Bangalore District Court
Sree Seetharamanjaneya vs Mr. B.S Parthasarathy on 18 November, 2021
KABC010165652011
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in
Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2021.
PRESENT: SRI. SATHISHA L.P., B.A.,LL.B.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU
O.S.No.4702/2011
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Sree Seetharamanjaneya
Temple trust,
Jeevanahalli, cox town,
Bangalore -556005.
Represented by its trustee
Mr. Anantha. N,
S/o Narayanappa,
aged about 54 years,
residing at No. 816,
3rd A Cross,
HRBR layout, I Block,
Bangalore
2. Sree Rama Mandira
Seva Sangha, No. 2, Rama Temple
2
O.S.No. 4702/2011
Road,
Jeevanahalli,
Bangalore 560005.
Represented by its Joint Secretary
Mr. G.R.Babu Kumar,
S/o G.M.Ram Murthy.
(By A.V.R., Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Mr. B.S Parthasarathy,
S/o late Mr. B.R.Shamachar,
aged about 62 years,
residing at No. 104,
Sree Rama Temple,
Jeevanahalli,
Cox town
Bangalore 560005.
2. Mr. B.S.Cheluvaraju,
S/o late Mr. B.R Shamachar,
aged about 60 years,
residing at No. 104,
Sree Rama Temple,
Jeevanahalli.
Cox town
Bangalore 560005.
3. Mr. Prakash. C
S/o late Chikka Munniswamaiah,
aged about 66 years,
grandson of Dharmakartha
late Mr. B.V. Narayanaswamy,
residing at Melur,
Melur post office building
3
O.S.No. 4702/2011
Shidlaghatta Taluk
Bangalore,
4. Mr. Sridhara
S/o late Narayana Gowda,
aged about 58 years,
grandson of Dharmakartha
late Mr. B.V. Narayanasamy
residing at Uppanahalli village,
Manchenahalli hobli,
Gowribidanur Taluk,
Kolar district, Kolar
5. Mrs. Manorama
W/o Lakshmi Rajana
about 54 years
granddaughter of Dharmadhikari
late Mr. B.V. Narayanasamy
residing at No. 155/1, 3rd Cross
Jeevanahalli, Cox town,
Bangalore 56605,
6. Mrs. Jayalakshmamma,
wife of late B.N.Kodandaram,
aged about 76 years,
residing at No. 155/1, 3rd Cross
Jeevanahalli, Cox town ,
Bangalore 5600005.
7. Mrs. Sumitra Devi
W/o late B.N.Lakshmana Swamy,
age about 66 years,
residing at No. 155,
3rd Cross,
Jeevanahalli,
(Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 Y.R.
4
O.S.No. 4702/2011
Advocate, Defendant Nos. 3 to 7
S.S.L. Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 30-06-2011
Nature of the suit : Declaration &
Injunction
Date of commencement of : 30-01-2014
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 18-11-2021
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
10 4 18
(SATHISHA L.P.)
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is before the court for the relief of declaration to declare that the decree in O.S.No.3029/2010 on the file of the city civil Judge and family trust deed dated 27/3/2006 registered in No.SHU- 1-5946-2005-06 registered with the sub-registrar Shivajinagar, Bangalore are not binding on the plaintiffs, and to pass mandatory injunction directing the 1 st 5 O.S.No. 4702/2011 defendant and every person/s claiming under him from vacating the schedule A property and to shift the B schedule property, and to pass the judgment and injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the construction or renovation of temple or the management of the temple affairs by the plaintiffs and for such other reliefs or order as this court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and cost.
2. The 1st plaintiff is a registered trust constituted under the trustee dated 21/8/1997 with the objective of promoting and developing Sree Seetharamanjaneya temple situated at No. 2, Rama Temple Road, Jeevanahalli, Bangalore. The 2 nd plaintiff is a party of persons an Association comprising of residents of Jeevanahalli, Cox town Bangalore, who have been devotees of Lord Sree Rama visiting the temple from the days of their ancestors. This temple was constructed about 100 years back by Mr. Bachegowda, resident of 6 O.S.No. 4702/2011 Jeevanahalli, Bangalore and his descendants Mr. B.V Narayanasamy maintained the temple during his lifetime and carried out renovation work. late B.V Narayanasamy executed his last Will and testament dated 14/6/1945, inter alia constructing a trust for the maintenance and upkeep of temple.
