Karnataka High Court
Sharada Seva Trust vs Ramakrishna Vivekananda Center on 24 May, 2023
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.6270 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SHARADA SEVA TRUST
BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE
B.S. SHESHAGIRI RAO.
2. B.S. SHESHAGIRI RAO
S/O. LATE B. SREENIVASA RAO
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS
RETIRED HEAD MASTER,
R/O. KAPPAGAL ROAD,
BELLARY - 583 101.
3. SANKALCHAND BAGRECHA
S/O. HANJANIMAL
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT,
R/O. GANDHINAGAR,
BELLARY - 583 101. ... APPELLANTS
Digitally
(BY SRI NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)
signed by
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
2023.05.26
AND:
11:18:09
+0530
1. RAMAKRISHNA VIVEKANAND CENTRE
BY ITS SECRETARY, PARVATHINAGAR,
BELLARY - 583 101.
2. B.K. SRINIVASA MURTHY
S/O. B.K. GURURAJA RAO, 75 YEARS,
R/O. BELLARY - 583 101. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. NAGANANDA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
R-2 DECEASED; VIDE ORDER DATED 21.10.2021 BRINGING
LR's OF DECEASED R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 07.09.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.104/2008
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT BELLARY,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL, FILED AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED
09.06.2008 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.199/2007 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & CJM, AT BELLARY, DECREEING THE
SUIT FILED FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
-2-
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 05/04/2023
FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENT
The present second appeal is preferred by defendant Nos.1, 5 and 7 assailing the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2012 in R.A.No.104/2008 on the file of the Prl. District Judge, Ballari confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2008 in O.S.No.199/2007 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Ballari.
2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession in respect of the suit schedule property which is an open site of land situated in T.S.No.729 Block No.20 in Ward No.16 (present Ward No.18) (hereinafter referred to as "the suit schedule property" for short). It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is Sri Ramakrishna Vivekananda Centre (hereinafter referred to as "the Centre"
for the sake of convenience) registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and the Centre came into existence to impart, promote and propagate ideals and philosophical teachings of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa and Swami Vivekananda. The Centre was registered on -3- 06.01.1963 and as per the decision of the General Body Meeting of the Centre, a sub-committee was constituted and identified 1.04 acres of land belonging to one Vasanthamma and late H. Seetharama Reddy for construction of centenary hall of the Centre. Late H. Seetharama Reddy volunteered to make a gift of the suit schedule property and one Allum Karibasappa purchased the adjacent property belonging to B.K. Vasanthamma and in turn, by executing a gift deed in favour of the Centre, handed over Plot No.65 to the plaintiff-
Centre. The properties of H. Seetharama Reddy and property purchased by Sri Allum Karibasappa are situated adjacent to each other. The plaintiff-Centre obtained permission from the Municipality and foundation stone was laid for the Centre and the portraits of Sri Ramakrishna, Holy mother Sharadadevi and Sri Vivekananda Swami were installed in the property. Since 1963, the Centre has been in possession of the property measuring 1.04 acres. The said H. Seetharama Reddy died in the year 1972.
3. This being the situation, in the month of March, 1980 another registered society under the name and style of Jana Kalyana Kendra, approached the Centre with a -4- proposal that, they will locate an educational institution in the vacant premises of the Centre. The then President of the plaintiff-Centre was the active member of Jana Kalyana Kendra and the office bearers of the said Kendra, especially Bahaddur Sheshagiri Rao has floated the idea of establishing a trust under the name and style of Sharada Seva Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust" for the sake of convenience) giving an impression that it is an allied and sister organization of the Centre. In the year 1983, Panduranga Reddy son of H.Seetharama Reddy - defendant No.8 executed a gift deed in favour of the said trust in respect of the suit schedule property, which was donated by his father late H. Seetharama Reddy to the Centre. It is stated that defendant No.8 - H. Pandurang Reddy had no right over the property as on the date of execution of the gift deed, since 1963 the Centre has been in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
4. In 1983, defendant No.1 - Trust put up a temporary shed over the suit schedule property with permission of the plaintiff - "Centre" to run a nursing school, the then President of the "Centre" Pola Venkayya, -5- who was also the President of defendant No.1 - Trust. It is stated that the object of the trust are almost identical with the aims and object of the Centre and defendant No.2 -Pola Venkayya was made to believe that, gift deed will be in favour of the "Centre" only and the "Trust" will have no independent existence of its own. It is the contention of the plaintiff that late H. Seetharama Reddy had generously volunteered to make gift of his plot measuring 50x60 feet in favour of the Centre and the Centre permitted the Trust to put up construction to run the educational institution. The possession of the Centre, over the property of H. Seetharama Reddy was mentioned in the General Body Meeting on the basis of the letter addressed by late H. Seetharama Reddy dated 02.03.1964 in respect of the donation of the plot. The defendants being the members of the Centre have knowledge of the fact and have accepted their possession as licencee with reference to the open space and hence, the present suit by the plaintiff - Centre seeking declaration and possession.
