Karnataka High Court
Sri T Seetharama vs Sree Venkateshwara Devalayada Seva ... on 22 August, 2014
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
M.F.A.NO.9078/2012(CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.SRI.T.SEETHARAMA
S/O LATE PATEL THIMME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT DODDAMALUR VILLAGE
MALUR POST
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
2.SRI.DUSHYANTH S.
S/O SRI.SHIVA MURTHY S.B.,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT NO.05, 1ST BLOCK
KHB EMPLOYEES' QUARTERS
VIJAYANAGARA
BANGALORE-560 040
3.SRI.KUMARA GOWDA K.G.
S/O BASAVE GOWDA K.G.
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT NO.280, 6TH A CROSS
7TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT
VIJAYANGARA
BANGALORE-560 040.
2
4.SRI.P.SHANKARAPPA
S/O PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT NO.28/2, 6TH MAIN,
14TH CROSS
BAPUJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 026 ..APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.M.R.SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.SREE VENKATESHWARA
DEVALAYADA SEVA TRUST
7TH `B' MAIN ROAD
RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA
BANGALORE-560 040,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT
2.SRI.SRINIVAS
S/O LATE PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PRESIDENT OF SREE VENKATESHWARA
DEVALAYADA SEVA TRUST
R/AT 7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS
II STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA
BANGALORE-560 040.
3.SRI.V.KRISHNAPPA
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
SECRETARY OF SREE VENKATESHWARA
DEVELAYADA SEVA TRUST
R/AT NO.134, RPC LAYOUT
NEW COLONY, 7TH MAIN,
7TH CROSS, II STAGE,
3
VIJAYANAGARA
BANGALORE-560 040
4.SRI.ERAPPA
S/O LATE GIDDE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/AT NO.307, 6TH CROSS
7TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT
VIJAYANGARA
BANGALORE-560 040
5.SRI.KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/AT NO.307, 6TH CROSS
7TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT
VIJAYANGARA
BANGALORE-560 040
6.SRI.ASHWATHAIAH
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
MAJOR IN AGE
RESIDING AT 6TH MAIN ROAD
RPC LAYOUT,VIJAYANGARA
2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 040
7.SRI.M.CHANDRU
MAJOR IN AGE
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.3,
RPC LAYOUT, NEW COLONY
7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
VIJAYANGAR 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 040
4
8.SRI.BALAKRISHNA
MAJOR IN AGE
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
HOUSE NO.4,
RPC LAYOUT, NEW COLONY
7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS
VIJAYANGAR 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 040.
9.SRI.K.VENKATESH
MAJOR IN AGE
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
HOUSE NO.2677
RPC LAYOUT, NEW COLONY
7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS
VIJAYANGARA 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 040.
10.SRI.K.NARAYANA
MAJOR IN AGE
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
R/A HOUSE NO.1
RPC LAYOUT, NEW COLONY
7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS
VIJAYANGARA 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 040.
11.SRI.GUNASHEKAR
MAJOR IN AGE
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
R/A HOUSE NO.1
RPC LAYOUT, NEW COLONY
7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS
VIJAYANGARA 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 040.
5
12.SRI.ANANDA SETTY
MAJOR IN AGE
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
R/A HOUSE NO.1
RPC LAYOUT, NEW COLONY
7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS
VIJAYANGARA 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 040.
13.SRI.DIVAKAR
MAJOR IN AGE
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
R/A HOUSE NO.1
RPC LAYOUT, NEW COLONY
7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS
VIJAYANGARA 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 040.
14.SRI.MANJUNATHA
MAJOR IN AGE
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
R/A HOUSE NO.1
RPC LAYOUT, NEW COLONY
7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS
VIJAYANGARA 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 040.
15.SRI.CHINNATHAMBI
MAJOR IN AGE
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
R/A HOUSE NO.1
RPC LAYOUT, NEW COLONY
7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS
VIJAYANGAR 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 040.
6
16.SRI.RAMACHANDRA
MAJOR IN AGE
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
R/A HOUSE NO.1
RPC LAYOUT, NEW COLONY
7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS
VIJAYANGARA 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 040.
17.SRI.ANANDA
MAJOR IN AGE
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
R/A HOUSE NO.1
RPC LAYOUT, NEW COLONY
7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS
VIJAYANGARA 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 040.
18.SRI.RAVISHANKAR
MAJOR IN AGE
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
R/A HOUSE NO.1
RPC LAYOUT, NEW COLONY
7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS
VIJAYANGARA 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 040.
19.SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR
MAJOR IN AGE
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
R/A HOUSE NO.1
RPC LAYOUT, NEW COLONY
7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS
VIJAYANGARA 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 040. ..RESPONDENTS
7
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 104(ffa), 92(ffa)
OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:12.04.2012 PASSED
IN MISC.NO.712/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, REJECTING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 92(1) OF THE CPC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is of the year 2012 and on account of non compliance of office objections within the time allowed, matter can be listed on 07.06.2013. Peremptory order came to be passed granting two weeks time to comply and failing which appeal would stand dismissed. In view of the order dated 26.08.2011 passed by Division Bench in MFA 3616/2007 of which AKJ is a member, matter came to be listed before court on 06.01.2014. Again two weeks time was granted. Office objections were not complied. Yet again matter came to be listed before court on 03.06.2014. One week time was granted. After 11 weeks again matter has been listed today. None appears for the appellants.
8
2. I have examined the order under challenge to find out whether it would serve any fruitful purpose and as such further time is to be granted.
3. Appellants were the petitioners before trial court and they filed a Miscellaneous Petition 712/2010 under section 92(1) of C.P.C praying for according permission to institute the suit accompanying said Miscellaneous Petition alleging that they are devotees of Sree Venkateshwara Devalaya and said temple is situated in a land bearing Sy.No.109 of Kempapura Agrahara, Bangalore North Taluk within the limits of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. They also contended they have contributed huge amounts in the form of cash and kind for the purpose of construction of temple on the land belonging to respondents 4 and 5 and for installation of idol of Lord Sree Venkateshwara Swamy therein. They contended that they are beneficiaries of first respondent trust. They also pleaded that Trust came into existence from 25.01.2000 under the guise of doing some more 9 developmental activities and improvements, respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with other trustees have declared themselves as trustees, who are members of the families of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their relatives and thereby respondents 1 and 3 have committed breach of trust. It is also alleged that respondents 2 and 3 are carrying on illegal activities and misappropriating funds in collusion with others. On these grounds amongst others they sought leave of the court to present the suit under section 92 of C.P.C. Said petition was contested. Objections came to be filed by respondents 1 to 3 and respondents 4 and 5 filed separate objections denying averments made in the petition. They contended that suit is bad for misjoinder or non joinder of necessary parties and respondents have no interest in the property; Petitioners are in no way concerned or affected with the day to day activities of the trust duly managed by its office bearers; respondents 2 and 3 are persons of impeccable character, honesty and integrity and enjoying good reputation in temple and trustees have rendered yeoman service; Petitioners are not the 10 devotees and they have not produced any documents to show either they have paid donations or furnished receipts standing in their names and first petitioner hails from Doddamalur Village, Channapatna Taluk and not a ordinary resident of R.P.C Layout and second petitioner at the time of construction of temple i.e., during 1997-98 was a minor and even when the trust was formed in the year 2000 and as such he cannot be said to be a person who is associated with the construction of the temple. On these grounds amongst others they sought for dismissal of the petition. After hearing the arguments of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, trial court formulated the following point for its consideration:
"Whether the petitioners have made out a case to allow the petition and to grant the relief as prayed for in the petition?"
4. Said point came to be answered in the negative holding that material produced by respondents 1 to 3 would prima facie prove the contention of petitioners that 11 constructions were made illegally cannot be accepted; petitioners were not at all having any interest in respondent No.1 -Trust and they have no locus standi to maintain the present petition much less questioning the legality or illegality of construction work undertaken by respondents 1 to 3.
5. On appreciation of pleadings and documents produced, trial court has come to a conclusion that petitioners are not having any special interest in respondent No.1-Trust and therefore requirement of section 92 of C.P.C is not at all complied with. As such it held that when petitioners are not having any interest in the trust they cannot maintain petition under section 92 of C.P.C and question of considering other aspects does not arise. Said finding recorded by trial court does not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity calling for interference at the hands of this court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Hence, question of issuing notice or adjourning the matter to any further date for compliance of office objections which 12 stands uncomplied for 2 ½ years, would not serve any fruitful purpose. Hence, appeal is hereby dismissed on all grounds.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBN