Bangalore District Court
Dr Ramesh Moola vs Ramadasa Seva Samithi Trust on 5 March, 2026
KABC010139522005
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE : AT BANGALORE [CCH-42]
:PRESENT:
SMT. SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.),
LL.M.
XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Dated this 05th day of March 2026
O.S. NO.3808/2005
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Dr. Ramesh Moola
S/o. Late. Moola Rangappa,
Aged about 65 years,
Residing at No.8, Longford Road,
Bengaluru - 560027.
Deleted as per court order dated 17.6.2023
2. Srimathi Venkatamma Moola
Rangappa Seetha Ramanjaneya Temple
Trust Rep. by its Secretary,
Sri. B.M.Jayaram.
3. K. Shankar Reddy
S/o. Adi Reddy,
Aged about 34 years,
O.S No.3808/2005
2
No.15, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross,
Gupta Layout, Bengaluru - 560027.
4. Putta Swamy
Aged about 53 years,
S/o. Chikkalingagowda,
No.16, Police Quarters,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru - 560034.
5. Puttelingaya
Aged about 55 years,
S/o. Kempa Veera Gowda,
10th Cross, 12th Ward,
Rajeeva Gandhi Nagar,
Bommanahalli CMC,
Bengaluru - 560068.
6. Vijaya Lakshmi C.S.
Aged about 33 years,
W/o. Ramamurthy,
No.1322, 2nd Floor, Jayanagar,
9th Block, Bengaluru.
7. Devi Prakash M.
Aged about 28 years,
S/o. M.M.Rao,
Sri Devi Nilayam, 3rd Main,
7th B Cross, Jakkasandra,
Sarjapura Road,
Bengaluru - 560034.
8. Ramani N.
Aged about 48 years,
W/o. Raman,
No.346, Guttepalya,
O.S No.3808/2005
3
Jayanagar 1st Cross,
Bengaluru - 560011.
9. K.K. Kapai
Aged about 60 years
Jyothi Prakash Kapai,
No.487, 8th Cross, 6th Block,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru - 560034.
(By Sri. B.V.B., Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS: 1. Ramadasa Seva Samithi Trust,
Hosur Main Road, Adj.Lalbhag,
Bengaluru - 560027.
2. M.L. Nagaraj
S/o. Late. M.Lakshmaiah,
Aged about 81 years,
Hosur Main Road, Bengaluru - 560027.
Since deceased by his legal representatives
a) Smt. Gunamma @ Guna
Aged about 50 years,
D/o. M.L. Nagaraj,
Residing at No.17/1,
Hombe Gowda Nagar,
(Arekempannahalli Village),
Next to Abhay Hospital,
Ward No.61, Hosur Road,
Bengaluru - 560027.
b) Smt. Nagamma @ Nagu
O.S No.3808/2005
4
Aged about 47 years,
D/o. M.L. Nagaraj,
Residing at No.17/1,
Hombe Gowda Nagar,
(Arekempannahalli Village),
Next to Abhay Hospital,
Ward No.61, Hosur Road,
Bengaluru - 560027.
c) Smt. Susheelamma
Aged about 45 years,
D/o. Late. M.L.Nagaraj,
Residing No.17/1,
Hombe Gowda Nagar,
(Arekempannahalli Village),
Next to Abhay Hospital,
Ward No.61, Hosur Road,
Bengaluru - 560027.
3. Doreswamy Naidu
S/o. Late. Muniswamy Naidu,
Aged about 62 years,
No.227/8, 12th Cross,
Wilsom Garden,
Bengaluru - 560027.
4. D. Jayaram
S/o. Late. Dyappa,
Aged about 62 years,
No.45, 6th Cross, 7th Main,
BTM Layout, II Stage,
N.S.Palya, Bengaluru.
5. B.K.Srinivasan
S/o. Late. Kempaiah,
Aged about 55 years,
O.S No.3808/2005
5
No.173, 3rd Cross, Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru - 560027.
6. M. Venkata Swamy
S/o. Late. Muniyappa,
Aged about 74 years,
No.125, 6th Main Road,
Lakkasamdra Extension,
Bengaluru - 560030.
(D1 D2(a) to 2(c) & 5 - By Sri.S.N.A.,
Advocate
D3,4& D6 - Dead)
Date of Institution of the Suit: 23.05.2005
Nature of the suit
(Suit on Pronote, suit for Declaration
declaration & possession, suit and
for injunction) Injunction
Date of commencement of 10.10.2012
recording of evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 05.03.2026
was pronounced:
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
20 09 03
JUDGMENT
The suit is filed against the defendants for the following relief;
O.S No.3808/2005 6
1. To declare that the Trust deed created by the Defendants No.2 to 5 and the new name given to the temple dedicated by Late. Ramadas in 1955 is no sustainable in law and that the procedure prescribed for appointments of Additional Trustees as detailed in Indian Trust Act shall be followed and fresh Trustees appointed with the due supervision of this Hon'ble court under Indian Trust Act.
2. For a Permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.2 to 5 from creating any structure or modifying any structure starting any new system of collection of revenue in the premises scheduled to this suit.
3. For setting a committee/Returning officer/Commissioner be appointed or authorized by this Hon'ble court under the Karnataka Charitable and Religious Trusts Act to conduct and setup a legally valid group of trustees for the maintenance of the Trust as created by the author in 1955.
4. To declare that the Trust created by the devotees in 2004 for the purpose of maintenance and day to day maintenance of the remaining temples of gods and goddesses the democratically established and constituted trust entitled to the ownership and maintenance of the O.S No.3808/2005 7 Temples and gods and Goddesses in the complex as on today.
5. For costs of these proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The plaintiff No.1 is long standing devotee of the Lord Rama, Sita and Hanuma and worshiper of the deities at Rama and Anjaneya Temple which is situated at Akkipura Village, Lalbhagh Road, and his family had been devotees from 1960. The family of the 1st plaintiff constructed an additional temple for lord Rama in the year 1977 and appointed a permanent Poojari/ Pandit for conducting the day to day poojas and services. The Plaintiff No.1 and his family has been contributing the necessary funds for the salary of the poojary and they were playing the major role is maintaining and assisting the maintenance of Lord rama and Veerahanuman Temple. The plaintiff No.2 from his younger days was assisting the poojari Sri. Rammurthy and his been contributing his devotional servicers to the temple.
O.S No.3808/2005 8 The Temple, Popularly known in the previous days as Sri. Gutte Veeraha Hanumantha Swamy temple. The old temple is in existence from the year 1915 and many devotees had contributed to its establishment, construction and maintenance and its up keeping at many instances of time and the dedication of the God and Goddesses was to the public and from time immemorial the devotees have beenconducting poojas with the dedicated services aid and assistance of pundits and had been conducting habbas, and celebrations with the co- operation of the public, devotes, worshipers from the very long period. From the days of Devan Poornaiah and Kempagowda the Government had given permission to use this land measuring 2.5 Acres for the temple. Further it is contended that, the old temple was in existence since 1915 and some of the affluent and capable devotes wanted to set up a regular system of maintenance and conduct of poojas in the temple and on the request of the many one Late Ramadasa (Malayala) had registered a document in the year 1955 as 1492 of 1955 O.S No.3808/2005 9 dated 01.09.1955. In this document 6 trustees were appointed to look after the affairs of the temple and they were authorized to conduct all festivals and poojas. This is the only valid document that can be seen to be registered in relation to the Gods and Goddesses in the temple complex in the property scheduled to this suit. The temple was seen to have been maintained by the trustees for some time. The trust was in charge of the temple and the trust deed as seen from the words of the trust was only an instrument made to regulate the affairs of the temple. No name also was defined in the trust deed while the property constituting the present premises was handed over to the exclusive use and occupation of the temple activities and to the devotes. It is pertinent to note that in 1955 when the dedication was made there was no regular pooja as it is there today. The deed enumerated the Poojas and Habbas to be celebrated and it does not mention the day to day pooja at the temple. The dedication is further silent on future developments or the improvements of the temple or O.S No.3808/2005 10 construction of additional temples or sanctum sanctum for additional gods and goddesses.
2.1. This being the position the trustees who were looking after the affairs of the temple had been incapacitated by their death or inability and the devotees/ plaintiffs and others had taken over the day to day maintenance of the temple right from 1970. To affirm this submission the plaintiffs submit that the pundits had been doing the daily poojas and the eldest late Ramadasa Swamy (Malayala) was conducting the Poojas and was aged some 102 years. It is declared in the deed that the said Late Ramadas was not able to do the poojas as he was doing the poojas for past 40 years and now being of do age is handing over the management to the trustees as stated in the Trust deed. Thereafter the trust was maintained by the trustees appointed in the deed but after the death of Sri. Munishamappa the remaining trustee Si M.L Nagaraja, the second Defendant was not able to look after the temple from 1970. The present day management was completely in O.S No.3808/2005 11 the hands of the devotees as the trustees appointed in 1955 had passed away except one trustee and the surviving member Sri M.L Nagaraj is also aged 81 years and is not able to look after the affairs of the temple. The last member/ person who was assisting the said Sri M.L. Nagaraj had died 10 years back and thereafter there was no trustee to aid assist the said Sri Nagaraj for a period of more than 10 years. Hence, it can be stated that trust and its functioning was totally not in existence for 10 years.