5. In pursuance to the summons issued by the trial Court, defendant Nos.1 to 8 filed their written statement -6- inter alia contending that title of immovable property cannot be transferred without an instrument and in the absence of such instrument, the plaintiff cannot claim title over the suit property nor can seek possession from the defendant trust, who is in possession as owner. It is the case of the defendants that, defendant No.8 is the only son of Late H. Seetharama Reddy and after the death of his father, defendant No.8 created a trust in the name of Sharada Seva Trust i.e., defendant No.1 under the registered deed dated 04.07.1981 and he is a founder trustee and the property stood transferred in possession of the first defendant-Trust. It is the case of the defendants that the trust has put up a construction in an area measuring 53.04 mtrs. x 6.86 mtrs., which was completed in the year 1982 and contended that the plaintiff-Centre claim is merely based on the intention of late H. Seetharama Reddy to donate the suit schedule property to the plaintiff society but that never materialized during his lifetime. The defendants admitted about the plaintiff - society being in possession of the adjacent site as donation from Allum Karibasappa through a registered deed -7- but the possession of the plaintiff society on basis of the gift by H. Seetharama Reddy is denied.
6. The suit was originally filed before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge, Ballari. Due to the change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court in the year 1989, the suit stood transferred to Prl. Munsiff Court, Ballari and renumbered as O.S.No.700/1989. On the point of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, plaint was returned by the Trial Court. Against which, an appeal was preferred in M.A.No.37/2001 and the order of return of plaint was confirmed in the appeal. Against the said order, C.R.P. No.2942/2003 was filed before this Court and this Court confirmed the order of return of plaint. Accordingly, the plaint was presented before the concerned Court i.e., Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Ballari and renumbered as O.S.No.199/2007. In the said suit, the trial Court issued summons to defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 as defendant Nos.4 and 8 were no more. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 appeared through their counsel and filed a memo adopting the earlier pleadings in O.S.No.700/1989 before the Munsiff Court, Ballari as pleadings in the present suit.
-8-
7. The Trial Court, on basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues, which were already framed in the earlier suit and as such, no fresh issues were framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves that H.M.Muddubasaiah is competent to file this suit?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that deceased H.Seetharamareddy who was the owner of the suit schedule property in the year 1963 volunteered to make gift of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and delivered possession of the said property to plaintiff?
3. Whether plaintiff further proves that since 1963 plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property continuously, openly and adversely to the knowledge of the true owner by exercising ownership rights for more than statutory period and thereby perfected its title to the suit property by adverse possession?
4. Whether plaintiff further proves that since 1980 the defendants are in permissive possession of the suit schedule property as alleged in the suit plaint?
5. Whether plaintiff proves that the gift deed executed by the defendant No.8 in favour of defendant No.1 does not convey any title to the defendant No.1 and that the said gift is not binding on plaintiff?
6. Whether defendants prove that the valuation made and court fee paid thereon is in correct?-9-
7. Whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit?
8. Whether defendants prove that they have made improvements over the suit schedule property by erecting valuable buildings worth RS. 8,50,000/-
and if the suit is decreed they are entitled for reimbursement of said value under Section 51 of T.P.Act?
9. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that Sharada Seva Trust is a licence under it in respect of the suit property?
2. Whether it further proves that Sharada Seva Trust as a licensee under the plaintiff was permitted to construct building on the suit open site subject to the conditions mentioned in para 6 (a) of the Addl. Written statement?
8. In order to substantiate their claim, plaintiff examined 4 witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked 27 documents at Exs.P-1 to P-27. On the other hand, defendants examined 4 witnesses as DWs.1 to 4 and got marked documents at Exs.D-1 to D-49.
- 10 -
9. On return of the plaint, the plaint was presented before the concerned Court. When the case was posted for evidence, both plaintiff and defendants filed memo adopting the evidence recorded before the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Ballari as evidence in the present case. As per the order dated 04.04.2008, the earlier evidence recorded before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) was accepted to be recorded as evidence before the concerned Court.
10. The Trial Court based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that;
(i) the plaintiff has proved that the suit by the Secretary H. Muddubasayya is maintainable as H. Muddubasayya had authority to file the suit,
(ii) the plaintiff proved that deceased H. Seetharama Reddy who was the owner of the suit schedule property had volunteered to make gift in the year 1963 in favour of the plaintiff - "Centre" and the possession of the said property was delivered to the plaintiff,
(iii) the plaintiff proved that since 1963 the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property continuously,
- 11 -
openly and adversely to the knowledge of the true owner and perfected his title by way of adverse possession,
(iv) the plaintiff proved that since 1980 the defendant No.1 - Trust is in permissive possession of the suit schedule property,
(v) the alleged gift deed executed by defendant No.8 in favour of defendant No.1-Trust does not convey any title to defendant No.1,
(vi) the plaintiff proved that said Trust is the licencee under the Centre and the Centre had permitted the first defendant to construct building on the suit schedule property and accordingly, decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff is the owner and directed the defendants to handover the possession of the suit property.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant Nos.1, 5 and 7 preferred appeal before the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court framed the following points for consideration:
1) Whether the trial-court has committed an error in deciding the matter on the basis of documents received and evidence recorded by the court which had no pecuniary jurisdiction?
- 12 -
2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the
Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Bellary in
O.S.No.199/2007 dated 9.6.2008 is illegal or perverse and needs any interference by this Court?
12. The first appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence and material on record, held that plaintiff has proved that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and defendant No.1 is a licencee under the plaintiff-Centre and with permission of the plaintiff- Centre, defendant No.1 has put up construction and on that ground dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants.
13. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present appeal is preferred by defendant Nos.1, 5 and 7.
14. Heard Sri S.V. Yaji, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.S. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K.L. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
- 13 -
15. Learned counsel for the appellants, in addition to reiterating various other grounds raised in the appeal memo has urged the following contentions that:
(i) the trial Court accepted the evidence recorded by the incompetent Court as the evidence on record and delivered the judgment, and according to the learned counsel, since the plaint was returned and the presentation of the plaint before the competent Court for all practical purposes would be as if the plaintiff has instituted a fresh suit and would contend that the trial Court was not justified in accepting the evidence recorded by the court which lacks jurisdiction;
(ii) the Courts below placing reliance on Ex.P-15-resolution of the plaintiff society has come to the conclusion that there is a gift/donation made by late H. Seetharama Reddy and accordingly, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, according to the learned counsel, in the absence of any registered deed in favour of the plaintiff - Centre, merely on the basis of Ex.P-15
- the resolution, cannot confer any right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff - Centre.
(iii) the plaintiff in his pleading does not state anything regarding the endowment of the property and that in order to create an endowment, it is necessary that there should be an idol for place of worship and the plaintiff cannot be treated as dedication and resolution
- 14 -
at Ex.P-15 does not create a dedication to religious or charitable purpose and the plaintiff-Centre-Society would not fall under Section 6 of the Trust Act and cannot be termed as a charitable endowment and that mere resolution at Ex.P-15 cannot be treated as a valid transfer of property in light of Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(iv) the son of late H. Seetharama Reddy-defendant No.8 has created the Trust by a registered trust deed on 04.07.1981 and since the defendant has got registered deed as early as in the year 1981, the question of taking permission from the plaintiff for construction of the building would not arise and according to the learned counsel, the Courts below were not justified in coming to the conclusion that defendant No.1 is a licencee in the suit schedule property and the same is contrary to the material on record;
16. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has urged the following grounds justifying the judgment and decree of the Courts below:
(i) the contention of the appellant-defendants that, no evidence was recorded by the trial Court pursuant to the return of the plaint cannot be justified as the parties on both sides, after presentation of the plaint, filed a memo before the concerned Court stating that the plaintiff and defendants adopted the evidence
- 15 -
recorded before the Prl. Civil Judge and having filed such a memo, the defendants cannot now contend that the evidence recorded by the incompetent Court was considered as the evidence on record by the concerned trial Court and that the trial Court fell in error in doing so;
(ii) according to the learned senior counsel, the very same contention was urged by the defendants before the first appellate Court regarding the evidence adduced in O.S.No.700/1989 having been considered by the concerned Court in O.S.No.199/2007, and the first appellate Court, on appreciation of the material on record, has held that the defendants having accepted the evidence in O.S.No.700/1989 by filing a memo to take the evidence as the evidence in the present case, the trial Court by its order dated 04.04.2008, ordered to treat the evidence in O.S.No.700/1989 as evidence in the present suit and the said order has reached finality, thus the appellants-defendants now cannot take a technical contention to defeat the cause of substantial justice;
(iii) the defendants cannot approbate and reprobate in light of the acquiescence by the defendants;
(iv) the dedication to religious charity need not be necessarily by an instrument or by grant and the facts reveal that there was an endowment as could be seen
- 16 -
from the plaint averments which is not disputed by any of the defendants;
(v) the title of the plaintiff on promise of a gift was way back in the year 1963 and it is open and hostile to the knowledge of the defendants;
(vi) to buttress his submission, learned senior counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court:
(a) In the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Modern Construction and Company reported in (2014) 1 SCC 648 to contend that the defendant cannot take benefit of his own mistake and raise technical objection that the evidence in a suit which was returned by the Court which lacks jurisdiction to be considered in the fresh suit.
(b) In the case of EXL Careers and another Vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited reported in (2020) 12 SC 667 on the point of jurisdiction to contend that if an objection is not raised at the initial point of time itself, the order of rejection having attained finality, the objection raised subsequently would be merely an afterthought and not sustainable.
(c) In the case of R.M. Sundaram alias
Meenakshisundaram Vs. Sri
- 17 -
Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi
Amman Temple reported in 2022 SC OnLine SCC 888 to contend that the dedication for a religious or public purpose may be implied from user for sufficient length of time.
17. In the backdrop of the contentions and assertions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to notice the nature of consideration made by the Courts below in that aspect and keeping in view the extent to which this Court can traverse in second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the judgment and decree of the Courts below and the original documents are perused.
18. The two main contentions raised by the appellant
- defendant is that, the plaintiff - Centre is not a religious institution and that no endowment can be created in favour of the plaintiff - Centre. The other contention is that the gift in favour of the plaintiff - Centre in the absence of any registered deed cannot be treated as a valid transfer.
19. Sub-sections (23), (24) and (26) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 define "Religious Endowment" or
- 18 -
"Endowment", "Religious purpose" and "Specific Endowment" and the same read as under:
"2(23) "Religious endowment" or "endowment"
means all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of a Hindu religious institution, or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity, and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof, but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the archaka, service-holder or other employee of a religious institution.
(24) "Religious purpose" includes.-
(a) worship of deities or worship in temples, mandiras shrines, samadhis, brindavanas, gaddiges or similar places;
(b) installing shrines, samadhis, brindavanas, gaddiges or similar places;
(c) fostering spiritual fraternity:
(d) imparting spiritual, moral and religious education and teaching of philosophy;
(e) observance of religious festivals; and
(f) any other public religious purpose;
xxx xxx xxx
(26) "Specific Endowment" means any
property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a Hindu religious institution or charitable institution or for the performance of any other charity."
