Bangalore District Court
Chev K.M. Joseph (Party Inperson) S/O vs ) Jocobite Syriuan Orthodox Society on 15 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
th
Dated on this the 15 day of October 2015
Present: Smt. Hemavathi, BBM,LL.B,
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Judge,
Bangalore City.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.4458/2007
Plaintiff: Chev K.M. Joseph (party inperson) s/o
late. K. M. Mathew, 72 years, No.79, 1st
stage, Indira Nagara, Bangalore.
[By Sri.JMS., Advocate]
Vs.
Defendants:
1) Jocobite Syriuan Orthodox Society,
No.13, Queens road, Bangalore,
Represented by its
president/Secretary.
2) St.Mary's Jocobite Syrian Oorthodox
Cathedral Trust (REGD), No.13,
Queens road, Bangalore,
Represented by its
President/Secretary.
3) St.Mary's Jocobite Syrian Orthodox
Cathedral Trust (REGD), No.13,
Queens road, Bangalore,
Represented by its
President/Secretary.
[By Sri.H.A.K, Advocate]
2 O.S.No.4458/2007
Date of Institution of the suit : 11.06.2007
Nature of suit : Suit for Declaration
Date of commencement of
: 06.04.2009
evidence
Date on which the judgment is
: 15.10.2015
pronounced
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal :
08 04 04
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of declaration to declare that formation of St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Cathedral Trust (Regd) on 12.09.2005 as disclosed in the annual report and audit of 2005-06 published by the defendant No.2 is illegal and contrary to Rules and not applicable for the St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church and also for mandatory injunction against the defendants to restore the earlier status of the society and the church namely defendant No.1 and 3 and such other relief with cost.
.2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that the plaintiff is a Christian belonging to Jacobite Syrian orthodox culture, person belonging to that faith have formed a society called Jacobite Syrian orthodox society. The main objective of the society is to arrange worshiping places for jacobites living in and around Bangalore. It is a body registered under the 3 O.S.No.4458/2007 provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. The plaintiff is a founder member and founder official of society which is governed by a set of rules of its own and it is also registered under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, having its registered address at No.13, queens road, Bangalore. The defendant no.2 is a part of defendant No.1 society. Though St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Cathedral Trust (Regd) has a separate constitution and it is not separately registered as a distinct entity and all the time it is a part of the jacobite Syrian Orthodox society. The St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox church receives contributions from members, income through other institutions and also has income out of religious functions performed in the church. The property and the income of St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church was always reflected in the balance sheet of jacobite Syrian Orthodox society and the same was used to be reflected and shown as part of the society in its records. The members of Jacobite Syrian Orthodox society as well as members of the church have always treated St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church as a part of Jacobite Syrian Orthodox society and a dispute arose regarding the mismanagement of the affairs of Jacobite Syrian Orthodox society. In that dispute the management of St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church also came into picture since the same groups are controlling the society and church. The office bearers representing the defendant No.1 took up contention in 4 O.S.No.4458/2007 that proceeding before the Registrar of societies that the church is a separate entity and that is not a part of Jacobite Syrian Orthodox society and as such, the ambit of the dispute cannot stretch to anything relating to the administration of the church and in such dispute the records relating to the church cannot be scrutinized. As per the show cause notice issued by the Registrar to the defendant No.1 many members had complained to the Registrar about the irregularities, mismanagement of the society affairs and mis-appropriation of funds. The registrar had sent several notices to the defendant No.1, but the defendant No.1 refused to give any satisfactory reply to the said notices and the 1st defendant had disobeyed the direction issued by Registrar and the said dispute was taken before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on many occasions and ultimately the matter was remanded to the Registrar of Societies with direction to reconsider the dispute. After remand though the registrar of societies issued several notices, the defendant No.1 did not choose to produce the records in that connection and ultimately on 22.04.2006 in SOR No.160/78-79 the Registrar of Societies held that the church is a unit of the society and directed the defendant No.1 to continue to treat the church as a unit of the society. The defendant No.1 made unsuccessful attempt to declare that the defendant No.2 is an independent organization. When the Registrar did not accept the church as an independent organization as per law, the church was upgraded as a Head Church and the church is 5 O.S.No.4458/2007 renamed as St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Cathedral a per Annual report and Accounts 2003-04. The St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Cathedral has its own fixed assets, cash in bank, loans and advances as reflected in its annual report as on 31.03.2005. Though it is a part of the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox society to be reflected in the accounts of the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox society. When there was dispute about the society and church before the Registrar of Societies and the court were pending, the defendant 1 and 3 changed the name of St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Cathedral Trust (Regd). They also issued a separate annual report and accounts for the year 2005-06 and also conducting 1st General body meeting on 19.03.2006 as if it is a separate entity is illegal. In 2005-06 there is no church in existence according to the records. It I illegally called as a Trust in the name of defendant No.2. The formation of the defendant No.2 and transferring the assets of defendant No.3 to defendant No.2 is illegal. The defendant No.3 being a part of defendant No.1 could not have been formed into different entity in the name of defendant No.2. Because of this illegal formation of defendant No.2, the members of defendant No.3 are left without any church and it has prejudiced the rights of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit.