2.2. The property was given to the deity by the creator/ author of the trust and no name for the trust was specified by the Author of the trust in 1955. The surviving trustee Sri M.L Nagaraj has colluded and with convinced some of the individuals in the locality and after conspiracy they have decided to fabricate evidence and create documents without the aid or prescription of any law and had illegally formed "Memorandum of declaration" dated 24.11.2024 which is not a legally recognized documents or deed which can be registered and the same had been O.S No.3808/2005 12 executed by the said Sri. M.L Nagaraj along with Sri. Doreswamy Naidu, Sri .D.Jayaram, B.K.Srinivasan, M.Venkata Swamy. There is no provision of law for registering a Trust Deed for a temple and appropriate the properties other than by way of legally appointing additional trustees as per Indian Trust Act, 1952 through court and thereby continue the functioning of the dedication to the deity by the Author of the dedication. The plaintiff submitted that the purpose of the defendants was only to usurp the power of the temple and misappropriate private person. The properties did not belong to the person who dedicated the same to any trust. The dedication was only for the management of the temple and for the daily poojas and for conduct of Habbas'. The property was given by Rajas in the olden days for the benefits of the temple.
The temple was given an extend of 2,5 acres of land. The pre sale position of the temple as on today will clearly establish the fact of mismanagement. The property was sold by the Defendant Trustees and the present temple O.S No.3808/2005 13 complex is hardly half an acre of land as scheduled to this suit. It is reliablely understood that the property is converted and sold to Abhya Nursing Home and another portion had been converted by Mr. ML. Nagaraj for himself. The defendant No.2 Late M.L. Nagaraj, in the year 1984 got filed an application, bearing No. LRF INA/351/1983-1984 through his wife Late Parvathamma before the land tribunal for transfer of temple land of 12 guntas in her name. The defendant No.1 is made as respondent and the defendant No.2 who is secretary, instead of opposing such transfer, he remained absent got it conveniently transferred the occupancy right for 12 guntas in survey No. 14 to his wife name on 31-10-1984 which is temple property. The said Parvathamma died on 1-2-1999, after her death the defendant No. 2, claimed as sole successor to the property and sold to Abhaya Hospital vide sale deed on No. BNG (U) JNR/3546/1 999-2000/1-67 dated 24-1-2000 for sale consideration of Rs. 18,28,125/- and BEG (U)-JNR/5397/2002-2003/1-30 for a sale consideration of O.S No.3808/2005 14 Rs. 22,81,200/-. Thus the defendant No.2 and the persons under him have misappropriated the temple property for their selfish gains. The plaintiff filed a writ petition in respect of the illegal transfer temple land which matter is pending before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka.
2.3. Further it is contended that, 12. There are two temples in the complex at present one for Anjaneya as stated above and one for God Sri. Rama. The second temple had been constructed in the year 1977 by the plaintiff No. 1 and his family and named in the name as Sita Ramaamjanaya Temple which was dedicated to the public by the purohit Sri. Rama moorthy. The second temple was built and promoted by the family of Sri. Moola Rangappa and Venkatamma who were the devotees. The name of the major contributories are is inscribed on the temple wall and is dedicated to the deities. The temple complex is now offering poojas for seethe ramanjaniya, Anjaneya, Shive Pooja, Ganesha Pooja. Seetharama Pooja, Navagraha Pooja, Aswatha Katta Pooja, Satyanarayana Pooja etc. The new O.S No.3808/2005 15 trustees who have registered themselves as Sri Ramadasa Seva Samithi Trust is now trying to mislead the devotees and regularly interfering with the day day activities of this second temple The devotees had appointed Sri Rama moorthy who is purohit pundit for the temple. The devotees have further contributed and had set up several additions to the temple and the Jewelry and Kirita/Crown of God made of silver given by devotees are also in the custody of the temple. The New trustees, to get control of the temple had appointed a new pundit in the principal temple after dismissing the earlier pundit who was serving the temple for 15 years only for the purpose of getting control; After gaining control the new trustees had prevented the Devotees from using the Silver crown/Kirita in the Ramanavani procession conducted on 18-4-2005. The similar kind of activities of illegality and impropriety of the new trustees had forced the devotees to from themselves into a legally valid and enforceable Trust as per Indian Trust Act in the name of SRIMATHI VENKTAMMA MOOLA O.S No.3808/2005 16 RANGAPPA SEETHA RAMANJANEYA TEMPLE. The second plaintiff is the said TRUST duly registered.
2.4. Further contended that, all the properties and the newly constructed temple are all part of this new Trust and the management and the control of all Habbas are organized and carried out according to the wish of the devotees by new Trust, the plaintiff No.2. Photographs relating to the activities of the plaintiff No.2 trust is enclosed herewith in the suit along with the registered trust deed of plaintiff No.2. There are some complaints already given by devotees regarding the management of the old trust of the Hindu Dharmika Datti Ilake Bangalore-18, about the financial mismanagement and also the conversion and amassing of the trust properties of Sri. Ramadasa seva samithi their selfish ends. The Ramadasa Seva Samithi further come out with new plan of constructing a Choultry for the purpose of renting out to Marriage Purposes on payment of rent. If such a project is carried out the poojas at the temple premises will be is O.S No.3808/2005 17 disturbed. The defendants are trying to erect the foundation for setting up of the proposed Choultry. The plaintiff hereby submit that the same is not the need of the temple complex and is only meant for commercializing the temple premises against the wishes of the Devotees. No such decision had taken fallowing the democratic process from among the devotees. The new Trustees had arrogated powers to themselves and had started to collect money from the devotees by printing new receipts which are illegal and had been misbehaving with the devotees and the purohits who are regularly present in the temple complex. The defendants had stated to lock the gates and had been creating the devotees and purohits from ingress and egress freely and are now putting up structures and shops for letting out and converting the premises into a commerce complex and let out the rooms for profit and gain. The devotees of the temple had given innumerable complaints to the Commissioner of Hindu religious Endowments. Those representations clearly show that the temple O.S No.3808/2005 18 management was being made difficult by the. Trustees and that they are acting against the interest of the temple. The cause of action arose on the said date on 18.04.2005 when the self appointed trustees had refused permission in collusion with present pundit Sri. Ramamurthy-and had refused permission to use the Kirita (silver Crown) in the Ramanavami. Processions thereby the processions proposed which would have been the glory for the deity Sri Rama. When the Defendant cut the sacred TREE without the permission of the devotees and when the Defendant No.2 in collusion with other defendants had done other illegal acts which are not approved by the devotees. Hence, filed present suit.
3. The defendants No. 2, 4 to 6 have filed common written statement representing the defendant No.1. They have taken up the contention that, the Temple is properly known as Sri Gutta Veera Anjaneya Swamy Temple which was existence since 1955 and many devotees have O.S No.3808/2005 19 contributed for the establishment, construction and maintenance and its up keeping. The claim of the plaintiffs that, an extent of 2.5 acres of land is belonging to the Temple is denied. According to the defendants Diwan Poornaiah had granted the land for construction of Sri Gutta Veera Anjaneya Swamy Temple to the erstwhile founder Swamy Ramadasa. Saint Ramadasa had dedicated his life for construction of the said Temple, he had got donors and constructed the complex and he was managing all the affairs of the Temple. Saint Ramadasa had got Trust registered on 01.09.1955, After the death of Ramadasa the members of the Trust took over the affairs of the Temple and began to manage the Temple affairs. After the death of Ramadasa the 1st defendant Trust constituted a Samithi called 'Ramadasa Seva Samithi' for looking after day to day affairs of the Temple it was that Samithi which was looking after the affairs of the Temple and the property dedicated under the Trust by the Donor namely Ramadasa Saint was taken over by the Trust and the entire premises was O.S No.3808/2005 20 brought under exclusive possession of the Trust. The contention that, the Trustees who were looking after the affairs of the Temple had got incapacitated by their death or inability and the devotees/ plaintiffs and others had taken over the day to day maintenance the Temple from 1970 is denied vehemently. It is contended that, the members of the Trust have been looking after the affairs of the Temple and regularly conducting poojas and had appointed purohits for performance of poojas as per Hindu Calender.
3.1. It is denied that, the management was completely in the hands of devotees as the Trustees appointed in 1955 had passed away. The Ramadasa Seva Samithi formed by the Trust has been conducting affairs of the Trust with the help of members of the said Samithi constituted by the Trustees of the 1st defendant Trust. After the death of Author of the Trust, the other Trustees including the 2nd defendant had named the Trust as 'Ramadasa Seva Samithi Trust' and not changed as 'Gutte O.S No.3808/2005 21 Veeranjenaya Seva Samithi'. The allegations made against M.L.Nagaraj defendant No.2 that he had colluded and got created documents and has illegally formed a Memorandum of Declaration is denied. In order to fill the affairs in the Trust on account of death of the trustees the Author of the Trust, namely Late. Ramadasa has made provision for nomination of other Trustees in the place of vacancy. Accordingly, the 2 nd defendant with an intention to carryout the intention of the Author of the Trust and for further development of the Trust had got registered the Memorandum of Deed of Declaration dated 24.11.2004 by reconstituting the Trust and nominating Sri Doreswamy Naidu, D.Jayara, B.K.Sreenivasan, M.Venkataswamy who have been working in the Samithi called Ramadasa Seva Samithi from several years. The Trust has not simply appointed the members of the Samithi as Trustees but it has considered nature of the service, dedication and contribution made by the new trustees for development of the Temple before reconstituting the trust.
