate that the second plaintiff and others formed a trust on 31st July, 2009 in the name "VISHALA KARNATAKA BRAHMANA PRATHISTANA". Apparently, this trust is entirely different from defendant No.1.
--18-- O.S.No.598/2011 Of course, plaintiff No.2 is one of the trustees of first plaintiffs Trust. However, that will not amount to merger of defendant No.1 with plaintiffs No.1. It is true forming a Trust by the trustees to perform with some objectives is a fundamental right, but mere forming a Trust does not take away the right of other Trust or Association without following the procedures under Karnataka Societies Registration Act - 1960 and the byelaws therein. Ex.P3 to Ex.P11 are the documents disclose the functioning of defendant No.1 trust. Ex.P3 to Ex.P11 will not take away the functioning of the defendant No.1 Trust. Ex.P1 evident that second plaintiff is one of the author and second defendant is one of the trustees of first defendant. Whether the second plaintiff and second defendant becoming trustees of a new Trust will amounts absorption of the old Trust. Becoming Trustees in the newly formed Trust by continuing the trustee's ship by the second plaintiff and the second defendant in the existence is a right available to them and it is an individual act and not amounts to absorption of old Trust into New Trust.
10. The plaintiffs has to show that the first defendant trust was wind up in terms of the minutes of the meeting held
--19-- O.S.No.598/2011 on 31.8.2009. The first defendant denied assertion of the plaintiffs and contended that the second plaintiff's individual act will not bind the Trust at large. The winding up of a registered Trust can only be done by following the procedure laid down under section 9, 10, 21 and 22 of Karnataka Societies Registration Act - 1960. Reading the provisions of sections 9, 10, 21 and 22 of the Act, the president of the first defendants trust cannot alone alter the Memorandum of Association, Change the name, rules and regulations, amalgamate and dissolve the Trust. Section 21 stipulates that the society/trust can be amalgamated by convening a Special General Body Meeting for approval of proposition of governing body. The approval of proposition shall be agreed by votes not less than three times the number of votes, if any, cast against the resolution by members so entitled and voting and confirmed by a similar majority of votes at a second Special General Meeting convened by the governing body after an interval of thirty days after the former meeting.
11. Section 22 of the Act stipulates that no society shall be dissolved unless three fourths of the members shall have expressed a wish for such dissolution by their votes
--20-- O.S.No.598/2011 delivered in person, or where proxy, allows proxies at a Special General Body Meeting convened for the purpose. Our Hon'ble High Court in a decision reported in 1989(2) Kar.L.J.343 (Sri Kalidasa Kurubara Sangha -V/s- The Deputy Commissioner and District Registrar of Societies and another) held that the dissolution of society could only be as provided under section 22 of the Act. Let me peruse the evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs to know the compliance of section 9, 10, 21 and 22 of the Act. Ex.P14 is the relevant document which the plaintiffs relied upon. Ex.P14 is the minute book of first defendants trust. Ex.P14 does not disclose the procedure followed by the governing body as required under section 21 and 22 of the Act. The evidence of PW1 to PW4 is not specific about the procedure followed by the second plaintiff under section 9, 10, 21 and 22 of the Act. Therefore the minutes dated 31.8.2009 forthcoming in Ex.P14 is not in accordance with law and does not binds the first defendant. Thus, the minutes of the meeting held on 31.8.2009 cannot held to be valid cannot be held that the first defendant wind up with the plaintiffs trust.
12. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the first
--21-- O.S.No.598/2011 plaintiff trust was constituted on 31st July, 2009. Ex.P1 is produced to show the constitution of first plaintiff. It is to be noted that the first defendant did not deny the constitution of first plaintiff. A perusal of Ex.P1 it is seen that the first trust was registered under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The governing body is also formed with number members. Therefore, it is held that the first plaintiff proved its constitution. Apparently, the minutes of the meeting dated; 31.8.2009 is in violation to the provisions of section 21 and 22 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act,1960. The second plaintiff who being the president of the first defendant formed the trust against the interest of first defendant. There is all possibility of affecting the interest of the members of first defendant trust. The second defendant who being the trustee of the first defendant though filed written has not contested the suit. The non-contesting of the suit by the second defendant would go to show that there is collusion bet- ween plaintiffs and the second defendant. Looking to the passing of minutes by the second plaintiff without the consent of governing body amounts to illegal. Therefore the circumstances under which first plaintiff trust is formed, it could be inferred that the first plaintiff is created with a
--22-- O.S.No.598/2011 view to take away the first defendants society.
13. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the General Body Meeting called by the second defendant of the first defendant on 23.1.2011 is void. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant is merged with the first plaintiff and conducting GBM by the second defendant does not arise. It is to be noted that the plaintiffs has failed to prove the merger of first defendant with first plaintiff. The second defendant has every right to conduct the General Body Meeting of the first defendant as the minutes dated; 31.8.2009 held as not in accordance with law. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs that the General Body Meeting of first defendant conducted on 23.1.2011 is void cannot be accepted and not sustainable. In view of foregoing reasons and under the circumstances I answered Issue No.1 to 4 accordingly.