3. That under the Will and testament dated 14/6/1945 he appointed his sons Mr. B.M Kodandaram and Mr. B.M Lakshmana Swamy as Dharmakarthas and he further stipulated that the Dharmakarthas ought to be elected from amongst the descendants of his sons, the above-mentioned B.M.Kodandarama and B.V Narayanaswamy. late B.V Narayanaswamy appointed seven trustees and stipulated that the vacancies amongst the trustees can be filled up by surviving trustees. The relevant part of the will dated 14 June 1945 reads as follows-
'ಖಖಾಲಿ ಬಬೀಳಳುವ ಟಟ್ರಸಸ್ಟಿಗಳ ಸಖಾಸ್ಥಾನಗಳಿಗಗೆ ಚಳುನಖಾಯಳುಸಳುವಿಕಗೆ ಟಟ್ರಸಸ್ಟಿಗಳ 7 O.S.No. 4702/2011 ಸಖಾಸ್ಥಾನಗಳಳು ಖಖಾಲಿ ಬದದ್ದಕಖಾಲದಲಿಲ್ಲಿ ಆಗ ಇರಳುವ ಧರರ್ಮಕರರ್ಮರಳು ರರಳುತ ಟಟ್ರಸಸ್ಟಿಗಳಳು ಯಬೀಗಗ್ಯರಖಾದ ಲಖಾಯಕಕ್ಕದವರನಳುನ್ನು ಖಖಾಲಿ ಸಖಾಸ್ಥಾನಗಳಿಗಗೆ ಚಳುನಖಾಯಿಸರಕಕ್ಕದಳುದ್ದ.'
4. That the temple was maintained by the trust constructed by Late B.V. Narayanaswamy and after the demise of late B.V Narayanaswamy as indicated by him in his aforementioned will dated 14/6/1945. Late B.V.Narayanaswamy's son, Late Kodandarama given the indisputable fact that his family members were not in position to mobilize the required funds for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple, and being the need of funds for such purposes, executed the trust deed dated 21/8/1997 along with the donor Mr. Ramesh S/o late Venkata Ramaiah. This trust deed was executed in continuation of the trust that was constituted by late B.V. Narayanaswamy under the will dated 14/6/1945 and because of the above mentioned exigencies. The temple after 1997 is being maintained by this trust 8 O.S.No. 4702/2011 for/1st plaintiff ever since it was constructed in the year 1997.
5. That the temple being about 100 years old, required renovations and provisions for further upkeep and maintenance. The trust/1st plaintiff requested the devotees and residents of Jeevanahalli, Cox town, Bangalore to participate in the renovation and development of the temple premises. The 1 st plaintiff was constrained to make this appeal to the residents of Jeevanahalli, Cox town, Bangalore because of the paucity of funds. The members of the 2 nd plaintiff who have been devotees of the temple, therefore, volunteered to constitute a body of persons, association and mobilize the funds. Accordingly, the 2 nd plaintiff was constituted and the 1st plaintiff allowed the 2nd plaintiff to use the office of premises located within the temple for the use of the 2nd plaintiff.
6. That after the mutual consultation with the 1 st 9 O.S.No. 4702/2011 and 2nd defendants, who are performing archaka duties whose family has been rendering Archaka service in the temple and the 3rd to 7th defendants who are the family members of late Kodandarama and a late B.V. Narayanaswamy. The details for the development/renovation of the temple were finalized. It was mutually agreed upon and decided to do;
i) Building of Raja Gopuram
ii) Renovation of the main deity Gopuram and
installation of deity
iii) Renovation of Gopuram for Lord Ganesha and Lord Shiva
iv) Providing a tube well for the use of temple with all the facilities,
v) Renovating and relocating the residential premises for the archakas, 10 O.S.No. 4702/2011
vi) Construction of a prayer hall within the temple premises choultry for the use of devotees of the temple and prayer Hall could also double up as a choultry
vii) Carry out every other necessary renovation and development work in the temple premises.