O.S No.3808/2005 22 3.2. The 2nd defendant Trust has reconstituted the Trust in accordance with law and the allegations that, the defendants Trustees have sold the property and the present temple complex is denied. The Main Temple in the complex is that of Gutte Veeranjenayaswamy and adjacent to that is a small Temple for Lord Rama which was constructed in the year 1977 with the help of public and the family of the plaintiff No.1. Thus the contention that, the second Temple was built and promoted by the family of Sri. Moola Rangaappa and Moola Venkatamma is denied. According to the defendants the name of Moola Rangappa and Moola Venkatamma has been inscribed on a stone as they had contributed more along with other devotees. The trust of Smt. Venkatamma Moola Rangappa Seetha Ramanjenaya Temple Trust is not in existence and it has no right or interest to interfere either with the defendant Trust or has any right to exercise over any of the Temples situated in the complex of the Trust. The plaintiffs with the help of a person namely Sri. Ramamuthy who is Archak O.S No.3808/2005 23 appointed by the Trust for Rama Temple, have filed the suit to knock off the entire temple complex after the demise of the sole surviving Trustee M.L.Nagaraj defendant No.2. It is denied that all the newly constructed Temples and deities are all part of this new Trust. The family of Moola Rangappa was given permission to perform Rama Tharaka Homa like any other devotee but the same will not enure any new right to the plaintiffs to claim that they are legally entitled to manage the affairs of the Trust. The allegations regarding financial miss-management and conversion of amassing of the Trust properties of Sri Ramadasa Seva Samithi are denied. Hence, sought to dismiss the suit.
4. The defendants No.1, 3, 5 and 6 have filed additional written statement on 14.08.2002 by denying the allegations made in the amended plaint.
5. On the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed:
O.S No.3808/2005 24 ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that the Trust Deed created by defendants No.2 to 5 is not in accordance with law and it is not sustainable in law?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the additional Trustees are to be appointed as per Indian Trust Act, 1952 through court as stated in their plaint?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants are trying to create structure and also modify the structure situated in the schedule property?
4. Whether plaintiffs prove that the Trust created by the devotees in 2004 for the purpose of maintenance of the temple situated in the schedule property is in accordance with law?
5. Whether the plaintiffs prove the interference of the defendants?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of declaration?
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
8. What order or decree?
O.S No.3808/2005 25 ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 12.12.2023
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the Secretary of plaintiff No.1 Trust can be replaced without reconstitution of the Trust Deed?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 29.09.2012
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant No.2 and persons under him have misappropriated the temple property for their selfish gain in collusion with other defendants as per para 11 and 18 of the amended plaint?
2. Whether the defendants No.1, 3, 5 and 6 prove that the present suit is filed only to obstruct the good administration of the temple by these defendants as per para 2 of the additional written statement?
6. In order to prove the case, the plaintiffs have examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P. 5 , Ex P6, Ex.P6
(a) to 9 are marked by way of confrontation during the cross examination of DW1.
O.S No.3808/2005 26 6.1 On the other hand, to prove their defence, the defendants have examined DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to 30 and closed their side.
[
7. Heard the arguments. Perused the records.
8. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1& 2 : In the Negative
Issue No. 3 to 5 : Do not survive for
consideration
Additional Issue No. 1
framed on 29.9.2012 : Does not arise for
consideration
Additional Issue No.2
framed on 29.9.2012 : In the Negative
Additional Issue No. 1 : In the Affirmative framed on 12.12.2023 Issue No. 6 & 7 : In the Negative Issue No. 8 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
9. ISSUES No 3 to 5 :- Before adjudicating on the claim of the plaintiffs vis a vis the validity of the O.S No.3808/2005 27 reconstitution of the defendant No.1 trust and the requirement of the appointment of the additional Trustees to the defendant No.1 trust only in terms of the Indian Trust Act 1882 it is felt necessary that the court has to initially decide on the legal rights of the plaintiffs to sue the defendants in relation to the suit property which are covered under issue No. 3 to 5 and therefore issue No. 3 to 5 have been taken up for consideration.
10. The materials on record disclose that the plaintiffs are claiming their right under Ex.P.1 - Trust Deed dated 18.02.2005. While the defendants are claiming their right on the basis of Ex.D.2 - Trust Deed dated 25.08.1955, Ex.D.3- Ramadasa Seva Samithi Trust-Memorandum of Deed of Declaration, Ex.D.4 - Sri Ramadasa Seva Samithi Trust- Amendment to the Memorandum of Deed of Declaration and Ex.D.5 - Ramadasa Seva Samithi Trust- Deed of Reconstitution . It is also an undisputed fact that from the days of Diwan Poornaiah suit property was O.S No.3808/2005 28 granted for the construction of the Gutte Veerahanumanthraya Swamy Temple and Late Ramadas had founded a trust and got registered the Trust deed at Ex.D2 to look after the affairs of the temple and for the performance of pooja by entrusting the properties mentioned in the trust deed to the trustees appointed under the said Trust deed at Ex.D2. The appointment of five trustees, namely, Munivenkatappa, Venkatashammannavar, Govindray, Lakshmaih and Nagaraj, under the aforesaid trust deed is not at all disputed by the plaintiffs who are claiming under the trust deed at Ex.P1. However it is the claim of the plaintiffs that after the Trustees of the earlier Trust founded by the Saint Ramadasa under Ex.D2 got incapacitated on account of death or disability, the devotees of the temple had taken over the maintenance of the temple right from 1970. According to the plaintiffs the deed of reconstitution of the trust at Ex.D3 providing for the appointment of the additional trustees to the defendant No.1 Trust and new O.S No.3808/2005 29 name given to the Temple are not sustainable in law and the acts of the new trustees are misleading the devotees and are causing interference with the day to day activities of the second temple. It is alleged that the new trustees to get control of the temple have have appointed new pandit in the principal temple after dismissing the earlier pandit who was serving the temple for 15 years.
11. According to the plaintiffs, the temple complex of Veerahanumantraya Swamy comprises of two temples one for Lord Anjaneya and the other of Lord Rama. The second temple of Lord Rama was constructed in the temple complex in the year 1977 by the plaintiff No.1 and his family and it was named as Sita Ramaanjaneya Temple which was dedicated to the public by Purohit Sri Rama Murthy. This second temple of Lord Rama was built and promoted by Moola Rangappa and Venkatamma. The plaintiffs are asserting that the Trust Deed at Ex.P1 is registered by the plaintiff No.1 in the year 2005 for the O.S No.3808/2005 30 maintenance of the Temples of god and goddess and the same is democratically established and now all the properties and newly constructed temples are part of the new trust. The management, control organization of the habbas are carried out according to the wishes of the devotees by the plaintiff No.2 trust. Thus the plaintiff is entitled to ownership and maintenance of god and goddess in the temple complex. It is pertinent to note that though the Trust deed of the plaintiff No.2 trust was registered in 2005 as per Ex.P1 the plaintiffs have wrongly denoted the year of the registration of the Trust as 2004 in the prayer column at prayer No.4.
[
12. Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 any person is entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is s entitled, and the plaintiff need not O.S No.3808/2005 31 in such suit ask for any further relief. In a suit for declaration of rights or character and injunction the Plaintiff will have to substantiate/prove his rights as claimed thereof. Accordingly, the Court may in its discretion award the rights so prayed along with permanent injunction, if deemed fit and necessary in the facts of the case. The utility and importance of the remedy of declaratory suits are manifest, for its object is 'to prevent future litigation by removing existing cause of controversy. If the plaintiff fails to fit his case within the ambit of the section, his suit necessarily fails. So a declaratory decree is one which resolves the legal uncertainty of the rights and status of the parties. However, passing of a declaratory decree is a matter of discretion of Court and it cannot be claimed as a right. Therefore the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs for the grant of declaratory reliefs that is, to declare that the Trust created by the devotees in 2004( sic) i.e. in terms of the Trust deed at Ex.P1 for the purpose of maintenance of the temples is democratically established O.S No.3808/2005 32 and entitled to the ownership and maintenance of the Temples and gods and Goddesses in the temple complex and further to declare that the Trust deed created by the Defendants No.2 to 5 under Ex.D3 and the new name given to the temple dedicated by Late Ramadas in 1955 is not sustainable in law and that the procedure prescribed for appointments of Additional Trustees as detailed in Indian Trust Act should be followed by appointing fresh Trustees under Indian Trust Act , are required to be met the statutory requirements of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
13. In the present case the plaintiffs are claiming their right under the Trust deed at Ex.P1 dated 18.2.2005 whereby a registered trust deed was created with the founder trustee as plaintiff No.1 and Vishnu Moola, Vedanmanu Moola, Siddartha Moola, Vivesh Moola, Venkatesh @Raj Venkatesh. Shankar Reddy, Vijay Kumar Reddy, K.Shankar, Ramachandrappa, O.S No.3808/2005 33 Ravindranath,Ramamurthy, K.V. Srinivas, Basavaraj as additional trustees. The aforesaid trust was founded to carry out the administration, maintenance and other functions of Srimathi Venkatamma Moola Rangappa Seetha Ramanjaneya Temple existing behind Moola Rangappa Kalyan Bhavana. In terms of the trust deed at Ex.P1, the mother of the author of founder trustee namely, Ramesh Moola had donated the funds for the construction of the temple in the year 1977 and since then she and her children were organizing and administrating the affairs of the temple. The said trust was created to carry out such acts for the benefit of the devotees and general public and to systematise the devotional activities. The covenants of the trust deed disclose that the founder trustee had contributed Rs. 34215/- which forms the asset of the trust and in addition to the same the founder trustee had created a fixed deposit for a sum of Rs1, 00,000/-. The object of the trust was to protect, preserve and maintain the temple building of Shrimathi Venkatama Moola O.S No.3808/2005 34 Rangappa Seetha Ramanjaneya Temple, to perform every day pooja, to undertake the repairs, to arrange for prayer halls , resting rooms, libraries, choultries etc., for the benefit of devotees. In this context it becomes essential to determine the nature of the plaintiff No.2 trust before proceeding to decide the issues taken up for consideration. [
14. At this stage it is appropriate to refer to the definition of the trust as defined under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 9 in short `the BPT Act).Section 2(13) defines `the Public Trust' as under:
Section 2(13) "Public trust" means an express or constructive trust for either a public religious or charitable purpose or both and includes a temple, a math, a wakf, [church, synagogue, agiary or other place of public religious worship,] [a dharmada] or any other religious or charitable endowment and a society formed either for a religious or charitable purpose or for both and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860;"
The aforesaid definition of public trust came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bala O.S No.3808/2005 35 Shankar Maha Shanker Bhattjee and others v. Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State, reported in AIR 1995 SC 167.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court after referring the definition of public trust in para.7 of the judgment held as under:
"7. A bare conjoint reading of the two definitions would show that the definition of public trust is an inclusive one bringing within its ambit, an express or constructive trust for which a public religious or charitable purpose or for both which includes a temple, a math, a wakf, a dharmada or any other religious or charitable endowment and a society formed either for religious or charitable purpose or for both and a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. A public place by whatever designation is temple when it is used as a place of public religious worship. It must be dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship."
Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and others, reported in AIR 1957 SC 133 has highlighted the distinguishing features between the private and public trust and held that the distinction between a private and a public trust is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they are the general public or a class thereof. While in the former O.S No.3808/2005 36 the beneficiaries are persons who are ascertained or capable of being ascertained, in the latter they constitute a body which is incapable of ascertainment.
16. It is pertinent to note that the Indian Trust Act, 1882 was enacted to define and amend the law relating to private trusts and trustees. The Legislature has introduced saving clause in Section 1 of the Act, which reads as follows:
"But nothing herein contained affects the rules of Mohammedan Law as to wakf, or the mutual relations of the members of an undivided family as determined by any customary or personal law, or applies to public or private religious, or charitable endowments, or to trusts to distribute prizes taken in war among the captors; and nothing in the second chapter of this Act applies to trusts created before the said day."
The contention raised before the court by the plaintiffs is that the trust covered under Ex.P1 is duly registered under the Indian Trust Act, 1882 but there is no material to demonstrate that the plaintiff No.2 is registered under the Indian Trust Act. In this background it becomes all the more essential to decide whether the plaintiff No.2 trust is a O.S No.3808/2005 37 private trust governed under the Indian Trust Act or a Public Trust which is excluded from the operation of the Indian Trust Act.
17. In Shanmughan vs Vishnu Bharatheeyan AIR 2004 KER 143, the Kerala High Court has held that Trust is not required for creating an endowment and all that is necessary is that the religious and charitable purpose is to be clearly spelt out and that the property intended for endowment is to be set apart. It has been further held that the trust and endowment are different concepts altogether. Trust is an obligation annexed to ownership. The court also referred to the word "trust" which is defined in Underhill's Law of Trust and Trustees to mean equitable obligation binding a person to deal with property for which he has control for the benefit of persons for whom he may himself be one. The Kerala High Court in the aforesaid judgment examined the categories excluded from the provisions of Indian Trusts Act through the saving clause of O.S No.3808/2005 38 Section 1 of the Indian Trust Act, and held that when the Legislature used the expression public or private religious charitable endowment, the word "trust" as such is not used. But the words "religious" or "charitable" are to be noted. It held that the expression "charity" has not been defined in the Indian Trusts Act. Charity in its legal sense comprises four principal divisions; trusts for relief or poverty; trusts for the advancement of education, trusts for the advancement of religion and trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community. The element of trust is embedded in the word "charity". In this context the court referred to the word "endowment" defined in the Legal Thesaurus to mean aid, allotment, allowance, protection, assistance, award, benefit, bestowment, contribution, presentation etc. Endowment is also defined in Aiyar's Judicial Dictionary to mean any property kept or money invested with the intention of any particular service or particular charity connected therewith and includes temples and any offerings made to the idols therein. On O.S No.3808/2005 39 facts the Kerala High Court further held that a "private religious endowment" used in the saving clause of the Indian Trusts Act have the imprint of a trust without which private religious endowment would not fall in the categories of cases excluded through the saving clause. The Kerala High Court ultimately came to the conclusion even though the trust and endowment are different concepts but if the element of charitable purpose is found in constitution of private religious endowment it can be treated as a private religious trust . Thus it is abundantly clear from the above precedent that whenever there a trust is created for charitable purposes the element of trust is embedded in it.
18. In this context it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Radhakanta Deb v. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments (AIR 1981 SC 798) held that there can be religious trust of a private character under the Hindu Law which is not possible in English Law. It is well settled that under the Hindu Law it is not only permissible O.S No.3808/2005 40 but also very common to have private endowments which though are meant for charitable purposes yet the dominant intention of the founder is to install a family deity in the temple and worship the same in order to effectuate the spiritual benefit to the family of the founder and his descendants and to perpetuate the memory of the founder. The Apex Court also held that the question as to whether religious endowment is of a private nature or of a public nature has to be decided with reference to the facts proved in each case and it is difficult to lay down any test or tests which may be of universal application.
19. If the principles laid down in the aforesaid precedents are applied to the present facts of the case it is found that the trust under Ex.P1 was created not only for the administration and maintenance of Srimathi Venkatamma Moola Rangappa Seetha Ramanjaneya Temple but also for advancement of religion and other charitable purposes and therefore the element of trust is O.S No.3808/2005 41 embedded in it. The trust under Ex.P1 was founded by the plaintiff No.1 as founder trustee by reserving a fixed deposit for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and contributing Rs. 34,215/- by each of the trustees towards the assets of the trust. The aforesaid trust was created with the objective of promotion of bhakti cult denoting advancement of religion and charitable purposes like eradication of illiteracy and unemployment, to encourage self help groups, to encourage women education, to establish orphanages, hostels. Each of the founder trustees had contributed Rs. 34,215/- as an asset of the trust in addition to the fixed deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- by the founder trustee. The trust deed had permitted acceptance of subscriptions, donations, grants, bequeaths contributions from the devotees and all kinds of donations from public trust, private trusts, social institutions. The terms of the trust deed clearly reveal that the founder trustees had reserved certain amount of money towards the assets of the trust for the purpose of the fulfilling the objectives of the trust. There is no evidence O.S No.3808/2005 42 placed on record to show that only a particular community is to be benefited under Ex.P1. It is further pertinent to note that the plaintiffs have themselves contended that Moola Rangappa and Venkatamma had built the temple of Lord Rama or Seetha Ramanjanya Temple within the precincts of the temple of Veerahanumanthaswamy Temple and therefore no private property of the founder trustee is dedicated for the construction of the temple. There is nothing in the trust deed at Ex.P1 to show that the assets of the trust were reserved only for the family deity of the family of the plaintiff No.1 or a particular community and therefore the trust at Ex.P1 has all the features or incidents of a public religious endowment or trust. When the plaintiff No.2 trust has all the trappings of public religious endowment it stands excluded under Section 1 of the Indian Trust Act and therefore the trust created by the plaintiff No.1 is not a private trust for the purposes of the applicability of the Indian Trust Act.
O.S No.3808/2005 43
20. The next question is whether the plaintiff No.2 has made out any case for the grant of declaratory relief that it is entitled to the ownership and maintenance of the temples, Gods and Goddess in the temple complex.
Admittedly neither the temple of Gutte Veerahanumanthaswamy nor the property held by the deity/ temple is claimed to be the property of the founder trustee of plaintiff No.2 . In fact it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that from the days Diwan Poornaiah the government had granted the land for the construction of the Gutte Veerahanumanthraya Swamy Temple and Late Ramadas had founded a trust and got registered the Trust deed at Ex.D2 to look after the affairs of the temple and for the performance of pooja by entrusting the properties mentioned in the trust deed to the trustees appointed under the said Trust deed at Ex.D2. DW1 has admitted that Sy.No.14 belongs to Gutte Veerahanumathswamy Temple and land measuring 2.5 acres was granted by Diwan Poornaiah of Mysore to the temple. The pleadings O.S No.3808/2005 44 set forth in the plaint, the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs and the oral evidence disclose that the plaintiff No.2 trust in its capacity as a public religious endowment trust is not claiming any legal right over any temple, God or Goddess in the temple complex as a private temple established by it by virtue of dedication of any private property or claiming an hereditary right of trusteeship or even claiming legal right of management in respect of the temple of Gutte Veerahanumanthswamy temple due to defendant trust becoming non functional/defunct. The rights asserted by the plaintiffs in relation to the management of the temple of Veerahanumanthaswamy temple are only after the creation of the trust deed at Ex.P1. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the trustees of the plaintiff trust had taken over the management of the defendant trust after the founder trustees of the defendant had became disabled.