.3. The defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that suit of the plaintiff is of a representative nature. The plaintiff has ignored the mandatory provisions of law and presented the suit of representative 6 O.S.No.4458/2007 nature and the 1st defendant society is registered society, registered under the Karnataka Societies Act. It is functioning in accordance with its constitution, bye-laws, Rules and Regulations and none of the members have questioned the functioning of the 1st defendant society. The plaintiff as a single member cannot have grievance against the decision taken by the 1st defendant in any manner with regard to the functioning of the 1st defendant society. If at all the plaintiff is aggrieved against the 1st defendant society, the plaintiff is required to initiate action before the Registrar of Societies and not before the Civil Court. The civil court jurisdiction is impliedly ousted under Section 9 of C.P.C. and this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff is a Christian and was a founder member of the 1st defendant society. But it is relevant to note that the membership of the 1st defendant society was terminated by issuing a show cause notice and after providing sufficient opportunities to him and the said action is questioned in a suit in O.S.No. 61/2005 and in the said proceedings, the membership of the plaintiff has been restored temporarily subject to the result of the said suit. The objectives of the 1st defendant society include religious activities by establishing the place for corporate worship for the Jacobite community of Christians and Jacobites alone. The plaintiff is not belonging to Knanaya community and members of the Knanaya community have started their own churches at Hennur road and Domlur road and they are not coming to the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox 7 O.S.No.4458/2007 churches. The plaintiff being member of the Knanaya community is required to follow the mandate and take membership in the Knanaya churches and not to interfere with the functioning of the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox churches. The plaintiff is well aware of the said fact. The 3rd defendant is not registered under the Karnataka Societies Act the same is a voluntary religious organization functioning under its own constitution. The defendants 1 and 3 have passed resolutions of their own and the said resolution dated 02.06.2001 passed by the 1st defendant affirming the resolution of 3rd defendant that the 3rd defendant is not the unit of the 1st defendant society has been approved by the General body and since then the 1st defendant is filing its own balance sheet by not including the accounts of the 3rd defendant. The church was established in the year 1975 and the society was established in the year 1978. It is the plaintiff alone raised to dispute before the Registrar and the Registrar has given a finding against the plaintiff holding that there is no mismanagement of the 1st defendant society. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the same preferred a writ petition against the order of the Registrar and the same is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. This 3rd defendant is not a party before the Registrar of Societies and the Registrar has passed an order directing the 1st defendant to show the accounts of the 3rd defendant. Even though there is clear finding in the order of the Registrar that the 3rd defendant is not the unit of the 1st defendant society and as such, the said 8 O.S.No.4458/2007 part of the findings of the Registrar is questioned in the writ petition No.9585/2007 by the 1st defendant and the same is pending. On receipt of the notice from the Registrar, the 1st defendant has appeared in the said case and filed its objections. The Registrar has also passed an order and the same has been questioned both by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in the writ petitions. The 1st defendant society is not entitled to declare the account and balance sheet of St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church when the said church has passed an independent Resolution stating that the said church is not the unit of the 1st defendant society and the 2nd defendant is a registered entity under the Indian Trust Act and not the changed name of the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant is not the part of the 1st defendant and the defendants 1 to 3 are different entities governed by its own constitution and the plaintiff has no right to restrict the activities of the 2nd defendant in any manner. The 2nd defendant is not a necessary and proper party to the suit. The defendant has denied other averment of the plaint and prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.
.4. The defendant no.2 has filed written statement admitting the plaint averments and contended that the suit is of representative nature and the plaintiff has not followed the mandatory provisions of law. This defendant is the Trust registered under Indian Trust Act and the defendants 1 to 3 are nothing to do with the 2nd defendant. The defendant No.1 has provided a place for the 2nd defendant Trust for its activities. 9 O.S.No.4458/2007 These 3 defendants are different entities and they are governed by their own constitution, Rules. The plaintiff has not produced any document to show that he is a member of the 2nd defendant Trust. Hence, he cannot maintain a representative suit. This defendant is not necessary and proper party to the suit and this defendant is confined to the religious activities of the Jacobite community of Christians. The plaintiff is not belonging to jacobite community but he is belonging to Knanaya community. Almost all the members of the Knanaya community have started their own churches in Bangalore and are worshipping in their own churches in Bangalore. The plaintiff has no right to interfere with the 2nd defendant in any manner in respect of their activities. There is no cause of action against this defendant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.
.5. The 3rd defendant filed written statement denying that suit of the plaintiff is of representative in nature. But the plaintiff ha not followed the mandatory provisions of law and this defendant is an independent unregistered voluntary Association. This defendant is not the unit of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is an independent Trust. The address of this defendant is FS/05/330, Near K.J. college, Bangalore, K. Narayanapura, Bangalore and the address for communication is C/o A.P. Johny, No.501, 2nd cross, 3rd Block, 3rd stage, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore. Though the plaintiff is aware of this address he has been bent 10 O.S.No.4458/2007 upon to address this defendant in its old address as shown in the cause title and the 1st defendant Society has no control over the 3rd defendant. Its members and constitution are different to that of this defendant. This defendant is managed by the elected body of its own. The plaintiff cannot make any complaint with regard to voluntary contributions made by the members of the 3rd defendant, since the same is in between the church and such members. Both the church and Society have started declaring their income and expenditure separately. The church has no immovable property of its own. This defendant is being run in the accommodation provided by the 3rd parties and not on its own and the plaintiff alone has raised certain disputes against the 1st defendant as well as this defendant not only before the Registrar but also before the Civil Court. In order to harass and coerce on the basis of the complaint by the plaintiff to the Registrar of the Society certain proceedings are initiated and the registrar passed an order twice in favour of the society and the plaintiff and both orders came to be set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ petition and remanded the matter for enquiry afresh. The order of the Registrar dated 232.04.2006 in SOR No.160/78-79 has been set aside by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and directed the Registrar to make fresh enquiry in the said writ petition. There is no adjudication after disposal of the matter by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ petition No.9434/2006 and 9585/2007dated 26.02.2008, which is pending before 11 O.S.No.4458/2007 Registrar. The plaintiff is member of this defendant church. They are attending the church at K. Narayanapura, Bangalore for religious things and also meeting. The 2nd defendant Cathedral is the Trust registered under Indian Trust Act. This defendant is nothing to do with the 2nd defendant. This defendant is functioning in accordance with the constitution. The plaintiff belonged to Knanaya community and instead of attending Knanaya community bent upon to come to the 3rd defendant church and create problems. There are complaints about the plaintiff's assaulting office bearer of the church and the plaintiff was not a member of this defendant church for a long time in view of the fact that he was expelled from the church. This defendant is an independent organization registered under the Trust Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
.6. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed by this Court:-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the formation of St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Cathedral Trust (Regd) on 12.09.2005 as disclosed in the annual report and audit 2005-06 published by the defendant No.2 as per document No.7 as illegal and contrary to Rules and not applicable for the St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Cathedral/Church?12 O.S.No.4458/2007
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction to restore the status of the society?
3) Whether the suit is properly valued and the court fee paid is sufficient?
Addl. Issue framed on 28.09.2015:
1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for the reason stated in the para 2 of written statement of defendants?
.7. During course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that though they have taken contention in para no.2 of the written statement that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, for the reasons that the plaintiff has not followed mandatory provision of law in respect of filing the suit in a representative capacity, no issue is framed to that effect. Hence, additional issue is framed.
.8. In order to prove the above issues, the plaintiff is examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as per Ex.P-1 to 8. The defendant No.1 is examined his General power of Attorney holder as DW- 1 but not marked any documents. The defendant No.1 also examined its Secretary as DW-2 and marked the documents as per Ex.D-1 and 2. The defendant No.2 is also examined its secretary as DW-3 and got marked Ex.D-3 to 5. The defendant No.3 is examined its secretary as DW-4. 13 O.S.No.4458/2007
.9. In spite of opportunity given to the plaintiff who appeared in person and later appeared through his advocate Sri.PNR, hence not addressed the arguments.
.10. Heard advocate for the defendants.
.11. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 - Negative, Issue No.2 - Negative, Issue No.3 - Affirmative, Addl.Issue No.1 - Affirmative, for the following:
REASONS .12. Issue No.1: Herein it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is member of the 1st defendant Society and also 3rd defendant Church. It is his case that the 3rd defendant is part of the 1st defendant Society and though the 3rd defendant has a separate constitution, it is not separately registered as a distinct entity and all the time it is a part of the jacobite Syrian Orthodox society. The said church receives contributions from members, income through other institutions and also has income out of religious functions performed in the church. The property and the income of St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church was always reflected in the balance sheet of jacobite Syrian Orthodox society and the same was used 14 O.S.No.4458/2007 to be reflected and shown as part of the society in its records. The members of Jacobite Syrian Orthodox society as well as members of the church have always treated St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church as a part of Jacobite Syrian Orthodox society and a dispute arose regarding the mismanagement of the affairs of Jacobite Syrian Orthodox society. The office bearers representing the defendant No.1 took up contention in that proceeding before the Registrar of societies that the church is a separate entity and that is not a part of Jacobite Syrian Orthodox society and as such, the ambit of the dispute cannot stretch to anything relating to the administration of the church and in such dispute the records relating to the church cannot be scrutinized. The registrar had sent several notices to the defendant No.1, but the defendant No.1 refused to give any satisfactory reply to the said notices and the 1st defendant had disobeyed the direction issued by Registrar and the said dispute was taken before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on many occasions and ultimately the matter was remanded to the Registrar of Societies with direction to reconsider the dispute. After remand though the registrar of societies issued several notices, the defendant No.1 did not choose to produce the records in that connection and ultimately on 22.04.2006 in SOR No.160/78-79 the Registrar of Societies held that the church is a unit of the society and directed the defendant No.1 to continue to treat the church as a unit of the society. The defendant No.1 made 15 O.S.No.4458/2007 unsuccessful attempt to declare that the defendant No.2 is an independent organization. When the Registrar did not accept the church as an independent organization as per law, the church was upgraded as a Head Church and the church is renamed as St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Cathedral a per Annual report and Accounts 2003-04. The St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Cathedral has its own fixed assets, cash in bank, loans and advances as reflected in its annual report as on 31.03.2005. Though it is a part of the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox society to be reflected in the accounts of the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox society.
When there was dispute about the society and church before the Registrar of Societies and the court were pending, the defendant 1 and 3 changed the name of St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Cathedral Trust (Regd). They also issued a separate annual report and accounts for the year 2005-06 and also conducting 1st General body meeting on 19.03.2006 as if it is a separate entity is illegal. In 2005-06 there is no church in existence according to the records. It is illegally called as a Trust in the name of defendant No.2. The formation of the defendant No.2 and transferring the assets of defendant No.3 to defendant No.2 is illegal. The defendant No.3 being a part of defendant No.1 could not have been formed into different entity in the name of defendant No.2. Because of this illegal formation of defendant No.2, the members of defendant No.3 are 16 O.S.No.4458/2007 left without any church and it has prejudiced the rights of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit.
.13. The PW-1 has deposed on par with the plaint averments in the affidavit filed for chief examination. In the course of cross-examination he admitted that the defendant No.1 is registered body under Karnataka Societies Act. He has no knowledge whether defendant No.2 is a registered trust. But he has shown the 2nd defendant as a registered Trust and he is not a member of the 2nd defendant Trust. He has no document to show that the defendant No.3 Church was upgraded as Cathedral. He admitted that he belonged to Knanaya community and there are Knanaya churches in Bangalore. The complaint filed by the plaintiff before the Registrar was dismissed. In the said order Registrar has given a clear finding that church is not a unit of society. He admitted that bye laws of defendant No.1 to 3 are different.
.14. The plaintiff has produced the documents. Ex.P-1 is the memorandum of rules and regulations of Jacobite Syrian Orthodox society, Bangalore where the object of the society is shown as under:
"To promote the moral and spiritual well being of the members of the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox church who reside in and around Bangalore and to provide places of corporate worship where they can practice unhindered the high traditions, precepts and faith as handed down to their fathers 17 O.S.No.4458/2007 as of old from the Holy Apostolic throne of Autioch and all the East"
Ex.P-2 is the constitution of St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church. Ex.P-3 is the notice dated 16.01.2001 by Registrar of Societies, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore to the Secretary, Jacobite Syrian Orthodox society, Bangalore, where it is stated that the 3rd defendant church is a unit of the society as per all records available in this office. Ex.P-4 is the copy of notice dated 22.11.2000 by the Registrar of Societies, Bangalore Urban District to the Secretary, Jacobite Syrian Orthodox society, stating that as per the records available in the office of registrar and as per statements and balance sheets of the 1st defendant, the 3rd defendant is a unit of the 1st defendant. Ex.P-5 is the copy of show cause notice dated 22.03.2001 by the Registrar of Societies to the Secretary of the 1st defendant, stating that in spite of several notices issued by this office, the 1st defendant society has failed to comply the direction given by this office, hence, called upon to show cause why the registration should not be cancelled and the administrator is appointed to the said society. Ex.P-6 is the copy of enquiry proceedings before the District Registrar (Firms & Society) in the matters of 1st defendant society (a registered society) dated 22.04.2006 and SOR No.160/78-79, which reveals that the District Registrar has passed an order on 22.04.2006 stating that the 3rd defendant Church is an independent body having its 18 O.S.No.4458/2007 own constitution. Ex.P-7 and 8 are the annual report and accounts of the Church.
.15. It is admitted fact that the said order as per Ex.P-6 has been challenged before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and by an order dated 12.04.2011 in W.P.No.18981/2009 (GM-KSR) by the plaintiff which was allowed directing the Registrar to conduct enquiry and the said order has been challenged by the defendants before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.A.No.5749/2011(GM-KSR) which was allowed and the order in W.P.No.18981/2009 was set aside. In that order at page No.12, it is observed as under:
"On thorough consideration of the facts and the material, we find that the Registration of the Society is with one of the object to promote and to provide a place for corporate worship. In this regard, the Church was already in existence was got amalgamated into the system of the society as an integral part. The Registrar has found in every enquiry that there is no mis-management and that the Church is a different entity which does not constitute part of the society. The Resolution passed by the Society is by majority of the members present. The objects for which the society could be established is spelt out in Section 3. The provisions of Section 3 does not permit a religious activity as one of the objects. The objects mentioned in Section 3 of the Act are purely secular like Charitable, Education, Science, Literature, Arts, Fine Arts, etc. The spiritual activity cannot be valid object/objects for establishing the 19 O.S.No.4458/2007 society, which is not permitted under the Act. In that view of the matter, even if the church was made an integral part of the Society earlier, it would beyond the permissible object Under Section. 3 of the Act"
And has allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the 2nd Respondent to conduct enquiry. The society aggrieved by the said order has filed this writ appeal.
.16. So, in view of the judgment in the said Writ appeal contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No.3 is unit of defendant No.1, cannot be accepted. When the plaintiff has not challenged the order of this Writ appeal, the findings of the Registrar of society that the defendant No.3 church is unit of defendant No.1 society has no legal sanctity. So, it is clear that the defendant No.3 is not wing of defendant No.1. It is admitted by the plaintiff that he is not member of the defendant No.2 Trust. There is no material placed by the plaintiff to show that the defendant No.3 has changed its name as Trust. He admitted that the bye-laws and constitution of the defendants 2 and 3 are entirely different. Even in the course of cross-examination of DW-1 to nothing is elicited to say that the defendant No.3 changed its name as defendant No.2.
.17. When such being the fact, the contention of the plaintiff that formation of 2nd defendant is contrary to the rules and not applicable to the Church, is not maintainable. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff has 20 O.S.No.4458/2007 failed to prove issue no.1. Hence, I answer the above issue No.1 in the negative.
.18. Addl. Issue No.1 framed on 28.09.2015: It is contention of the defendants in their written statement at para no.2 that suit of the plaintiff is of representative in nature and the plaintiff has not followed the mandatory provisions of law. It is arguments of the advocate for the defendants that at page no.7 in para No.16 of plaint it is stated that "Because of this illegal formation of defendant No.2, the members of defendant No.3 are now left without any church and it ha prejudiced the rights of the plaintiff and similarly situated members". He also repeated the same in his chief examination. So, it is clear that the suit of the plaintiff is of representative in nature. Further it is the argument of the learned counsel for the defendants that as per the judgment in W.A. No.5749/2011 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the liberty was given to the plaintiff to file a suit under Section 92 of C.P.C., but he has not filed this suit under Section 92 of C.P.C. Hence, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable.
.19. On going through the averments in para no.16 of the plaint as stated above, it can be said that the plaintiff is interested to institute this suit to protect the interest of the members of the church. When such being the case it is nothing but suit of representative in nature, but the 21 O.S.No.4458/2007 plaintiff has not filed an application seeking permission to file this suit under order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. Further more, the plaintiff is not a member of the defendant No.2 Trust. In view of that also suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable.
.20. The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1993 SCW 3604 (Nttamai K.S. Elappa Mudaliar and others Vs. Asstt. Commr. H.R. and C.E. Board and others), which reads as under:
(A) Constitution of India, Temple-Management-
protection of Art.26-suit instituted by two individuals putting forward rights of community-Non compliance of-provisions of O.1 R.8 -suit not maintainable"
Hence, in view of the above discussion I hold that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. So, I answer the above addl. Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
.21. Issue No.2: When the plaintiff has failed to prove issue No.1 and also in view of my discussion in issue no.1, I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction. Hence, I answer the above issue no.2 in the negative.
.22. Issue No.3: It is contention of the defendants that the suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient. But finally the 22 O.S.No.4458/2007 defendants have not agitated this fact. The plaintiff has valued the suit under Section 24(b) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and paid court of Rs.50/- since the relief claimed in the suit is not in respect of immovable property. The court fee paid by the plaintiff is proper. Hence, I answer the above issue No.3 in the affirmative.
In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Draw Decree Accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court, this the 15th day of October 2015) (Hemavathi) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
ANNEXURE:-
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff P.W.1 : Sri.Chev K.M. Joseph
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 : Memorandum of Rules and
Regulations
Ex.P.2 : Constitution of Church
Ex.P.3 : Letter dated 16.01.2001
Ex.P.4 : Notice dated 22.11.2000
Ex.P.5 : Show cause notice dated
22.03.2001
Ex.P.6 : Enquiry proceedings before District
Registrar
23 O.S.No.4458/2007
Ex.P.7 & 8 : Trust Reports
3. List of witnesses examined for defendants:
D.W.1 : Sri.Idichandy John
D.W.2 : Sri.P.S. Joseph
D.W.3 : Sri. Sunil Jacob
D.W.4 : Sri.A.P. Johny
4. List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D-1 : Memorandum of association
Ex.D-2 : Letter dated 24.04.2009
Ex.D.3 : Amended Trust deed
Ex.D.4 & 5 : Receipts
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
24 O.S.No.4458/2007
08.10.2015
Order portion pronounced in the open court
(Vide separate order)
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Draw Decree Accordingly.
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.