Bangalore District Court
Om Shakthi Sri Akhilandeshwari vs Smt.Vimala on 30 August, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (CCH-21)
Dated: This, the 30th day of August 2017.
Present: Sri.Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.
B.A.,LL.B(Spl)
IV Addl.CC & SJ, Mayohall Unit,
Bengaluru.
O.S. No.26592/2010
Plaintiffs: Om Shakthi Sri Akhilandeshwari
Amman Temple Trust, having its
Office at No.1, Om Shakthi Circle,
1st Stage, Gouthamapuram, Halasuru,
Bengaluru-560008.
By its Trustees:-
1. Sri.C.Thyagarajan,
S/o.Sri.Chandran, aged about
59 yrs, No.29, 2nd Main, 2nd
Stage, Gauthamapura,
Bengaluru-560008.
2. Sri.K.Ravi,
S/o.Late.Sri.Kannan, aged
about 55 yrs, R/at.No.150,
5th Cross, Viveknagar,
Bengaluru-560047.
3. Sri.P.Suresh, S/o.Sri.Puttanna,
aged about 50 yrs, R/at.No.1/1,
Muniswamappa Layout, Near
2 O.S. No.26592/2010
Vivekananda Ashram, Old
Madras Road, Bengaluru-08.
4. Sri.Maran, S/o.Sri.Muthu,
aged about 35 yrs,
R/at.No.33, 2nd Main, 2nd
Cross, Gowthamapuram,
Bengaluru-08.
5. Sri.Malakondaiah,
S/o.Sri.Chennaiah, aged about
45 yrs, R/at.No.14, 8th Cross,
Gowthamapuram, Bengaluru-
08.
6. Sri.K.Ravi Chandra Babu,
S/o.Sri.Venkataiah, aged about
38 yrs, No.1, 2nd Main Road,
7th Cross, Gowthamapuram
2nd Stage, Bengaluru-560008.
7. Smt.Shanthi,
W/o.Sri.Samboshivan, aged
about 56 yrs, R/at.No.26/1,
5th Cross, 2nd Main,
Gowthamapuram, Bengaluru-
08.
8. Sri.S.K.Ramesh,
S/o.Sri.Kannan, aged about
40 yrs, No.29, 2nd Main,
Channel Road, Halasuru,
Bengaluru-560008.
9. Smt.Dhanalakshmi,
W/o.Sri.Rajan, aged about
56 yrs, No.12, 5th Cross,
3 O.S. No.26592/2010
Gowthamapuram 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560008.
10. Sri.T.K.Jaiprakash,
S/o.Sri.Kondaswamy, aged
about 50 yrs, No.213/1,
Camondo Hospital, Airforce
Qtrs, Bengaluru-560007.
(By Sri.M.D.Raghunath, Advocate)
V/S
Defendants: 1. Smt.Vimala,
W/o.Sri.Veeramuthu, aged about
60 yrs, R/at.No.30/1, Bazaar
Street, Gowthamapuram,
Bengaluru-8.
2. Smt.K.Varalakshmi,
W/o.Sri.Kumar, aged about
43 yrs, R/at.No.19/1, 4th Cross,
Gowthamapuram, Bengaluru-8.
3. Sri.G.Murthy,
S/o.Sri.M.Govindaraj, aged
about 59 yrs, R/at.No.2, Old
No.54/1, 1st Main, 1st Stage,
Gowthamapuram, Bengaluru-8.
4. Sri.Saravanan,
S/o.Late.Sri.Madhurai, aged
about 40 yrs, R/at.No.1, CNS
Compound, Gouthamapuram,
Bengaluru-8.
5. Sri.Ramshekar,
S/o.Late.Sri.Perumal, aged about
50 yrs, R/at.No.10, Shivan
4 O.S. No.26592/2010
Temple Street, Gowthampuram,
Bengaluru-8.
(By Smt.Akkamahadevi Hiremath, Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit 24.09.2010
Nature of the suit (Suit for Pro-note, Suit for Permanent
Suit for Declaration and Possession, Injunction
Suit for Injunction, etc.)
Date of commencement of recording 03.06.2011
of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment was 30.08.2017
pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
06 11 06
JUDGMENT
Present suit has been filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC for seeking a relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over suit schedule property and for costs.
2. The description of the suit schedule property as shown in the schedule to the plaint is as follows:-
All that piece and parcel of land together with construction standing thereon of premises bearing No.01, Om Shakthi Circle, 1st Stage, Gouthamapuram, Halasuru, Bengaluru-560008, measuring 30' x 32', bounded on:-
East by: Road;
West by: Road;
5 O.S. No.26592/2010
North by: Road; and on
South by: Private Property.
3. Case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as below: -
1st Trustee with the help of the other Trustees have constructed a temple of Om Shakthi Sri Akhilandeshwari Amman in the suit schedule property; the Prathistapana and Kumbhabhishekam of the temple was successfully completed between the period 07.07.2008 to 10.07.2008, and the Trustees were individually maintaining the temple. The plaintiffs thought fit to create a Trust for smooth running of the Temple and maintaining it; as such it was unanimously decided amongst the Trustees of the plaintiff to form a trust and register it and accordingly a registered trust deed was formed on 28.07.2010. The temple is been constructed with contribution from all sources and the Trust is maintaining the daily affairs of the Temple and the property on which the temple is been constructed. The defendants are no where concerned to the affairs of the Trust and the Temple; but they are trying to interfere with the daily affairs of the Temple and the Trust, which they are not entitled. The defendants are also 6 O.S. No.26592/2010 the residents of the same area wherein the Trust and the Temple is situated; on 20.09.2010 they entered into the temple premises with anti social elements and tried to enter the sanctum of the main deity and also tried to snatch the books of accounts kept in the temple premises, for which the Trustees of the plaintiff objected, and public gathered, the defendants went away; however threatened dispossession shortly. Despite protest the defendants and their agents, henchmen are taking law into their own hands, and are threatening dire consequences. Hence, this suit arose.
4. After issuance of the suit summons and duly served upon them, the defendants No.1 to 5 appeared through their advocate Smt.Akkamahadevi Hiremath and filed their joint WS.
5. Case of the defendants No.1 to 5, in brief, is as below:-
Defendants No.1 to 5 contended in their WS that suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable either on law or on facts and it is fundamentally defective. Further it is contended that the suit schedule property measures 25 x 24 ft and on the East, it is bounded by the Statue of Ambedkar and Mother Theresa and not the road as described by the plaintiff. Further it is contended that 7 O.S. No.26592/2010 plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.4 and 7 are related to each other and plaintiffs No.2, 3, 8 and 10 are not at all from Gowthamapura and they neither contributed for the construction of the temple nor maintaining the temple. The remaining plaintiffs are no way concerned and contributed to the temple. The locals of Gauthamapura have contributed to the construction of Om Shakti temple. Further it is contended that during the year 2007, the general public of Gowthampura decided to construct a temple of Om Shakti Malemaravathur Adi Parashakti in the property belonging to the Government measuring 25 x 24 ft., and orally formed a committee and started collecting funds from the locals of Gowthamapura. The said committee entrusted the work of construction to the 1st plaintiff and handed over the funds more than Rs.10 lakhs to him. Further it is contended that in November 2008 inaugurated the temple and Kumbhabhishekam was done from 07.07.2008 to 10.07.2008. However, the name of Mandrum was changed and named as Om Shakti Vazhipattu Mandram. After the opening the 1st plaintiff started troubling the locals who came to perform the pooja at the temple. The 1st plaintiff started 8 O.S. No.26592/2010 propaganda that he constructed the temple with his own money as it is his ancestral property and he had also created a registered trust and 11 other people as trustees and also claimed to have formed the trust in "Om Shakti Shree Akhilandeshwari Temple Development Trust-Regd". Further it is contended that the 1st plaintiff did not allow the public including the defendants to enter the temple and threatened them with dire consequences. The residents of the Gowthamapura were constrained to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police & Commissioner of Police on 21.05.2010, 31.05.2010 & 07.06.2010. The plaintiff No.1 has renamed the temple as Om Shakti Akhilandeswari Amman Temple without the consent of the public of Gowthamapura. Further it is contended that the Halasur Police gave an endorsement to the complainants that the remedy could be found from the BBMP Agram Ward Mayohall, Bengaluru. As the 1st plaintiff was claiming that the temple is his property, the defendants obtained encumbrance from the Sub-Registrar, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru. 1st Plaintiff with other plaintiffs locked and closed the temple soon after the Kumbhabhishekam was held and even built a wall from inside the 9 O.S. No.26592/2010 temple window so as not to allow the public to see the sanctum of the deity. Further it is contended that as the temple was kept under lock, the public who gathered at the entrance broke open the lock in the presence of the police and Suvarna news channel personnel on 22.7.2010. On the same day, the public formed a committee announcing that the possession of the temple was taken by the public. The public named the temple as "Om Shakti Shree Angalaparameshwari Temple". Further it is contended that on the next day; i.e., 23.07.2010 about 100 residents of Gowthamapura met and formed a committee and elected the defendants to run the temple administration. Subsequently, the Trust was formed and registered in the name and style "Om Shakti Shree Angalaparameshwari Temple" on 02.08.2010. Further it is contended that the defendants have been performing the pooja from the day the possession was taken by the public and got repaired the damaged part and removed the wall constructed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiffs are no way concerned and there is no cause of action as such for the suit. On the above said grounds, the defendants submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs deserved to be dismissed. 10 O.S. No.26592/2010
6. From the above said pleadings, following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff trust was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff trust prove alleged interference?
3. What decree or order?
7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, affidavit evidence of 1st plaintiff has been filed and he has been examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.152 documents have been got marked.
8. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants also, affidavit evidence of 5th defendant, has been filed and he has been examined as DW.1 and Exs.D.1 to D.10 documents have been got marked.
9. Heard, the learned advocates for the plaintiffs and defendants and perused the records.
10. After considering the evidence on record, my findings on the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1: Affirmative, 11 O.S. No.26592/2010 Issue No.2: Affirmative, Issue No.3: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS.
11. ISSUE No.1 & 2: Both these issues are interlinked each other; hence, for avoiding repetition I have taken up both these issues for discussion at one stretch. In order to prove the case of plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff Sri.C.Thyagarajan is got examined as a P.W.1 by submitting sworn affidavit evidence, in which he has categorically reiterated the plaint averments. The 1st plaintiff/P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that he with the help of the other Trustees have constructed a temple of Om Shakthi Sri Akhilandeshwari Amman in the suit schedule property; the Prathistapana and Kumbhabhishekam of the temple was successfully completed between the period 07.07.2008 to 10.07.2008, and they the Trustees were individually maintaining the temple. P.W.1 further stated in his chief-examination that the plaintiffs thought fit to create a Trust for smooth running of the Temple and maintaining it; as such it was unanimously decided 12 O.S. No.26592/2010 amongst the Trustees of the plaintiff to form a trust and register it and accordingly a registered trust deed was formed on 28.07.2010. The temple is been constructed with contribution from all sources and the Trust is maintaining the daily affairs of the Temple and the property on which the temple is been constructed. P.W.1 further stated in his affidavit evidence that the defendants are no where concerned to the affairs of the Trust and the Temple are trying to interfere with the daily affairs of the Temple and the Trust, which they are not entitled. It is also he stated that the defendants are also the residents of the same area wherein the Trust and the Temple is situated; on 20.09.2010 they entered the temple premises with anti social elements and tried to enter the sanctum sanctorm of the main deity and also tried to snatch the books of accounts kept in the temple premises, which the Trustees of the plaintiff objected, and public gathered, the defendants went away; however threatened dispossession shortly. Despite protest the defendants and their agents, henchmen are taking law into their own hands, and are threatening dire consequences. P.W.1 further stated in his chief- examination that he has been carrying on the pooja activities of the 13 O.S. No.26592/2010 temple taking advantage of the fact that injunction was not granted the defendants threat have increased day by day which has to be stopped by an order of injunction and prays to decree the suit.
12. On the other hand, the 5th defendant P.Ramashekhar given his evidence as a D.W.1 by stating that the 1st plaintiff with other plaintiffs have nothing to do with the temple. The suit schedule property measures 25 x 24 ft and on the East, it is bounded by the Statue of Ambedkar and Mother Theresa and not the road as described by the plaintiff. Further D.W.1 stated in his chief-examination that plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.4 and 7 are related to each other and plaintiffs No.2, 3, 8 and 10 are not at all from Gowthamapura and they neither contributed for the construction of the temple nor maintaining the temple. The remaining plaintiffs are no way concerned and contributed to the temple. The locals of Gauthamapura have contributed to the construction of Om Shakti temple. It is also he stated that during the year 2007, the general public of Gowthampura decided to construct a temple of Om Shakti Malemaravathur Adi Parashakti in the property belonging to the Government measuring 25 x 24 ft., 14 O.S. No.26592/2010 and orally formed a committee and started collecting funds from the locals of Gowthamapura. The said committee entrusted the work of construction to the 1st plaintiff and handed over the funds more than Rs.10 lakhs to him. Further D.W.1 stated in his affidavit evidence that in November 2008 inaugurated the temple and Kumbhabhishekam was done from 07.07.2008 to 10.07.2008. However, the name of Mandrum was changed and named as Om Shakti Vazhipattu Mandram. After the opening the 1st plaintiff started troubling the locals who came to perform the pooja at the temple. The 1st plaintiff started propaganda that he constructed the temple with his own money as it is his ancestral property and he had also created a registered trust and 11 other people as trustees and also claimed to have formed the trust in "Om Shakti Shree Akhilandeshwari Temple Development Trust-Regd". Further D.W.1 stated in his chief-examination that the 1st plaintiff did not allow the public including the defendants to enter the temple and threatened them with dire consequences. The residents of the Gowthamapura were constrained to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police & Commissioner of Police on 21.05.2010, 15 O.S. No.26592/2010 31.05.2010 & 07.06.2010. The plaintiff No.1 has renamed the temple as Om Shakti Akhilandeswari Amman Temple without the consent of the public of Gowthamapura. It is also he stated that the Halasur Police gave an endorsement to the complainants that the remedy could be found from the BBMP Agram Ward Mayohall, Bengaluru. As the 1st plaintiff was claiming that the temple is his property, the defendants obtained encumbrance from the Sub- Registrar, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru. 1st Plaintiff with other plaintiffs locked and closed the temple soon after the Kumbhabhishekam was held and even built a wall from inside the temple window so as not to allow the public to see the sanctum sanctorum of the deity. D.W.1 further stated in his chief- examination that as the temple was kept under lock, the public who gathered at the entrance broke open the lock in the presence of the police and Suvarna news channel personnel on 22.7.2010. On the same day, the public formed a committee announcing that the possession of the temple was taken by the public. The public named the temple as "Om Shakti Shree Angalaparameshwari Temple". D.W.1 further stated in his affidavit evidence that on the 16 O.S. No.26592/2010 next day; i.e., 23.07.2010 about 100 residents of Gowthamapura met and formed a committee and elected the defendants to run the temple administration. Subsequently, the Trust was formed and registered in the name and style "Om Shakti Shree Angalaparameshwari Temple" on 02.08.2010. It is also he stated that the defendants have been performing the pooja from the day the possession was taken by the public and got repaired the damaged part and removed the wall constructed by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs are no way concerned and there is no cause of action as such for the suit. The plaintiff No.1 has raised huge money in the name of the temple and misusing the amount raised from the public. Now the pooja is performed by the trust formed by the defendants and public are attending the pooja without any fear and prays to dismiss the suit.
13. During the cross-examination of the P.W.1 conducted by the advocate for defendants he admitted that there was no building in the suit schedule property in the year 2007 and denied that the villagers of the Gowthamapura decided to construct Om Shakthi Melmarvathur Adhiparashakthi Temple in the said place. 17 O.S. No.26592/2010 It is also he stated that there are a statues of Goddess Durga, and Lord Buddha and statue of the football player Peelay on the Eastern side of the suit schedule property, which is belonging to BBMP. It is further admitted that by the end of 2007 the villagers of the Gowthampura constructed the temple in the suit schedule property by raising a donation. For which he answered in a different manner that he also one of the donor for constructing the temple. It is denied that temple has been constructed in the suit schedule property with an intention that only the lady should offer prayer in the temple and woman of Gowthamapura had formed a committee to construct the temple in the suit schedule property. P.W.1 it is stated that all the villagers had formed a committee to construct the temple in the suit schedule property. It is denied that he was quarrelling with the committee members in connection with the administration of the temple and threatening to the public when they were coming to offer prayer in the temple. He admits that one Kanthi had lodged a complaint against him and he was summoned by the police and they have recorded his statement, which are got marked at Ex.D.1 and D.2 by 18 O.S. No.26592/2010 confronting to the witness. It is also denied that the administration of the temple has been entrusted to Om Shakti Angalaparameshwari Trust. It is further he denied that on 28.7.2010 he himself and other plaintiffs created a false trust in the name of Om Shakthi Sri Akhilandeshwari Ammana Temple Trust. P.W.1 it is stated that wherein already temple was in existence in the suit schedule property on 28.7.2017. In further cross- examination P.W.1 denied that there was already trust on 28.7.2010 in respect of the temple situated in the suit schedule property. It is also admitted by the P.W.1 that the suit schedule property and temple situated therein is not the personal properties of the trustees, who have filed this suit and further he stated that trustees are not using the suit schedule property for running the office and denied that Ex.P.126 & 127 and Ex.P.135 to 140 documents have been concocted for the purpose of this case. They are not pertaining to the suit schedule property. It is also denied that the suit schedule property is in possession of the Om Shakthi Angalaparameshwari Trust and the plaintiff trust has concocted a documents Ex.P.1 to P.152 to grab the suit schedule property. It is 19 O.S. No.26592/2010 further denied that plaintiffs' trust has no right or possession over the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs' trust itself is not being in existence and has no legal status. It is also denied that the plaintiffs' trust is not administering the temple existing in the suit schedule property and it has no right to administer the suit schedule property and temple. It is also denied that no trust has been formed by the plaintiffs' trust and it has no elected members. It is also denied that he has been falsely deposing to make a command upon the suit schedule property to grab the same.
14. Upon perusal of the cross-examination of D.W.1 conducted by the plaintiffs' advocate he stated that he has been residing along with his family members since last 50 years in the given address and he knows the P.W.1 Thyagaraju from last 20 to 25 years, who was a employee of NGEF company and he does not know presently what he has been doing. He admits that the house of the P.W.1 is very nearest to his house. It is also D.W.1 stated that he has been working in Bengaluru Central Govt. Doordarshan Department Office as a Studio Attendant from the year 1989. It is denied that all the trustees mentioned in the plaint are residing in 20 O.S. No.26592/2010 the same address wherein he is residing. It is further he stated that one Ramesh and Suresh are well known to him. Further D.W.1 denied that other 10 trustees also are a resident of Gowthamapura. It is further he stated that Om Shakthi Akhilandeshwari Ammana Temple was started in the Gowthamapura in the year 2008 and in between 2008-2010 it was opened for offering the pooja by the general public and denied that plaintiff No.1 Thyagaraj was entrusted to supervise the same. It is also he stated that he does not know all the trustees were joined their hands and got registered a trust for the development of the temple. It is stated that he has not scrutinized the documents of the plaintiffs' trust produced in this case. He admits that Ex.P.125 is a pamphlet of Kumbhabhisheka and Ex.P.3 is a invitation card. It is also admitted that he has not verified the particulars of the donors and a donation given to the plaintiffs' trust for the development of the temple. It is also admitted that a temple appearing in Ex.P.81 photos there is a original temple by namely Om Shakthi Akhilandeshwari Temple and the other photographs shown in Ex.P.4 to 123 are the photos of the Kumbhabhisheka function of the said temple. But, he denied 21 O.S. No.26592/2010 that all the main functions of the Kumbabhisheka were leaded by the plaintiffs' trust only. D.W.1 further stated that in all the photos of the Kumbhabhisheka functions it may be appearing that Thyagaraj is taken a participation and leadership and it is admitted that in the said photos except himself no other defendants are appearing and he is appearing total in 5 photos. D.W.1 denied that there is no any connection in between the defendants' trust and the above said temple. It is also denied that their trust has not made any work jointly for the development of the temple. It is also denied that though there is no any right and interest by their trust over the temple on 20.9.2010 he came at about 5 p.m. by collecting the number of peoples and picked up quarrel with the plaintiff by standing nearby the original temple and they had made a efforts to forcibly get snatch the accounts book of the trust. It is further denied that plaintiff trust deed is a earlier trust deed, than the trust deed of the defendant. It is also denied that the defendants have got registered the another registered trust deed with an intention to cancel the earlier trust deed of the plaintiff. It is also denied that a 22 O.S. No.26592/2010 trust of the defendants is not having any legal relationship with the Om Shakthi Akhilandeshwari Ammana Temple.
15. It is very important to note that on careful consideration of the entire cross-examination of the P.W.1 and the documents produced by the plaintiffs it is appearing that the P.W.1 is being a trustee with other trustees whose name are mentioned in the cause title of the plaint. It is appearing even in the trust deed of the plaintiff dated 28.07.2010 also. The counsel for the defendant made a detail cross-examination to the P.W.1 and tried to rebut the oral evidence and documentary evidence of the plaintiff to establish that no such trust of the plaintiff is in existence on the date of suit or prior to that. A number of suggestions suggested by the advocate for defendants to the P.W.1 that the trust of the plaintiffs nothing done for the development of the trust and temple existing in the alleged property. The said suggestions are directly denied by the P.W.1. It is more efforts made by the advocate for defendant to rebut the case of plaintiff. For all the rebuttal questions the P.W.1 has denied the suggestions of the advocate for defendants and specifically answered that on the date of filing the 23 O.S. No.26592/2010 suit there was a existing trust and it is also categorically stated that Kumbhabhishekha was conducted to the said functions, a invitations also printed and circulated to the devotees of the temple of the Gowthampura. Even in the photographs Exs.P.4 to 123 and CD Ex.P.124, which are relating to the Kumbhabhishekha functions are disclosing that the P.W.1 and his associates plaintiffs have taken a active participation in the said functions and the copies of the estimates and tax invoice, bills, and ledger book of the temple are disclosing that the plaintiff trust was being in existence on the date of suit. P.W.1 admitted in his cross- examination that the trust was formed for development of the temple and it was not for the personal interest of the trustees. A total intention of the P.W.1 is that he tried to protect the interest of the trust and expressed in his oral and documentary evidence, the plaintiffs trustees have made a efforts for collection of the donation from the donor to the construction of the temple and also making management of the administration by the trust etc. Regarding this matter, only counsel for the defendants denied; but, not obtained a single admissions from the mouth of P.W.1 that the plaintiffs' trust 24 O.S. No.26592/2010 is not in existence on the date of suit and the defendant No.5/D.W.1 and other defendants have not caused a obstruction to the plaintiff; a trust activities conducting in respect of Om Shakthi Akhilandeshwari Temple. It is also necessary to note that in the chief-examination and cross-examination of the D.W.1 he tried to establish that there is no trust of the plaintiff on the date of suit to manage the administration of the temple; but, not succeeded to prove the said fact either through his chief-examination or documentary evidence. It is appearing in this case that when the trust of the plaintiff was in existence; subsequently, on the next month on 02.08.2010 a another trust is formed. It is a clear in this case that the trust of the defendants has not given a any application to the concerned authority by intimating the unlawful activities of the plaintiffs' trust and to get cancel the trust of the plaintiffs. Except the allegations of the defendants no such any legal document for cancellation of the plaintiffs' trust and a any relating resolution passed by the general public of the Gowthamapura by gathering in the premises of the temple, such any documents are not produced by the defendants. However, a documents a 25 O.S. No.26592/2010 complaint given against the Thyagaraju and statement of the Thyagaraju given to police and very contention of the WS of defendants and oral evidence of the D.W.1 are disclosing that the defendants have tried to cause a obstruction to the plaintiffs' trust for doing his devotional and functional activities of the trust relating to the above said temple. As above discussed, I would like to say that the defendants have not tried to disprove the case of plaintiffs. On the other hand, the plaintiffs' trust has successfully proved its case through the oral evidence of the Thyagarajan, who is a one of the trustee and other documents as pleaded in the plaint. Thus being the a situation of the trust of the plaintiffs and a temple, I would like to say that the very purpose of establishing the trusts by the residents of the Gowthampura is having a motivation to develop the temple as which will be more convenient and useful for the general public. There is no any case of the plaintiffs or defendants that only one trust shall be for the temple. Any how, it can be said that there should be a only trust for the development of the temple, it should be run smoothly with the co-operation of the general public of the Gowthamapura. In case, if there is a chance 26 O.S. No.26592/2010 to cancel the trust of the plaintiff, it shall be done only with the representation of the general public to the concerned religious endowment department and other office; unless and until canceling the trust of the plaintiff neither the defendants nor anybody can be objected for the religious functions and activities conducting by the trustees of the plaintiffs' trust for the development of the temple. It is also necessary to note that as above discussed on the date of suit there was not cancelled the trust of the plaintiffs; no such documents are produced by the defendants to defeat the case of the plaintiffs. It is very necessary to discuss that neither the P.W.1 nor any other trustees misused the trust and not made any misappropriation of the trust amount or any misrepresentation for bringing a black mark to the temple and trust. Total efforts of the plaintiffs' trust and trustees is only for the development of the temple, no any others illegal motive of them appearing in this case. Therefore, there is no scope to this court to deny the case of the plaintiffs. Thus, it appears that the plaintiffs' trust has successfully proved the case of the plaintiffs by examining the one of the trustees as a P.W.1 and other documents maintained with the trust 27 O.S. No.26592/2010 of the plaintiffs and some other documents to show that the trustee Thyagaraj was participated in the trust activities relating to the plaintiffs' trust. For the said reasons, I would like to answer issue No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff as a Affirmative.
16. ISSUE No.3: For the reasons discussed in Issue No.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER.
Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with costs.
Defendants are hereby permanently restrained from unlawfully interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs' trust and its trustees over the schedule property.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Dictation computerized by Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 30th day of August, 2017).
(Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.) IV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.28 O.S. No.26592/2010
ANNEXURES List of witness examined for the plaintiffs:
P.W.1 - Sri.C.Thyagarajan.
List of documents exhibited for the plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 - Trust deed dated 28.07.2010
Ex.P.2 - Receipt issued by the temple
Ex.P.3 - Invitation of the temple
Ex.P.4 to 123 - Photographs of the temple and
function
Ex.P.124 - CD of the photographs
Ex.P.125 - Inaugural invitation of the temple
Ex.P.126 & 127 - Letters of the temple
Ex.P.128 to 134 - Estimates
Ex.P.135 - Tax invoice
Ex.P.136 to 140 - Estimates
Ex.P.141 to 147 - Bills
Ex.P.148 to 151 - Receipt books of the temple
Ex.P.152 - Ledger book of the temple
List of witness examined for the defendants:
D.W.1 - Sri.P.Ramashekhar
List of documents exhibited for the defendants:
Ex.D.1 - Copy of the complaint, which was
lodged against P.W.1/Sri.C.Thyagarajan
by Kanthi
Ex.D.2 - Copy of P.W.1/Sri.C.Thyagarajan
statement given to the police
Ex.D.3 - Trust deed dated 02.08.2010
Ex.D.4 to 9 - Photos
29 O.S. No.26592/2010
Ex.D.10 - CD
(Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.)
IV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
30 O.S. No.26592/2010