O.S No.3808/2005 45
21. Meanwhile the covenants of the Ex.D2 trust deed disclose that the trustees of Veerahanumanthswamy temple were obligated to perform the poojas and work in the interest of the devotees .Under Ex.D2 an express trust was created for a public religious purpose and just like the plaintiff No.2 trust the beneficiaries of the trust at Ex.D2 were the general public. There is nothing in Ex.D2 to show that it a private trust. The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 is basically meant for private trusts. Significantly the trustees appointed under the trust deed at Ex D2 were merely entrusted with the properties of the temple/deity for the purpose of administration and there was no transfer of ownership of the properties held by the temple in favour of the trustees. The property of the temple vested in the deity and the trustees appointed under the trust deed at ExD2 are merely the managers responsible for the administration of the properties of the temple. In this regard it is also pertinent to note that none of the properties which are the subject matter of the trust deed at Ex.D2 . The properties O.S No.3808/2005 46 of the defendant trust were never transferred or entrusted to the trustees of the plaintiff No,2 Trust under Ex.P1. Therefore merely because the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 claim that their trust has been created for the administration and maintenance of Srimathi Venkatamma Moola Rangappa Seetha Ramanjeneya Temple which is situated in the temple complex of Veerahanumanthswamy temple, it cannot be said that the said trust of the plaintiff is for the Gutte Veerahanumanthaswamy Temple. If the plaintiff trust is raising an adverse claim against the management of a religious or charitable trust then it has to be demonstrated that such right flows from a source which is legally recognized. If the original trust becomes defunct or non functional or legally non existent the devotees, beneficiaries or any other body may step in to manage the institution temporarily to protect the endowment or temple property but it does not create ownership or trusteeship automatically by unilaterally declaring that the original trust had become defunct. Therefore when the original O.S No.3808/2005 47 trust had become non functional and the plaintiff No.1 along with his family members and other devotees had taken over the management then nothing prevented them to approach the civil court under Section 92 CPC to legally recognize their long and continuous management and appoint them as trustees.
22. There is nothing to demonstrate the legal right of the plaintiff No.2 trust over the suit schedule property or the management of the Veerahanumanthswamy temple. Merely because a trust was founded by the plaintiff No.1 and the mother of the founder of the plaintiff trust had funded the construction of the temple of Srimathi Venkatamma Moola Rangappa Seetha Ramanjaneeya Temple it cannot be said that the plaintiff trust has any relation with the property or the management of the temple of Gutte Veerahanumantha Swamy temple. DW1 has denied that Moola Rangappa alone had constructed Rama temple and he has voluntarily stated before the court that Moola O.S No.3808/2005 48 Rangappa has only contributed major funds. In fact none of the objectives speak about the welfare of Gutteveerahanumantha Swamy temple or the management of temple property of Veerahanumanthswamy temple. The establishment of the plaintiff No.2 trust was limited to affairs of the Srimathi Venkatamma Moola Rangappa Seetha Ramanjaneeya Temple which is existing in the temple premises of Veerahanumantaswamy. The trust deed at Ex.P1 does not specify that the day to day affairs of the temple of Gutte Veera Hanumantha Swamy temple or the suit property being handed over to the plaintiff trust for the administration by the trustees of the trust deed at Ex.D2. In the plaint the plaintiffs have pleaded that the day to day management was completely in the hands of the devotess/plaintiffs and others as all the trustees appointed under trust deed at EX.D2 had passed away except the surviving trustee M.L.Nagaraj but there is no iota of evidence to that effect. The minutes of the meeting of the plaintiff No.2 Trust produced at Ex.P4 are confined to the O.S No.3808/2005 49 affairs of the plaintiff trust. Merely because the name of the plaintiff No.2 is Srimathi Venkatamma Moola Rangappa Seetha Ramanjaneya Temple Trust it cannot be said that it is representing the management of the Veerahanumantaswamy Temple. In the same vein merely because the plaintiff No.1 and his family were contributing necessary funds for the salary of the poojary and they were playing the major role in maintaining and assisting the maintenance of Lord Rama and Veerahanuman temple it be said that the plaintiff trust had any legal right of management of the Veerahanumanthswamy Temple.
23. The plaintiff No.1 no doubt had asserted the claim of the plaintiff No.2 trust as the owner of the land in respect of 12 gunats of land in Survey No. 14 situated at Arekempanahalli village by challenging the Land Tribunal order dated 31.10.1984 in LRF INA 351/1983-84 in W.P.No. 10950/2007 at EX.9 but the question of maintainability of the litigation by a sole trustee of the trust O.S No.3808/2005 50 was kept open to be decided in terms of the order in W.A. 4347/2013 at Ex.D10. The plaintiff No.1 by way of the writ petition had questioned the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of Parvatemma W/o. M.L.Nagaraj. Initially the W.P.No. 10950/2007 filed by the plaintiff No.1 was dismissed on the ground of delay and latches but the Hon'ble High Court of Karntaka in W.A. 4347/2013 had set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge and the Land Tribunal in LRF INA 351/1983-84 by remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal for reconsideration by giving opportunities of hearing. The plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidence to show that the legal right of the plaintiff trust stood declared in the subsequent proceedings before the Land Tribunal after the disposal of W.A. 4347/2013. Therefore, there is nothing on record to demonstrate the declaration of the legal right of the plaintiff trust qua the management of the Gutte Veerahanumanthswamy temple by virtue of any proceedings before the competent court of law. There is O.S No.3808/2005 51 absolutely no cross examination directed to DW1 eliciting the administration of Veerahanumanthswamy temple was at any point of time taken over by the plaintiff trust. Even otherwise it is not the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that from 1970 the administration of the Veerahanumanthswamy temple was taken over by the plaintiff trust after the trust created under Ex.D2 became defunct due to death of majority of trustees and incapacity of the minority trustees. No documentary evidence is produced to show the defendant trust had become defunct. There is no cross examination to elicit the legal right of the plaintiff trust. As a consequence, the contention of the plaintiffs that by virtue of the trust deed at Ex.P1 the ownership of all the properties of Gutte Veera Hanumantha Swamy and deities stood vested with the new trust is not sustainable. Even otherwise deities are identified as a Juristic person and they cannot be the subject matter of ownership. It is well settled that deities in Hindu law are recognized as juristic persons capable of owning property, O.S No.3808/2005 52 holding title to land, and suing or being sued in their own name. While they possess this legal capacity, they are considered "perpetual minors" because they cannot directly manage their affairs, necessitating the role of a Shebait (manager/trustee) or a "next friend" to act on their behalf. Therefore the plaintiff trust cannot claim any personal ownership over a deity and the plaintiffs can only claim its right over the management of the temple. Further in the above case it is not the case of the plaintiffs that the deity of Lord Rama Temple situated in the temple complex is the private temple and therefore the ownership vests in the founder trustee or the trust. There is nothing in the trust deed at Ex.P1 or in the plaint to demonstrate that the plaintiff trust or the plaintiffs cumulatively have any legal right over the deity itself or the management of the Veerahanumanthswamy temple.
24. It is worthwhile to mention that though the plaintiff trust at one breath has sought the relief of declaration in O.S No.3808/2005 53 relation to its entitlement in the prayer column but quite contrary to the said relief the plaintiffs in another breath have also sought the relief of appointment of additional trustees to the defendants trust under the Indian Trust Act with due supervision of the court and has also sought for setting up a committee, or for the appointment of the Commissioner/ returning officer by the Court under the Karnataka Charitable and Hindu Religious Trust Act. The very fact that the plaintiffs have sought for appointment of additional trustees to the trust created under Ex.D2 itself indicates that the plaintiffs have admitted the existence of the public religious trust created in 1955 and therefore the relief sought by the plaintiffs for the grant of declaration of ownership of the temples, God and Goddess are mutually destructive. In any case the plaintiffs cannot claim any ownership rights over the temple property or the management of the property vested in the deity due to the lapse on the defendant trust to manage the trust. Even assuming that the plaintiffs as devotees had taken over the O.S No.3808/2005 54 management of the temple of Veerahanumanthswamy due to the incapacity of the trustees of the defendant trust their right to continue cannot be sustained without a legal foundation and recognition. There fore the de facto management cannot claim to be the de jure management without disclosure of a legal right. No statutory provision of law is relied to demonstarte the existence of such right by the plaintiffs. While it is true that under Section 27 of the Limitation Act 1963 at the determination of the period of limitation to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property stands extinguished but the same is not applicable in case the property is vested with the deity and the claim of the trustees is limited to the management of the temple. Therefore the contention that due to lapse of time the defendant trust had lost his rights of management and it is the plaintiff trust which is entitled to the management of the temple of Veerahanumanthswamy temple is not acceptable.
O.S No.3808/2005 55
25. There are absolutely no material pleadings qua the legal right of the plaintiffs to claim the ownership and maintenance of the temple, God and Goddess in the temple. In Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar . vs Krishna Nandan Singh in Civil Appeal NO. 6760 OF 2019, the Supreme Court referring to Apex Court's judgment in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Society Represented by its Chairman v. Ponniamman Educational Trust Represented by its Chairman/ Managing Trustee (2012) 8 SCC 706 and A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Another. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163 the Apex court has sought to explain that the cause of action means every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to seek a decree and relief against the defendant. Cause of action requires infringement of the right or breach of an obligation and comprises of all material facts on which the right and claim for breach is founded, that is, some act done by the defendant to infringe and violate the right or breach an O.S No.3808/2005 56 obligation. Therefore for a right to exist, there must be a corelative duty which can be enforced in a law suit. A right cannot exist without an enforceable duty. In the present case, the pleadings fail to establish the existence of legal right of the plaintiff No.2 trust or as devotees of the Veerahanumanthaswamy. In the absence of any disclosure of such right or even a claim, the plaint would not disclose cause of action. No doubt a separate suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is maintainable apart from the remedy under Section 92 of CPC to protect the Trust property from persons acting without authority and to secure the Trusts integrity but to maintain such suit the plaintiff under the Specific Relief Act the plaintiff has to necessarily make out a right to sue against the defendant body. It is well settled that any suit concerning a public charitable trust need not traverse the route of Section 92 of the CPC. Section 92 does not lay down that with respect to a public charitable trust, only a suit under Section 92 can be filed and therefore Section 92 is not the sole O.S No.3808/2005 57 repository of suits filed by or against a Public Charitable Trust. The language used in Section 92 of the CPC does not suggest the exclusion of a civil suit filed by a Public Charitable Trust under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 or any other provision. The object of filing a suit under Section 92 of the CPC is specific: to protect, prevent, and remedy the alleged breach of any express or constructive trust, and to ensure proper management of the trust while ordering the removal or appointment of trustees and preparation of a scheme. But when the plaintiffs have invoked section 34 of the Specific relief Act they were bound to demonstrate that they are entitled to any legal character or any right as to suit property and also the right of management of the Veerahanumanthswamy temple, and further the defendants have been denying the plaintiff's title to such legal character or right. But the plaintiffs in the present case have failed to prove the existence of their legal right and also the breach of such right by the defendants.
O.S No.3808/2005 58
26. PW.2 who was deposed on behalf of the plaintiffs and also has admitted that, the plaintiff No.1 and his family members are not the members of the original Trust formed by Ramadas. He has pleaded ignorance regarding the names of the devotees who were looking after the affairs of the Temple after the death of Ramadas. He has categorically deposed that, he has not seen the family members of Moola Rarangappa It is further relevant to note that, PW.1 has himself admitted that the Temples in the temple complex of Veer Hanumatha Swamy Temple where constructed out of the contribution made by the devotees and further the main temple complex is that of Veeranjaneya Temple. He has further positively stated that, on the day of Hanuman Jayanthi there is a special decoration to the deity and annsantharpana is made. Further he has admitted that, the 1st defendant Trust is decorating the deity and is performing Annsantharpana from the days of Ramadas. PW.1 has also deposed that the O.S No.3808/2005 59 1st plaintiff with the defendant No.2 were managing the temple and in the absence of defendant No.1 the 1 st plaintiff was managing the temple. PW.1 has also deposed that, he does not have any document to show that the family member of the 1st plaintiff had taken over the management of of Trust in the year 1970. He has also admitted the defendant Trust is publishing pamphlets with regard to Hanumajayanthi along with invitation cards. PW2 has further deposed that, the objective of the plaintiff Trust was to prevent the mismanagement in the defendant No.1 Trust. But the said objective was not mentioned in the Trust Deed at Ex.P.1 and similarly there is no mention of the maintenance of the Hanuman Temple in the Trust Deed. PW.1 has also admitted that all the jewelry items are kept in the custody of the defendant No.1. He has further admitted that he has no document to show the mismanagement by the defendants. He has pleaded ignorance regarding utilization of rental income for the O.S No.3808/2005 60 maintenance of the Temple and also about the annual audit of the defendant No.1 Trust. He has feigned ignorance about the opening of the Hundi by the members of the Seva Samithi and depositing the contribution of the devotees in the Bank account. The material admissions narrated above clearly demonstrate that, the defendant No.1 Trust has been functioning from 1955 and the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the administration and maintainable of the Temple was taken over by the devotees in 1970. Even otherwise it is not the case of the plaintiff that, the Trust formed under Ex.P.1 is constituted due to the defendant Trust become defunct or non functional. In the background of the aforesaid analysis the plaintiff No.2 trust or the plaintiffs cumulatively have failed to prove that it is entitled to the hold, control, manage the suit property or claim ownership of the temple, God and Goddess in the temple complex. In any case if the trustees of the plaintiff No.2 trust are aggrieved with the O.S No.3808/2005 61 maladministration of the defendant No.2 trust they are very much entitled in initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Similarly plaintiff trust who is setting up an adverse claim over the management of the trust created by the founder Late Ramadas in its capacity as a religious trust cannot seek for setting a committee or appointment of Returning officer/Commissioner under the Karnataka Charitable and Religious Trusts Act for the maintenance of the Trust as created by the author in 1955. If the management of the defendant trust is for any purpose required to be regulated under Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 2011 then the plaintiffs have to initiate separate legal proceedings under the said enactment. Under such circumstances the question of declaring that the trust under Ex.P1 is democratically constituted and further question of granting the relief of declaration that it is entitled to the ownership and maintenance of of the temples, Gods and Goddesses in the complex would not arise. When the plaintiff trust has failed O.S No.3808/2005 62 to prove its right and entitlement qua the suit property or the management of the temple the question of deciding that the Trust created by the devotees under Ex.P1 is in accordance with law would not arise. Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 258, the Apex Court has held that once the plaintiff has failed to get any substantive relief of declaratory relief , the relief of injunction being consequential cannot be granted. In the result the question of deciding as to whether the defendants are trying to create structure and also modify the structure situated in the schedule property or they are causing interference to the plaintiffs would not arise. Accordingly, Issues No. 3 to 5 do not arise for consideration.
27. ISSUES No. 1 & 2 :- According to the plaintiffs the suit property was given by the government to the temple and no name was given to the trust by the author of the trust in 1955 under ExD2. It is contended that the O.S No.3808/2005 63 surviving trustee M.L.Nagaraj has colluded with some of the individuals in the locality and had got created the memorandum of declaration at Ex.D3 which is not a legally recognized document or deed. It is contended that the document registered on 24.11.2004 executed by M.L.Nagaraj along with Doreswamy Naidu, Jayaram B.K.Srinivasan and M.Venkataswamy is not sustainable in law. According to the plaintiff the appointment of additional trustees can only be through court as per the Indian Trust Act, 1952. It is alleged that the purpose of the defendants was only to usurp the power of the temple and misappropriate the proprieties of the temple. An extent of 2.5. Acres of land was given to the temple by the Kings in olden days and the properties of the temple did not belong to the person who created the trust and the dedication was only for the management of the temple and for performing poojas. It is further alleged that the pre sale position of the property of the temple and the present day position of the suit property establishes the fact of mismanagement . The O.S No.3808/2005 64 property sold by the defendant trustees and the present temple complex is hardly half an acre of land scheduled to the suit . It is alleged that property is converted and sold to Abhya Nursing Home and another portion has been converted by M.L.Nagaraj for himself. It is contended that the new trustees are interfering in the day to day affairs of the second temple. They have appointed a new purohit in the place of previous purohit and prevented the use of silver crown/kirita in the Ramavani session conducted on 18.4.2005. According to the plaintiffs the defendant trust without following the democratic process had taken the decision to construct a choultry for the purpose of renting out the same for marriages and they are trying to erect foundation for the same. The new trustees are collecting money from the devotees by printing receipts which is illegal. The defendants have started to lock the gates by preventing the devotees and purohits from ingress and egress and they are now putting up shops in the premises for letting it out. It is also averred in para No.14 of the O.S No.3808/2005 65 plaint that when the new trustees of the defendant trust prevented the devotees from using the silver crown kirita in the Ramanavami procession conducted on 18.4.2005. the plaintiffs were forced to constitute a trust as per the Indian Trust Act in the name of Srimathi Venkatamma Moola Rangappa Seetha Ramanjaneya Temple.
28. A careful perusal of the materials on record denote that the deed of declaration at Ex.D3 is merely a registered deed of reconstitution providing for the appointment by the additional trustees following the death of the original trustees appointed under the Trust deed at Ex.D2. Under the memorandum of deed of declaration dtd 24.11.2004 at Ex.D3 the name was of the trust created under Ex.D2 was shown as Sri Ramadasa Seva Samithi Trust and five new trustees were appointed under the leadership of the original trustee M.L.Nagaraj. Similarly after the death of some of the trustees the trust was once again reconstituted by way of the deed of declaration/ the O.S No.3808/2005 66 reconstitution deeds under D4 & D5. According to the plaintiffs the reconstitution deeds under Ex.D3 to D5 are not in accordance with the Indian Trust Act, 1952 and the said deed of declaration is registered to usurp the properties of the trust. In this context it is worthwhile to mention that the trust created under Ex.D2 is a public trust as it was recorded earlier. The covenants of the Ex.D2 trust deed disclose that the trustees were obligated to perform the poojas and work in the interest of the devotees and therefore there was an express trust created for a public religious purpose and therefore the provisions of the Indian Trust Act are not applicable to the defendant trust. The case as admitted by the parties is that the suit property which was dedicated and endowed for the purpose of carrying on the worship of the deity Sri Veerahanumanthaswamy installed in one portion of the suit property. It is not the case of any party that any family deity was installed in the suit property and the temple was meant only for a particular community. Once O.S No.3808/2005 67 again a reference may be made to the judgment of Shanmughan (Supra) wherein it is held that all that is necessary is that the religious and charitable purpose is to be clearly spelt out and that the property intended for endowment is to be set apart. The recitals of the trust deed at Ex.D2 make it evident that the properties mentioned in the trust deed were set apart for the worship of the deity Veerahanumanthswamy. The Apex Court in Pratapsinhji N. Desai v. Deputy Charity Commissioner (AIR 1987 SC 2064) held that endowment is dedication of property for religion or charity having both the subject and object certain and capable of assessment. In the light of the above precedent it can be concluded that the trust at Ex.D2 is a public religious trust and therefore the trust at Ex.D2 stood excluded for the application of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 under Section 1 of the Indian Trust Act and therefore the application of Indian Trust Act does not arise.
O.S No.3808/2005 68
29. It is pertinent to note that the trust deed at Ex.D2 itself provides for the filing up of vacancies owing to the death or resignation. In the present case it is not the case of the plaintiffs that the trust deed at Ex.D2 did not provide for the reconstitution or appointment of new trustees and therefore the reconstitution deed by way of deed of declaration at Ex.D3 was not sustainable. It is pertinent to note that the during the pendency of the suit the defendants have executed two more deeds of reconstitution at Ex.D4 & D5 for the purpose of reconstituting the trust by filling up the vacancies but the plaintiffs have not challenged the same. DW1 has categorically deposed that the reconstitution deed providing for appointment of additional trustees in accordance with the Trust deed at Ex..D2. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the reconstitution of the trust under Ex.D3 tantamounts to breach of express or constructive trust. Similarly it is not the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendants had no authority to give a name to the O.S No.3808/2005 69 defendant trust in terms Trust deed at Ex.D2. The very fact that the plaintiffs have arrayed the defendant No.1 trust as party to the suit discloses that the plaintiffs have admitted that the defendants are deriving their right under the Trust deed at Ex.D2. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that Trust deed at Ex.D2 is an entirely different entity from the Trust relied upon by the defendant No.1 at Ex.D3 . The covenants of the deeds of reconstitution at Ex.D.3 to D.5 are not at all challenged by the plaintiffs providing for the appointment of additional trustees to fill up the vacancies in the Trust originally created under Ex.D2 are not at all disputed. The counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the appointment of additional trustee in the meeting held on 25.10.2004 is illegal as M.L.Nagaraj was not present on the said day but it is material to note that there is no specific pleading to that effect in the plaint and any evidence beyond pleadings is not admissible. Therefore, the contention that the trust deed at Ex.D.3 is invalid is not sustainable . In the result the plaintiffs have failed to prove O.S No.3808/2005 70 that the Reconstitution deed or the deed of declaration providing for the appointment of the additional trustees to the Trust created under Ex.D2 and the new name given to the defendant trust is not in accordance with law and that the additional Trustees are to be appointed as per Indian Trust Act, 1952 through court. Hence, the plaintiff has failed to prove the Issues No.1 & 2 and they are accordingly answered in the Negative.
30. ADDITIONAL ISSUES No.1 & 2 dtd 29.09.2012 :-
This court has already held that the plaintiff No.2 trust has no legal right over the suit property while recording findings on issue No.1. The reliefs sought by the plaintiff are in the nature of declaration and injunction and not in the nature of seeking scheme in the management of the Trust property in terms of provisions of Section 92 of C.P.C. It is also pertinent to note from the order sheet that this case was transferred to this court, as per Notification No. ADM 1A 615(18) dated 01.02.2018. Meanwhile, it is O.S No.3808/2005 71 pertinent to note that though the present suit is not a scheme suit filed under Section 92 of CPC, the plaintiffs had filed an application under Section 92(1) of C.P.C., seeking leave of the court to file a representative suit and this court upon taking into consideration of the prayer of the plaintiff had allowed the application and had permitted the plaintiffs to file the suit in a representative capacity under Section 92 of C.P.C. But merely because leave was sought under Section 92 CPC it does change the nature of the suit from that of declaration to a scheme suit. In so far as conditions required to be satisfied while seeking leave to institute suit under Section 92 of CPC, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment rendered in Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 321, wherein after referring to various earlier decisions, it was held as follows: "12. Three conditions are, therefore, required to be satisfied in order to invoke Section 92 of the Code and to maintain an action O.S No.3808/2005 72 under the said section, namely, that:(i) the Trust in question is created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature; (ii) there is a breach of trust or a direction of court is necessary in the administration of such a Trust; and (iii) the relief claimed is one or other of the reliefs as enumerated in the said section. Consequently, if any of these three conditions is not satisfied, the matter would be outside the scope of said Section 92." Therefore, if trust was not administered properly and objects of trust not carried out, for benefit of public, resort to Section 92 of CPC for having a scheme framed for proper administration of trust by displacing trustees would be justified. If on analysis of the averments contained in the plaint it transpires that the primary object behind the suit was the vindication of individual or personal rights of some persons, an action under the provision does not lie. But, if after evidence is taken, it is found that the breach of trust alleged has not been made out and that the prayer for direction of the Court is vague and is not based on any O.S No.3808/2005 73 solid foundation in facts or reason but is made only with a view to bring the suit under the Section, then a suit purporting to be brought under Section 92 must be dismissed.
31. Public trusts for charitable and religious purpose are run for the benefit of the public. No individual should take benefit from them. In C.R. Shivananda v. H.C. Gurusiddappa, reported in ILR 2011 Kar 4624 elucidated legal position as follows:
"44. From the aforesaid statutory provision and Judgments, the law is fairly well settled. A suit under Section 92 CPC is a suit of a special nature for the protection of Public rights in the Public Trusts and charities. It presupposes the existence of a public trust of a religious or charitable character. A suit for a declaration that certain property appertains to a religious trust may lie under the general law but is outside the scope of Section 92, CPC: A suit framed under Section 92 of CPC, the only reliefs which the plaintiff can Claim and the court can grant are those enumerated specifically in the different clauses of the section. A relief praying for a declaration that the properties in suit are trust properties does not come under any of these Clauses. When the defendant denies the existence of a trust, a declaration that the trust does exist might be made as ancillary to the main relief claimed under the section, if the plaintiff is held entitled to it. The suit is O.S No.3808/2005 74 fundamentally on behalf of the entire body of persons who are interested in the trust. It is for the vindication of public rights. A suit under Section 92 of CPC is thus a representative suit and as such binds not only the parties named in the suit-title but all those who are interested in the trust. In deciding whether a suit falls within Section 92 of CPC the Court must go beyond the reliefs and have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiffs are suing and to the purpose for which the suit was brought. It is only the allegations in the plaint that should be looked into in the first instance to see whether the suit falls within the ambit of Section 92. If on analysis of the averments contained in the plaint it transpires that the primary object behind the suit was the vindication of individual or personal rights of some persons, an action under the provision does not lie. But, if after evidence is taken, it is found that the breach of trust alleged has not been made out and that the prayer for direction of the Court is vague and is not based on any solid foundation in facts or reason but is made only with a view to bring the suit under the Section, then a suit purporting to be brought under Section 92 must be dismissed. Public trusts for charitable and religious purpose are run for the benefit of the public. No individual should take benefit from them. It is not every suit claiming reliefs specified in Section 92 that can be brought under the Section; but only the suits which besides claiming any of the reliefs are brought by individuals as representatives of the public for vindication of public rights. As a decisive factor the Court has to go beyond the relief and have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiff has sued and the purpose for which the suit was brought. The Courts have to be careful to eliminate the possibility of a suit being laid against public trusts under Section 92 by persons whose activities were not for protection of the interests of the public trusts. First and the foremost requirement for an application under Section 92 is, the plaintiffs should bring O.S No.3808/2005 75 the suit to vindicate the right of the public. In the suit, if they are seeking a declaration of their individual or personal rights or individual or personal rights of any other person or persons in whom they are interested, then the suit would be outside the scope of Section 92 of CPC. In order to find out whether the plaintiff, in such a suit, is vindicating the right of the public or his personal right, what is to be seen is, allegations in the plaint. In the first instance, if the allegations in the plaint do not indicate that the plaintiffs have approached the Court to vindicate the rights of the public, on the analogy of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the plaint can be rejected on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. However, if it is not rejected and enquiry is conducted, evidence is taken and thereafter it is found that breach of trust alleged has not been made out and that the prayer for direction of the Court is vague and is not based on any solid foundation in facts or reason, but is made only with a view to bring the suit under the Section, then the suit purported to be brought under Section 92 must be dismissed. Therefore even if all the other ingredients of a suit under Section 92 are made out, if it is clear that the plaintiffs are not suing to vindicate the right of the public but are seeking a declaration of their individual or personal rights or the individual or personal rights of any other person or persons in whom they interested, then the suit would be outside the scope of Section 92. A suit whose primary object or purpose is to remedy the infringement of an individual right or to vindicate a private right does not fall under the Section."
In Swami Paramatamanand Saraswativ. Ramji Tripathi, reported in (1974) 2 SCC 695 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering legality of order of High Court affirming grant of leave to file suit by persons who claimed to be O.S No.3808/2005 76 interested in affairs of Math. It was held prayer sought for declaration that Krishnabodhashram was validly installed as Shankaracharya of Math, was for vindication of private interest. It held alternative prayer for appointing some other person as Shankaracharya was with intention to bring suit within scope of Section 92 of CPC, as it was neither backed by formal pleading about his incompetence nor by arraying him as party. It held Court should not only refer to reliefs sought but read entire plaint to ascertain real intention behind filing of suit.
32. From the above precedents it is evident that any suit for vindication of a private interest is not maintainable under Section 92 CPC and therefore whenever private interest are required to be adjudicated the proper remedy is to insitute the suit for declaration under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In the above case this court has already held that the plaintiffs have failed to plead and prove their legal right vis a vis the management of the O.S No.3808/2005 77 Veerahanumanthswamy temple or the suit property and therefore their claim that the defendant No.2 and persons under him have misappropriated the temple property for their selfish gain in collusion with other defendants would not survive for consideration.
33. It is the contention of the defendants No.1, 3, 5 and 6 that the present suit is filed only to obstruct the good administration of the temple by the defendants. The overall scrutiny of the materials on record clearly manifest that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit without any legal right in respect of the management and affairs of the Veerahanumanthswamy temple or the suit property. Even though it is pleaded that the management of the Veerahanumanthswamy Temple was in the hands of the devotees after the death of the majority of the trustees and when defendant No.2 became incapable to manage the affairs of the temple due to his old age no iota of evidence is produced in this regard. Similarly there is absolutely no O.S No.3808/2005 78 evidence to prove that the plaintiff No.1 and his family were contributing necessary funds for the salary of the poojary and they were playing the major role in maintaining and assisting the maintenance of Lord Rama and Veerahanuman temple. If the plaintiffs as devotees of Lord Veerahanumanthswamy temple had any grievance with regard to the misappropriation and mismanagement then they would have initiated appropriate proceedings against the earlier trustees for breach of trust by initiating appropriate proceedings to get new trustees appointed, seek rendition of accounts from the earlier trustees and also restoration of the property or compensation but no such legal measures are taken. The reliance on the encumbrance certificate at Ex.P3 to establish that the temple property has been mismanaged in the past without indicating any legal right of the plaintiffs is superfluous. The endorsement issued by the Commissioner,Department of Hindu religious and Charitable Endowments on 16.9.2006 at Ex.D7 discloses that the complaint alleging O.S No.3808/2005 79 misappropriation and mismanagement against the trustees of the defendant trust was submitted by Krishnamurthy Shastri Archaka Veerahanumanthswamy Temple on 14.07.2005 and the writ petition challenging the order passed by Land Tribunal in LRF INA 351/1983-84 on 31.10.1984 was preferred by the plaintiff No.1 in the year 2007 claiming to be the owner in respect of 12 guntas of land in Sy. No. 14 situated at Arekempanahalli village in W.P.No. 10950/2007 as per Ex.D9. Therefore, it is clear that no proceedings were initiated against the defendant trustees till the date of institution of the suit even though the acts of mismanagement alleged against the defendants are prior to the date of suit. The minutes of meeting of the defendant trust at Ex.D11 between 2004 and 2011, the attendance register produced by the defendants at ExD12 , 13, 14 and Hundi counting Book at Ex.D15 & 16, similarly the copies of the receipts, list of donations and expenditure, pamphelets, documents of prathana mandir, electricity bills, agreement relating to Archakas, photographs, bank O.S No.3808/2005 80 pass books, audit report and balance sheets are not at all disputed by the plaintiffs. DW1 has denied that after the death of the majority of the trustees the trust became defunct and further denied that Ex.D3 was never passed by M.L.Nagaraj. DW1 has categorically deposed that the Trust deed at EX.D2 empowered the trustees to induct additional trustees and further denied that the trust deed did not empower the trustees to induct additional trustees to Veera Hanumanthswamy Temple. DW1 has denied that defendant No.1 trust and another Mandali are not in existence. Though DW1 has pleaded ignorance as to any accounts being maintained with respect to the income generated from 1955 till 2004 and failed to provide details of the payments of salary to the Archakas by the defendant No.1 trust the same would not enure to the benefit of the plaintiff for want of legal right of the plaintiffs to challenge the deeds of the defendants in the present suit. The admissions of DW1 that the defendant trust has not taken any measures against M.L.Nagarj and his legal O.S No.3808/2005 81 representatives for the sale of the property belonging to the trust is also irrelevant for the purpose of this suit. The frame of the suit and the materials on record clearly disclose that the plaintiffs have not only failed to disclose any cause of action against defendants but they have filed the suit to obstruct the administration of the temple by these defendants. Even the relief sought by the plaintiffs requesting the court to set up a committee/Returning officer/Commissioner under the Karnataka Charitable and Religious Trusts Act to conduct and setup a legally valid group of trustees for the maintenance of the Trust as created by the author in 1955 is not premised on any legal foundation. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant trust is a notified or a declared institution under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and therefore such a relief is essential. Therefore, Additional No.1 is answered in the Negative and Additional No.2 is answered in the Affirmative.
O.S No.3808/2005 82
34. ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1 :- It is the case of the defendants that the Secretary of the plaintiff No.2 Trust cannot be replaced without the deed of reconstitution. During the pendency of the suit, the name of the earlier Secretary N. Venkatesh was deleted and substituted with the name of one Jayaram as the Secretory of plaintiff No.2 Trust. There is no material cross-examination to elicit that the Secretary of the plaintiff No.2 Trust has to be appointed through a deed of Reconstitution of the Trust. Hence, plaintiff has proved that the Secretary of the plaintiff No.2 Trust can be substituted without the deed of reconstitution. Accordingly, Additional Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
35. ISSUE No. 6 to 8 :- Therefore in the light of findings recorded on Issues No.1 to 5, Addl. Issue No.1 and 2 dated 29.09.2012 the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the Trust Deed created by the defendant No.2 to 5 and the new name given to the Temple dedicated by Late. Ramadas in 1955 is O.S No.3808/2005 83 not sustainable; they have also failed to prove that, the procedure for appointment of additional Trustees had to be in accordance with Indian Trust Act with the due supervision of this court and further they have utterly failed to prove the requirement of setting up a committee or appointment of a returning officer/ commissioner under the Karnataka Charitable and Religious Trust Act for setting up of valid group of trustees for maintenance of a trust created by the author in 1955. Similarly the plaintiffs have failed in proving that they are entitled for a declaration that the Trust Deed created by the devotees in 2004 for the maintenance of the remaining Temple of Gods and Goddesses and that it is a democratically established Trust entitled to the ownership and maintenance of Temples/ God and Goddesses in the complex. In the same way the plaintiffs have failed to prove that, they are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.2 to 5 from creating any structure or O.S No.3808/2005 84 modifying any structure or creating any new system of collection of revenue in the premises schedule to the suit. Accordingly Issues No.6 and 7 are answered in the Negative and consequently the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 05th day of March 2026) (SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI) XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 - N. Raja Venkatesh - 10.10.2012
P.W.2 - B.M.Jayaram
O.S No.3808/2005
85
b) Defendants' side:
DW.1 - Raju - 07.08.2024
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiffs' side:
Ex.P.1 Trust Deed dated 18.02.2005
Ex.P.2 Trust Deed dated 25.08.1955
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of Encumbrance
Certificate from 01.04.1998 to
31.03.2004
Ex.P.4 Minutes book and relevant portion of
the meetings
Ex.P.5 Letter of the Trust dated 01.12.2018
Ex.P.6 Photograph marked during the cross-
examination of DW.1
Exs.P.6(a) Receipt issued by the defendant Trust to P.9 marked during the cross-examination of DW.1 Note :- Ex.P.6 is marked twice. The photograph marked at Ex.P.6 shall be retained as Ex.P.6. But the receipt dated 04.02.2019 which is marked at Ex.P.6 is treated as Ex.P.6(a) and accordingly the necessary rectification is carried out at Ex.P.6(a).
b) Defendants' side :
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of minutes of meeting dated 03.03.2024 Ex.D.2 & Certified copy of Trust deed dated 2(a) 25.08.1951 along with typed copy O.S No.3808/2005 86 Ex.D.3 Certified copy of registered deed of reconstitution dated 24.11.2004 Ex.D. 4 Certified copy of registered deed of reconstitution dated 25.07.2011 Ex.D.5 Certified copy of registered deed of reconstitution dated 29.02.2024 Ex.D.6 Certified copy of letter dated 26.08.2006 Ex.D.7 Certified copy of endorsement dated 16.09.2006 Ex.D.8 Certified copy of letter addressed by Thasildar dated 13.06.2015 Ex.D.9 Certified copy of order in W.P. No. 10950 /2007 Ex.D.10 Certified copy of order in W.A No. 4347/2013 Ex.D.11 Certified copy of minutes of the meeting for the year 2004-2011 Ex.D.12 Certified copy of attendance register from January 2005 to April 2005 Ex.D.13 Certified copy of attendance register from May 2005 to 2007 Ex.D.14 Certified copy of attendance register from 2019 to 2023 Ex.D.15 Certified copy of Hundi counting book Ex.D.16 Certified copy of documents relating to Hundi counting book Ex.D.17 Certified copy of receipts containing one booklet Ex.D.18 Certified copy of list of donations and expenditure O.S No.3808/2005 87 Exs.D.19 Certified copy of 4 receipt books to D.22 Ex.D.23 Certified copy of pamphlets (hand bills) total 55 numbers.
Ex.D.24 Certified copy of documents relating to prathana mandir Ex.D.25 Certified copy of electricity bills Ex.D.26 Certified copy of agreement relating to Archakas Ex.D.27 Certified copy of other related documents Ex.D.28 Certified copy of of photographs Ex.D.29 Certified copy of 17 bank pass book Ex.D.30 Certified copy of Audit report and balance sheets.
(SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI) XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.