7. The 2nd plaintiff for these purposes sought donation from the devotees and the local residents of Jeevanahalli, Cox town, Bangalore. The funds/donations mobilized were deposited with M/s Vijaya bank, Cox town branch in No. 109701011000685, an account opened by the 2nd plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff mobilized the funds approximately an amount of Rs.37 lakhs and utilized this amount for renovation work as stated above.
8. That the plaintiffs in addition to mobilizing funds/donation in different denominations as stated above, identify donors who are willing to execute specific identified work at their cost under the plaintiffs 11 O.S.No. 4702/2011 supervision. The devotees responded to such entreaties by the plaintiff and came forward to undertake execution of specific work, like construction of Gopura for the main entrance, procuring stone sculpture work, laying slabs and other work. The plaintiffs as of now have thus mobilized funds and executed work approximately costing of sum of Rs.1 crore. The remaining renovation work of the temple premises is estimated to be completed within a further mobilization of 10 lakhs and the plaintiffs are working on the details for construction of prayer hall/choultry. The plaintiffs are confident that the necessity necessary funds for this execution can be mobilized. The construction of prayer hall/choultry is absolutely necessary for generating funds for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple. And the plaintiffs have drawn up detailed plans for the construction of choultry/prayer hall.
9. That under the auspices of the plaintiffs Sree 12 O.S.No. 4702/2011 Seetharamanjaneya swamy jeernodhara and Ganapathi, Navagraha Prathishtapana programs were conducted on 10th and 11 April 2010. On these days scheduled programs were conducted in the presence of innumerable devotees and such programs were inaugurated as per the rites and customs. The renovation and development work were continued even after 10th and 11th of April 2010, and presently the main entrance Gopura and installation of Shivalinga is ready for completion subject to minor works.
10. That the plaintiffs have always endeavored to achieve consensus involving the archakas and the family members of late B.N. Kodandarama. Accordingly, the plaintiffs also renovated previous accommodation used by Archakas in consultation with the defendant. When the matter stood thus the 1st defendant in the last week attempted to obstruct the renovation and development work asserting that neither plaintiffs nor any other 13 O.S.No. 4702/2011 persons could proceed with the renovation work in view of the decree in their favor in O.S No. 3029/2010. The 1st defendant and his family members after repeated request furnished a photo copy of the order sheet O.S. No. 3029/2010 on the file of the city civil and sessions judge Bangalore, decree dated 28/4/2010 and a copy of memorandum of agreement concluded amongst the defendants in the mediation in O.S. No. 3029/2010.
11. That the defendants have relied upon family trust deed dated 27/3/2006 registered by the defendants. The suit in O.S No. 3029 of 2010 is commenced by the 1st defendant in collusion with the other defendants on the basis of the family trust deed dated 27/3/2006. The 3rd to 7th defendants could not have executed the family trust deed dated 27/3/2006 in view of the fact that the late Kodandrama during his lifetime had already executed trust deed dated 21/8/1997 along with other donor and in continuation of 14 O.S.No. 4702/2011 the trust set up by B.V. Narayanaswamy under his will dated 14/6/1945. This deed dated 27/3/2006 is not binding on the plaintiffs or the seventh defendant.
12. That though the 1st defendant commenced the suit in O.S No. 3029/2010 on 28/4/2010 pleading cause of action on 27/4/2010, but did not mention jeernodhara and Prathishtapana conducted on 10th and 11th of April 2010 or the elaborate renovation and development work undertaken by the plaintiff. The commencement of the suit in O.S No. 3029/2010 and the settlement before the Bangalore mediation center amongst the defendants, and the subsequent decree is obtained collusively by the defendants suppressing the material facts and behind back of the plaintiffs. The defendants have institued the suit in O.S No. 3029/2010 with unlawful intention of taking over the management of the temple surreptitiously and knock of a portion of temple premises under the guise of 1st and 2nd defendants and their family 15 O.S.No. 4702/2011 members are entitled for residential premises described in the suit in O.S No. 3029/2010 as measuring 79 feet and 28 feet described in the schedule A.
13. That the defendants in continuation of their malafide intentions have started impeding the progress and completion of their innovation and development work which is in the very last stage of completion the decree in O.S.No. 3029/2010 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant and his family members are in occupation of the schedule A property and as per the mutual arrangements amongst the plaintiffs and defendants, the 1st defendant and his family members have to occupy the two separate residential premises which have now been renovated by the plaintiffs. The renovated two residential premises which are in the B schedule. Renovation of B schedule premises was carried out in consultation with the defendants and as required by the 1st and 2nd defendant and his family members, who 16 O.S.No. 4702/2011 ought to shift along with his family members to the B schedule property now that the renovation work is completed. The 1st defendant is refusing to shift to the schedule B property and vacate the schedule A property which is currently in his occupation. Further the renovation and development work of the temple is being obstructed by the defendants on the basis of the suit in O.S No. 3029/2010. Hence the suit
14. Cause of action for the suit arose after the last week of May 2011, when the 1st defendant started impeding the construction and renovation work of the temple and furnish the copies of order sheet in O.S. No. 3029/2010 on the file of the city civil and sessions Judge Bangalore, decree dated 20/4/2010 in O.S No. 3029/2010. And the copy of memorandum of agreement concluded amongst the defendants in the mediation in O.S. No. 3029/2010. With these contentions plaintiffs seeks to decree the suit.
17
O.S.No. 4702/2011
15. The defendant No. 1 has filed the written statement by contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false, vexatious and imaginary. The plaintiff has filed an imaginary and false case against this defendant without there being any cause of action and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. The suit is barred by law since the same is hit by section 92 of CPC. The court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient and the office objections is ignored by plaintiffs hence this court be pleased to raise the preliminary issue regarding the court fee.
16. It is contended by the defendant No. 1 that , 1st and 2nd defendants are the sons of late B.R Shamachar, who was also a priest in the Sree Rama Temple and after the demise of B.R. Shamachar his children took over the daily activities of the temple like performing pooja, cleaning and maintaining the temple and conducting special Sevas as per the requirements of 18 O.S.No. 4702/2011 the devotees. 1st and 2nd defendants are empowered to utilize the money collected in the Hundi for the pooja needs of idols of the temple.
17. The 1st and 2nd defendants continuing to reside in the house constructed within the temple premises as did their late father. 1st defendant is a married person and have children out of the wedlock. The 1st defendant is living with his family and children are living together in the same house. After the demise of his father. The address mentioned in the ration card issued by the Department of Food and supplies of Karnataka clearly testifies the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was first in the possession of Ramanuja Iyengar, grandfather and after the demise of Ramanuja Iyenger the suit schedule property was in possession and enjoyment of Shamachar the father of the 1st defendant and after the demise of Shamachar the 1st 19 O.S.No. 4702/2011 defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. In this way the suit schedule property is in the possession of the 1st defendant for the past three generations. It has become customary by the default that the current premises of the temple would be in possession of the suit schedule property.
18. The temple in which the suit schedule property is situated was founded and constructed by Late B.V Narayanaswamy who is also the Dharma Kartha, in his self-acquired property. After taking the necessary permission and plan sanction from municipal office civil and military sanction stations in sri B.V Narayana swamy started the construction of temple. An idol of sree Pattabhirama was installed in the year 1933. The DharmaKartha sree BV Narayanaswamy died intestate in the year 1945. The Dharma Kartha has left behind a registered will dated 6/8/1945. After the demise of B.V Narayana Swamy his two sons by name Kodandaram and 20 O.S.No. 4702/2011 Lakshmana Swamy were looking after the affairs of temple and property. After taking over the affairs of the Temple the dharmadhikaris B.N. Kodandarama and Lakshmana Swamy got installed idols of Anjaneyaswami, Navagraha and other idols and developed the temple. The Dharmadhikari Lakshmanaswami and Kodandarama died in the year 15/10/1990 and 4/3/2005 respectively and their portraits are displayed in the temple. now the day to day temple affairs are taken care by the wife and children of late Dharmadhikari. As days passed it was becoming difficult to look after the temple affairs. The temple is now converted into a family trust. Smt. Jayalakshmamma wife of late B.N Kodandarama, Smt. Sumitra Devi wife of late B.N Lakshmanaswami, being the authors of the trust and Sri Prakash s/o of late Chikkamuniswamy, grandson of Dharma Kartha Late B.V Narayanswamy, Sridhara S/o late Narayana Gowda, grandson of late B.V Narayanasamy, Smt. Manorama, 21 O.S.No. 4702/2011 wife of late Rajanna, grand daughter of late B.V. Narayanaswamy, is the trustees of the trust. The name of the trust is Sitaramanjaneya Temple trust or Sri Rama Temple trust. The trust office is situated within the premises of temple. The trust entrust all the decision making, maintenance, looking into the day-to-day affairs and other powers to the trustees. The trustees are also empowered to employ priest and other employees as they think fit for performing the pooja in the temple. As mentioned earlier, the current priest of the temple are B.S. Parthasarathy and B.R.Cheluvaraju the sons of late Shamachar who was the previous priest of the temple. The current priests are the third generation since the inception of the temple. The 1st priest Sri Ramanuja Iyengar, the grandfather of the present priests was appointed by the then founder of temple Sree B.V Narayana Swamy and thereafter priesthood have been inherited from one generation to another within the 22 O.S.No. 4702/2011 family.
19. It is very clearly mentioned in the 16 th paragraph of the trust deed that so long as the existing priests are capable and desirous of performing pooja of the temple they shall be allowed to be in possession and enjoyment of their house which is the suit schedule property. Accordingly, 1st defendant is capable and desirous to perform the activities of Temple and he is empowered to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
20. That all these years 1st defendant is serving the temple very sincerely and selflessly with the devotion for the welfare of the temple. The 1st defendant has a sentimental bonding with the suit schedule property as they have inherited the suit schedule property from their father and grandfather who breathed their last breath in the suit schedule property and the 1st defendant is alienated it then to go in the same footsteps of their 23 O.S.No. 4702/2011 father and grandfather. But of the late, the defendant No. 3 to 7 are trying to dispossess the 1st and 2nd defendants from the suit schedule property and are intending to bring in a new priest in the place of 1st and 2nd defendant.
21. That, left with no option the 1st defendant approached this court and filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S. No. 3029/2011 against the defendant No. 3 to 7 in respect of suit schedule property. However, the said suit is ended in compromise before the mediation and as such the defendant No. 3 to 7 admitted the lawful possession and enjoyment of the B schedule property of the 1st defendant and with that of litigation in respect of the suit schedule property and B schedule property has come to an end. The plaintiffs herein has no locus standi to challenge the same. In fact, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of defendant No. 3 to 7 and the trust created by the plaintiff 24 O.S.No. 4702/2011 is not binding on the defendants. With a malafide intention to knock off the suit schedule property the plaintiffs created a trust and causing hardship to the defendants. There is no cause of action for the above suit. Hence the plaint is liable to be rejected. The plaintiffs have not paid the required court fee in spite of office objections in this regard. With these contentions the defendant No. 1 seeks to dismisse the suit with exemplary costs.
22. The defendants No. 2 to 7 have also filed a written statement in the same line of defendant No. 1 and seeks to dismiss the suit.
23. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed;
1. Whether the 1st plaintiff is a registered Trust constituted under the Trust Deed dated 21st August 1997, with the objective of promoting and developing "Sree Seetharamanjaneya Temple"
situated at No.2, Rama Temple Road, Jeevanahalli, Bangalore-05?25
O.S.No. 4702/2011
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the Decree passed in O.S.No.3029/2010 on the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge and Registered Family Trust Deed dated 27th March 2006 are not binding on the plaintiffs?
3. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the defendants in continuation of their malafide intentions have started impeding the program and completion of the renovation and development work?
4. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the 1st defendant and his family members ought to shift to the schedule B property by vacating the schedule A property?
5. Whether the plaintiffs prove any sort of interference of defendants with the construction or renovation of the Temple or the management of the temple affairs by the plaintiffs?
26
O.S.No. 4702/2011
6. What Order or Decree?
24. In order to substantiate the plaint averments the managing trustee of plaintiff No.1 Trustee is examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to 20 are marked. Ex.P.1 is certified copy of registered trust deed dated 21-08- 1997, Ex.P.2 is certified copy of registered family trust deed dated 27-03-2006, Ex.P.3 is certified copy of Vijaya Bank account statement, Ex.P.4 to 13 are ten photos, Ex.P.14 is certified copy of order sheet, Ex.P.15 certified copy of plaint, Ex.P.16 is copy of enquiry register survey issued by ADLR, Bangalore, Ex.P.17 is certified copy of order sheet, Ex.P.18 is certified copy of decree passed in O.S.No. 3029/2010, Ex.P.19 is certified copy of memorandum of agreement, Ex.P.20 is C.D.
25. And from the defendants side defendant No.1 is examined as D.W.1 and no documents are marked and defendant No.4 is examined as D.W.2 and no documents are marked.
27
O.S.No. 4702/2011
26. Despite sufficient opportunities plaintiffs did not address the arguments. L/c for defendants No.3 to 7 have filed the written arguments on 18-11-2021 when the matter is set down for judgment.
27. Perused the records.
28. My finding on the above issues are :-
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: In the Affirmative Issue No.3: In the Affirmative Issue No.4: In the Affirmative Issue No.5: In the Affirmative Issue No.6: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
29. Issue No.1 : The plaintiffs are before the court for the relief of declaration to declare the decree in O.S.No. 3029/2010 and family trust deed dated 27-03-2006 is not binding on the plaintiffs and for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant from 28 O.S.No. 4702/2011 vacating suit A schedule property and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the construction or renovation of temple or the management of the temple affairs by the plaintiffs and such other reliefs.
30. The plaintiffs are before the court for the above said reliefs on the ground that, the Sree Seetha Ramaanjaneya Temple was constructed by one Mr. Bachegowda about 100 years back and his descendants B.V.Narayana Swamy maintained the temple and renovated during his lifetime and he has also executed will dated 14-06-1945 constituting the trust for the maintenance and up keep of the temple, under the said will he has appointed his sons Mr.Kodanda Ram and Lakshmana Swamy as the Dharmakarthas and it is further stipulated that the Dharmakarthas ought to be elected from the descendants. Narayana Swamy appointed 7 trustees under the will dated 14-06-1945. As 29 O.S.No. 4702/2011 the temple was became old and family members of Narayana Swamy after his death were not in a position to mobilize funds for upkeep and maintenance of temple. Kodanda Ram has constituted a trust deed dated 21-08- 1997 in continuation of earlier will dated 14-06-1945. The defendants No.1 & 2 are from the Archaka family who were performing the pujas of temple from their forefather and defendants No. 3 to 7 are the family members of Dharmakarthas. The defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in collusion with other defendants have filed a suit in O.S.No. 3029/2010 without making the plaintiffs as party to the suit, have obtained a decree and the defendant Nos. 3 to 7 have constituted a trust which is not binding on the plaintiffs and the said trust and suit is filed only with an intention to hurdle the renovation work undertaking by the plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2. Hence seeks the decree.
31. On the other hand the defendants who have 30 O.S.No. 4702/2011 filed written statement with common contentions denied all the plaint averments and contended that, the plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2 have no lous standi and they have no power in the administration of the temple and thereby seeks to dismiss the suit.
32. On perusal of Ex.P.1 which is the registered trust deed formed by Kodanda Ram and Sri.Ramesh, Anantha, Narayanaswamy and others with the object of reconstructing the temple, Kalyana Mantapa etc., the said trust is formed on 21-08-1997 which is registered as per the law. It is undisputed fact that, Mr. Kodanda Ram is the son of Narayanaswamy who is the son of Bachegowda, who constructed the temple about 100 years back. As per the will Kodanda Ram became Dharmakartha along with his brother Lakshmana Swamy. It appears that, after the death of Narayanaswamy, Mr.Kodanda Ram has formed the said trust. The defendant Nos. 3 to 7 who seems to be the 31 O.S.No. 4702/2011 family members of the Dharmakartha have not at all challenged the said trust either by filing suit or other means. It is admitted during the cross examination of D.W.1 at page No. 23, para 7 "it is true to suggest that during the lifetime of Kodanda Rama and Lakshmana they were looking after the affairs of the temple" At para No. 8
"it is true to suggest that Lakshmana Swamy died on 15-10-1990. It is false to suggest that after the death of Lakshmana Swamy, Kodanda Rama along with the trustees was looking after the affairs of the temple, witness voluntaries that Kodanda Rama alone was looking the affairs of the temple. I do not know if it is suggested to me that on 21-08- 1997 Kodanda Rama created a public trust with 32 O.S.No. 4702/2011 respect to management of temple".
From the admission of the D.W.1 it is clear that, after the death of Lakshmana Swamy the affairs of the temple was looked after by Kodanda Swamy and he was also one of the Dharmakartha of the temple and he has every power to form trust and while perusing the object of trust deed it is clear that, the said trust deed is formed with an intention of promoting and developing the temple. Hence in the absence challenge to the trust deed by other family members, I am of the opinion that, the said trust deed is for the promotion and development of temple. Hence issue No.1 is answered in affirmative.
33. Issue No.2: It is admitted fact that, defendants No. 1 & 2 have filed O.S.No. 3029/2010 against the other defendants for the relief of injunction. After filing of the said suit matter was settled between the parties. In the said suit the present plaintiffs are not the parties, what ever the compromise is arrived is binding 33 O.S.No. 4702/2011 only between the parties and not the others. Admittedly at the time of filing the suit which is filed on 28-04-2010 the trust which is formed as per Ex.P.1 on 21-08-1997 was in existence. It is also admitted by the defendant No. 1 during his cross examination that, the Kodanda Ram after the death of his brother Narayanaswamy was looking after the temple affairs. When the plaintiffs are not a party to the said suit automatically the said compromise decree is not binding on the plaintiff. So far as the family trust deed dated 27-03-2006 is concerned, the said trust deed is formed after the trust dated 21-08- 1997 as per Ex.P.1 is formed. It is admitted and undisputed fact that Kodanda Ram was the Dharmakartha of the temple in dispute and he was managing the affairs and he is not a party to the said trust. When one trust is already in existence in respect of same temple and earlier trust is not canceled or challenged before any Civil Court by filing necessary suit. 34
O.S.No. 4702/2011 In these circumstances I am of the opinion that, the judgment and decree obtained in O.S.No. 3029/2010 and family trust deed dated 27-03-2006 are not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence issue No. 2 answered in Affirmative.
34. Issue Nos.3 & 5 : Issue Nos. 3 and 5 are taken together for common discussion since both are inter connected.
35. The plaintiff No.1 trust is formed with an intention to upkeep the temple and also renovation of the disputed temple. The said job is entrusted to plaintiff No.2 who have collected the funds from the general public and the renovation work is entrusted to plaintiff No.2 by the plaintiff No.1. It appears that, the defendants with the sole intention of halting the renovation work they have filed the suit in O.S.No.3029/2010, because if we go through the terms and conditions agreed in the compromise which is produced at Ex.P.9, it makes clear that, their intention is only to prevent the renovation 35 O.S.No. 4702/2011 work and as already noticed the said suit is filed on 28- 04-2010 without making the plaintiffs as parties. By the time of filing the suit the renovation work was already commenced. The D.W.1 during his cross examination has clearly admitted at page No.26, para No.12 "It is true to suggest that on 10-04-2010 and 11-04-2010 programmes were conducted in the temple, the said programmes were conducted by the plaintiff trust. It is true to suggest that at the time of programme, donations were collected and the same has been listed as per Ex.P.8".
This makes it very clear that, their intention was to stop the construction work and further D.W.1 has admitted at page No.28 during his cross examination " £Á£ÀÄ zÁR°¹zÀ C.zÁ.£ÀA.3029/2010 gÀ°è F PÉù£À ªÁ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¸À®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è. ¢B10.04.2010 36 O.S.No. 4702/2011 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 11.04.2010 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj zÁªÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è. C.zÁ. £ÀA.3029/2010 £ÀÄß zÁR°¸ÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀ G½zÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ w½ ¢vÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ®Æ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ DqÀ½vÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢UÀ½AzÀ PÀ§½¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÀzÀj zÁªÉAiÀÄ°è gÁfà wêÀiÁð£À DVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
So it makes clear that, the development work is impeded by defendants. Hence the issue No.3 & 5 are answered in affirmative.
36. Issue No.4: The plaintiffs have undertaken the renovation work on the ground that, the temple was constructed 100 years back and building has became old and with the sole intention to renovating the temple and with the purpose of providing new accommodation for Archak they have undertaken said work. It is established that the plaintiffs have constructed new accommodation 37 O.S.No. 4702/2011 for the Archak family. During the cross examination of D.W.1 has admitted at page No.22 at para 3 "I am residing in the old house situating adjacent to temple premises. It is true to suggest that there is a vacant house newly constructed. I do not know such new house is constructed by the plaintiff in the year 2010. From 1933 we are residing in the old house".
"ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è CZÀðPÀjUÉÆøÀÌgÀ PÀnÖ¹zÀ £ÀÆvÀ£À ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ vÉgÀ¼ÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¦à¸ÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ C.zÁ.£ÀA.302912010 £ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÉÝ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è".
So from these admissions it makes very clear new residence has been constructed to the Archak family and defendant Nos. 1 & 2 are still residing in the old residence. In these circumstances the issue No.4 has to be answered in affirmative.
38
O.S.No. 4702/2011
37. Issue No.6: For the above reasons I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
It is hereby declared that, the compromise decree passed in O.S.No. 3029/2010 and family trust deed dated 27-03-2006 is not binding on the plaintiffs.
The defendant Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to vacate from A schedule property and shift to B schedule property within the 90 days from the date of this judgment.
The defendants are hereby restrained from interfering in the construction or renovation of the temple and management of the temple affairs.
Draw decree accordingly.
39
O.S.No. 4702/2011 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 18 th day of November, 2021.) ( SATHISHA L.P.) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of a portion of the Sree Seetha Ramanjaneya Temple, situated in No. 2, Rama Temple road, Jeevanahalli, Bangalore - 560005, which is residential premises presently occupied by the 1 st defendant and bounded on:
East by: Road
West by: Private property
North by: Private property
South by: Road
SCHEDULE - A
All that the piece and parcel of a portion of the Sree Seetha Ramanjaneya Temple, situted in No.2, Rama Temple road, Jeevanahalli, Bangalore - 560005, which is residential premises presently occupied by the 1 st defendant and bounded on:
East by: Temple passage situated behind the temple store 40 O.S.No. 4702/2011 West by: Store room North by: Private property South by: Temple open space around the lord Rama Temple Deity SCHEDULE - B All that piece and parcel of the residential premises portion of the Sree Seetha Ramanjaneya temple, situated in No.2, Rama Temple Road, Jeevanahalli, Bangalore - 560005 comprising of two residential now renovated by the plaintiff and bounded on:
East by: Temple open space around the Lord Rama Temple Deity West by: Temple passage North by: Temple passage South by: Road ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: Anantha. N
(b) Defendant's side :41
O.S.No. 4702/2011 D.W.1: B.S.Parthasarathy D.W.2: Mr. Shridhara II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff' side :
Ex.P.1: Certified copy of registered trust deed dated 21-08-1997 Ex.P.2: Certified copy of registered family trust deed dated 27-03-2006 Ex.P.3: Certified copy of Vijaya Bank account statement Ex.P.4 Photos to 13:
Ex.P.14: Certified copy of order sheet Ex.P.15: Certified copy of plaint Ex.P.16: Copy of enquiry register survey issued by ADLR, Bangalore Ex.P.17: Certified copy of order sheet Ex.P.18: Certified copy of decree passed in O.S.No. 3029/2010 Ex.P.19: Certified copy of memorandum of agreement Ex.P.20: CD
(b) Defendants side :
NIL XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.