14. Issue No.s.5 to 9;- It is contended by the defendants 1 and 2 that there is no cause of action for the suit. A perusal of the plaint, it is seen that para-11 discloses cause of action to file the present suit. There is nothing on record placed by the defendants to indicate that the suit lacks from
--23-- O.S.No.598/2011 cause of action. Thus, there is no substance in the contention taken by the defendants. Therefore, it is held that there is a cause of action to file institute this suit. The documentary evidence Ex.D8 to Ex.D10 evident that the defendant No.1 acquired immovable properties for the benefit of the members and to people the community at large. There is no reason as to why the plaintiffs started interfering with the administration of first defendants trust. It is well founded that the plaintiffs passed minutes in the meeting dated; 31.8.2009 bye passing the procedure as laid down under byelaw and the provisions of section 22 and 21 of the Act of 1960. Looking to the facts and circumstances the contention of the first defendant that the plaintiffs are under the intention to defraud the first defendant and the committee people to take away the properties acquired by them is rendered probable. The first defendant sought for imposition of exemplary costs on the plaintiffs for vexatious litigation. Looking to the over all circumstances the litigation cannot held to be vexatious. Of course, the plaintiff's action is not in accordance with law and there is bye pass of procedure to take over the management of first defendant. This circumstances warrants to impose cost on the plaintiffs and not exemplary costs.
--24-- O.S.No.598/2011
15. Therefore in view of foregoing reasons and under the circumstances it is held that the plaintiffs has failed to prove their right over the first defendant. The first defendant established the fraudulent intention of the plaintiffs to take away the properties acquired by them. Thus, the plaintiffs are not entitled for a decree as prayed. Hence, I answered Issue No's.5 to 9 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants 1 and 2 for a judgment and decree to declare that the first defendant being wound-up, merged with the first plaintiff by an unanimous resolution of the then secretary and president in terms of the minutes of the meeting consecutively held on 31.8.2009 and subsequently thereafter and to declare that the second defendant WB of the defunct first defendant organization, as not being the Secretary to represent a defunct organization or call for meeting and to restrain the second defendant from conducting any meeting as notified under the name and style of the first defendant, by the second defendant or persons representing or under it on 23.1.2011 at Raja Sivaramaiah Setty Smt.Parvathamma Choultry, No.133, Bull Temple Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore by way of perpetual
--25-- O.S.No.598/2011 injunction is herby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Prepared by me on the laptop, print out by the judgment writer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this day the 30th July, 2015].
[K. AMARANARAYANA] XVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
A N N E X U R E S;
No. of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs:
PW1 : S.Chandramouli. PW2 ; S.N.Shankarmurthy. PW3 ; N.Sathyanarayana. PW4 ; S.Vasantha Madhav.
No. of documents marked on behalf of the plaintiffs:
Ex.P1 : Memorandum of Declaration of Trust. Ex.P2 : Minutes of plaintiffs managing committee.
Ex.P3
To ; Invitation cards of programme organised
Ex.P7 by the plaintiffs.
Ex.P8 : Balance Sheet of plaintiffs for the year
2010 - 2011.
Ex.P9 : Income and Expenditure statement of the
Plaintiffs for the year 2010 - 2011.
Ex.P10 : Balance Sheet of plaintiffs for year ending
--26-- O.S.No.598/2011
31.3.2011.
Ex.P11 : Plaintiffs Balance Sheet for the year
2009 - 2010.
Ex.P12 : Plaintiffs Balance Sheet as on 31.3.2010.
Ex.P13 : Plaintiffs Income and Expenditure statement
for the year 2009 -2010.
Ex.P14 : Brahmanara Sangha Proceedings Book for
the period from 8.1.2009 to 1.10.2009.
No. of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants:
--Nil--
No. of documents marked on behalf of the defendants:
Ex.D1 ; Copy of Registration Certificate.
Ex.D2 ; Copy of Byelaw.
Ex.D3 ; Copy of Proceedings of defendants trust.
Ex.D4 ; Copy of the meeting proceedings of first
Defendant dated; 21.7.2007.
Ex.D5 ; Copy of Programme schedule on 23.11.93.
Ex.D6 ; Copy of proceedings of Executive
Committee Meeting.
Ex.D7 ; Copy of list of donors.
Ex.D8 ; Copy of Sale Deed dated; 31.3.2001.
Ex.D9 ; Copy of Sale Deed dated; 31.3.2001.
Ex.D10 ; Copy of Usufructuary mortgage deed
Dated; 10.2.2009.
Ex.D11 ; Copy of Legal Notice.
Ex.D12 ; Copy of Reply.
Ex.D13 ; Copy of Rejoinder.
Ex.D14 ; Copy of Complaint made to Registrar of
Co-operative Societies by the defendants.
--27-- O.S.No.598/2011 Ex.D15 ; Copy of objection Statement filed by the Plaintiffs before Registrar Co-operative Societies.
XVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore