Karnataka High Court
Sri Rangaswamy vs Rama Bhajana Mandira And Sri Vinayaka ... on 29 October, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43635
MFA No. 8162 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8162 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RANGASWAMY
S/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
NO. 90, KABER MUTT ROAD
SUNKENAHALLY
BANGALORE- 560 019.
2. SRI.B.R. PRASAD
S/O B.RAMU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
NO. 27/38-1, KABIR MUTT ROAD
GANESHA TEMPLE, SUNKENAHALLI
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M BANGALORE NORTH
Location: HIGH GAVIPURAM EXTENSION
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE -560 019.
3. SRI. SHANTHAKUMAR K
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
NO. 46/2, SUNKENAHALLI
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE- 560 019.
4. SRI. K. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE V. SHAMANNA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43635
MFA No. 8162 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
NO.9, SUNKENAHALLI
BULL TEMPLE ROAD,
HANUMANTHANAGAR
BANGALORE -560 019.
5. SRI. SOMASHEKAR S
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
NO. 23/2, DHONDUSA LAYOUT
MONJA ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 019.
6. SRI. SRIKANTESHWARA
S/O B.N.BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.21/1, PARK ROAD,
SUNKENAHALLI
BANGALORE- 560 019.
7. SRI. N. MOHAN KUMAR
S/OT.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NO.230/1, 2ND FLOOR
3RD CROSS, KAMADENU
THYAGARAJANAGAR
2ND BLOCK, BANGALORE -560 028
8. SRI. M. PRASAD
S/O M. MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
NO. 339, 13TH CROSS
KAVERI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 070
9. SRI. SUBRAMANYA
S/O VENKATASWAMAPPA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:43635
MFA No. 8162 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
NO.40, NEAR BHASKAR MEDICALS
SUNKENAHALLI, BANGALORE 560 019.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAVI.R.S., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAYANNA GOWDA N R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAMA BHAJANA MANDIRA AND
SRI VINAYAKA DEVASTHANA TRUST
NO.92, 4TH CROSS, GAVIPURAM
EXTENSION, HANUMANTHNAGAR
BANGALORE 560 019.
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI.N. NARASIMHAMURHTY
S/O NARASIMHAIAH
2. SRI. VISHWANATH B.R @ VINAY
S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT YEARS
NO.18, SUNKENAHALLI
GAVIPURAM GUTTAHALLI
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAYEEM PASHA S., ADVOCATE FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF
CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2023 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.1598/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CCH-44, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39
RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:43635
MFA No. 8162 of 2023
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and counsel appearing for respondents.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the rejection of I.A.No.3 wherein the prayer is sought by the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants or any body claiming under them from interfering with the religious functions (village festival) to be held in the suit schedule property in the particular month.
3. The factual aspect of the case in brief is that the plaintiffs before the Trial Court are seeking relief of declaration, permanent injunction and inter-alia sought for temporary injunction. It is contended that the property bearing No.62, Sunkanahalli, Kempegowda Nagar, Ward No.49, PID No.49-76-62 belongs to Vinayaka Devasthana Public Trust, having acquired the same from Sri.Gurukar Chikkanarasimhaiah S/o Gurukar Narasimha Nayaka under -5- NC: 2024:KHC:43635 MFA No. 8162 of 2023 the Trust Deed dated 12.11.1951, which is registered before the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru City. The founder of the Trust-Sri.Gurukar Chikkanarasimhaiah's brother Sri.Dodda Narasimhaiah has acquired the schedule property in auction and in turn made over to the Trust. The said property was used for the purpose of religious activities for villagers of Sunkenahalli by Sri.Dodda Narasimhaiah and it was used for the purpose of villages allowing them to perform the pooja and other related activities. After his death, the said Sri.Gurukar Chikkanarasimhaih started looking after the functions carried out in the said properties along with the Vinayaka Temple and Bajane Mandira of Sunkenahalli. Due to his old age, Gurukar Chikkanarasimha Nayaka in order to continue the religious activities for Pooja, Deepaaradhane performed by his ancestors, he formed the above Trust. As per the Trust deed the Trustees are prohibited to sell, lease or mortgage of the trust properties if any of the trustees violates the terms of the trust they will no longer -6- NC: 2024:KHC:43635 MFA No. 8162 of 2023 be the trustee. The plaintiffs being the residents of Sunkenahalli, Gavipuram Extension, Bangalore, have been conducting function relating to Pooja and other related religious activities including "Kadalekayi Parise" since from several years in the schedule property.
4. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that on 11.02.2023 defendant No.1, who is the President of the Trust colluded with defendant No.2 is trying to erect structures and started to use the schedule property for commercial purposes as if the defendant No.1 is giving the schedule property for lease to the defendant No.2. When the plaintiffs along with the villagers questioned the same, the defendants have threatened them with dire consequences and a complaint came to be lodged to take action. Nevertheless, instead of taking action, the police have referred the matter concerned Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate. The Executive Magistrate, in MAG/CR/(107)16/2022-23 dated 23.02.2023 restrained the plaintiffs from causing the breach of public peace and -7- NC: 2024:KHC:43635 MFA No. 8162 of 2023 held that the subject matter is under the ownership of the 1st party of the respondents i.e., defendants herein. The plaintiffs are representing the public and villagers of Sunkenahalli in order to protect the property which is created for conducting religious activities in the village. The defendants neither having absolute right to sell or lease the property are trying to use the same for commercial purposes for the personal benefits and hence, the very object of creation of Trust will be defeated. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit and sought for interim relief.
5. The defendants have appeared and have filed objection statement to the application contending that the suit is lacks of bonafide and is bereft of merits and only with an intention to harass the Trust, the plaintiffs have the suit is filed. The plaintiffs have concealed and suppressed the material facts. The 1st defendant-Trust is the absolute owner and in possession of the property bearing Sy.No.62 situated at Sunkanahalli. The defendants -8- NC: 2024:KHC:43635 MFA No. 8162 of 2023 are also reiterated with regard to the formation of the Trust and also contended that the expenditure of the Trust have gone up and public contribution and income of the Trust have gone down. Under these circumstances only, the Trust decided to let out the vacant portion of the land in the suit property. The lease amount being received is exclusively being utilized for the purpose of carrying out the object of the Trust. Plaintiff No.1-Sri.Rangaswamy being the President of 'Chaluva Kannadigara Mitra Sangha' and other plaintiff, who are residents of the locality trying to interfere with the affairs of the Trust's day-to-day activities. Defendant No.1 had lodged the complaint and the proceedings also initiated against them and also requested the concerned Magistrate to invoke the provisions under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. The Magistrate by order dated 22.05.2023 restrained the plaintiffs from cause breach of public peace by interfering with the possession over the subject property. It is also contended that plaintiff No.1 also earlier filed a suit in -9- NC: 2024:KHC:43635 MFA No. 8162 of 2023 O.S.No.7046/2008 against defendant No.1-Trust and said suit came to be dismissed on 03.11.2016. By challenging the same, plaintiff No.1 has preferred an appeal before this Court in RFA No.249/2017, which was also dismissed and hence, it is clearly discloses that the plaintiffs are interfering with the affairs of the Trust.
6. The Trial Court having considered the grounds urged in the application as well as in the objection statement has formulated the points with regard to cardinal principles for granting the relief of temporary injunction.
7. Having taken note of the pleadings as well as the contentions and taking note of the fact that the earlier suit filed was dismissed and also confirmed by the appellate court, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that admittedly, the plaintiffs are the private individuals and they have filed a suit against the registered Trust and also taking note of the relief is sought and they are not in possession of the schedule property and hence rejected
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43635 MFA No. 8162 of 2023 the application in coming to the conclusion that the private individuals are not empowered to initiate the proceedings against the registered Trust. The said question has to be considered during the trial and hence rejected the prayer.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellants in this appeal would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has committed an error mainly relying upon the dismissal of the earlier suit and confirmation made by the appellate court and also admitted the fact that the Trust was registered in the year 1951 is not in dispute. The learned Counsel for the appellants brought to the notice of this Court the recitals of the Trust Deed and the Trust is formed for the purpose of public use of the villagers and it is also contended that the villagers are performing the religious civilities since from last 100 years. It is further contended that making an attempt to erect the structures for using the same for the commercial purpose, and when the same was questioned, the defendants are not heeded to the objection raised by the plaintiffs and the Trial Court
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43635 MFA No. 8162 of 2023 also failed to consider the material on record, more particularly, the Trust Deed and recitals of the Trust Deed and has committed an error in rejecting the application.
9. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the Trial Court taking note of the pleadings of the parties particularly, the plaint pleadings as well as the earlier proceedings initiated by the very 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.7046/2008, which was dismissed and confirmed and also taken note of the fact they are the individuals and coming in the way of the affairs of the registered Trust and the suit is also filed against the Trust and whether the private individuals are empowered to initiate proceedings against the Trust and the same has to be considered during the trial and the reasoned order was passed by the Trial Court and no grounds are made out to interfere with the said order.
10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and also Counsel appearing for the respondents and also taking note of the pleadings of both the parties, it
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43635 MFA No. 8162 of 2023 is not in dispute that the originally the property belongs to the particular family. It is also not in dispute that a Trust was created on 12.11.1951. Learned Counsel for the appellants also brought to the notice of the Court to the recitals made in the Trust Deed and having red the recitals of the Trust Deed, it is very clear that the Trust has been created for the purpose of conducting religious functions/ activities in the village and also the recitals also stated that the affairs of the Trust may be managed by raising donation of the public as well as income derived from the properties of the Trust.
11. When such being the material on record, no doubt, the plaintiffs have contended in the application that on 11.02.2023 the defendants have trying to erect structures to use the schedule property for commercial purposes. When the 1st plaintiff/appellant along with the villagers questioned the same, the defendants threatened the plaintiff and villagers. Therefore, the 1st plaintiff has lodged the complaint on 11.02.2023. It has to be taken
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43635 MFA No. 8162 of 2023 note of the fact that the very 1st plaintiff had filed earlier suit in O.S.No.7046/2008 and admittedly, the same was dismissed, wherein also the 1st plaintiff claimed that he was the President and other members are also unregistered Associations who have filed a suit earlier and the said suit was dismissed and the same has been challenged before this Court and this Court also dismissed the same. The Court has to take note of the conduct of the plaintiffs also who initiated the proceedings. It is also important to note that when the interference was done, a complaint was lodged and the MAG proceedings were also initiated against the plaintiffs and thereafter only the suit was filed.
12. Having taken these facts into consideration, admittedly, the plaintiffs are private individuals and hence, whether they can maintain the suit or not is a question to be decided during the trial. Earlier, the attempt made by the 1st plaintiff by initiating the suit was unsuccessful. Now, adding of other parties as plaintiffs, who are also the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43635 MFA No. 8162 of 2023 private individuals and a relief is also sought to restrain from interfering with religious functions/activities. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would also make the submission that they never interfered with the religious activities in the village festival and the very Trust was entrusted to conduct the religious function. The very pleading clearly disclose that the plaintiffs made an attempt to interfere and when the Trust started to put up construction and having taken note of the recitals of the Trust Deed also, it is clear that the Trust is created for the purpose of public use and the affairs of the Trust may be managed by collecting donation and even from the income from the property of the Trust. When such provisions are also made in the recitals, it appears that when the attempt is made to put up constructions and to generate the income to the Trust and an attempt was made by the plaintiffs.
13. When such being the case, while granting the relief of injunction and while exercising its discretionary
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43635 MFA No. 8162 of 2023 power the Court has to take note of the conduct of the parties also. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application. A prayer is also sought, not to interfere with the religious activities and when the Counsel appearing for the respondents also made a submission that they have not interfered in conducting of any religious activities in the village, the question of granting relief also does not arise. Hence, I do not fine any merit in the appeal to reverse the finding of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has also passed the reasoned order taking note of the earlier dismissal of the suit filed by the 1st plaintiff and confirming the same by this Court and hence, the appellants have not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.
14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43635 MFA No. 8162 of 2023 The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the orders passed by this Court in the appeal while considering the matter on merits.
In view of disposal of the main appeal, pending I.As., do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE DL CT: JL