- 19 -
20. In the present case, the plaintiff - Centre is a religious endowment under the meaning of Section 2 (23) the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 as the plaintiff -"Centre" is connected with, to impart, promote propagate the ideals and philosophies and teachings of Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamasa and Swami Vivekananda, comparative theology and universal religion, as practiced and taught by them in their own lives in the widest form and with other objects of the society as enumerated in the Memorandum of Association of the plaintiff - Centre at Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-15. Ex.P-2 - the memorandum of association of Sri Ramakrishna Vivekananda Centre, at Clause No.2, the aims and objects of the society has been enumerated and the same reads as under:
"2. The Aims and objects of the Society shall be:
(a) To import, promote and propagate the ideals and Philosophies and teachings of Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamas and Swami Vivekanada, comperative Theology, and Universal Religion, as practised and taught by them in their own lives in the widest form.
(b) To import and promote the study of Arts, Sciences, History, Technology and Industries.
- 20 -
(c) To train Teachers in all Branches of knowledge above mentioned and enable them to reach the masses.
(d) To carry on Educational, Cultural and spiritual work among the people in all countries.
(e) To establish, maintain, carry on, co-operate and assist schools, colleges, societies, Hostels, Libraries, orphanages, workshops, Laboratories, Hospitals, Dispensaries, Houses for the infirm, the invalid and afflicted, famine and flood Relief works, and other Educational, Cultural and charitable works, and Institutions of like nature.
(f) To print and publish, distribute and sell freely of otherwise. Journals, Magazines, Periodicals, books, Pamphlets or other activities that the Association may think it desirable for the promotion of its objects.
(g) To carry on any other work which may seem to the Association capable of being conveniently carried on, in connection with the calculated directly or indirectly to promote any of the above mentioned objects."
21. Ex.P-15 is the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the Centre from 1963 and audit report for the period from 13.01.1963 to 31.12.1963. Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-15 enumerates the aims and object of the society, which read as under:
- 21 -
a) To impart, promote and propagate ideals and philosophies teachings of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Swami Vivekananda, comparative Theology, and Universal Religion, as practiced and taught by them in their own lives in the widest form.
b) To impart and promote the study of Arts, Sciences, History, Technology and Industries.
22. At Ex.P-15, there is mention about acquisition of sites for the building and the donor H. Seetharama Reddy is mentioned at Ex.P-15(a) which reads as under:
"On 27-1-1963, at the very first General Body Meeting, it was resolved to acquire a suitable site for the construction of a building for locating the Sri. Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Centre. The General body constituted a small Sub-Committee to inspect the various available sites in Bellary City and report about the most suitable site among them."
xxx Membership:-
Donors:
Sri H.Sitarama Reddy Rs. 1,500 (plot) Sri Allum Karibasappa MLA Rs. 1,500 (plot) xxx The institution comes within such a definition of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act if it satisfies three conditions: (i) that the
- 22 -
institution be for the promotion of the Hindu religion; (ii) that it be presided by a person whose duty is to engage himself in spiritual service or who exercises or claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples and (iii) that the office of such person devolves in accordance with the direction of the founder of the institution or is regulated by usage.
23. There is ample evidence on record to show that the petitioner - Centre was formed to regulate and promote the ideals and preaching of Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Shri Swami Vivekananda and there could be no question that such an institution must have been for the promotion of Hindu Religion and it was for such an object, the "Centre" was registered. In light of sub-section (23) of Section 2 of the said Act and the plaintiff - Centre having formed for religious purpose shall be deemed to be a religious endowment and its administration shall be governed under the provisions of the said Act. This makes it clear that the premises of the Centre is not only deemed to be a religious endowment, but also deemed to be a Hindu religious endowment to which the Act applies.
- 23 -
24. In the second contention, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the absence of any registered document in favour of the plaintiff - Centre, would not confer any title as contemplated under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, as the said section clearly enumerates that any property valued more than Rs.100/- cannot be transferred without any registered document. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that even assuming that late H. Seetharama Reddy had any intention to donate the suit schedule property to the Centre, it cannot be an act and handing over of possession without there being any registered document is unacceptable.
25. The relevant question to be considered herein is, "whether dedication to the religious charity is necessarily to be by an instrument or grant?"
The Indian Trust Act, 1882 provides for a creation of Trust which is enumerated under Section 6 as under:
"6. Creation of trust.--Subject to the provisions of Section 5, a trust is created when the author of the trust indicates with reasonable certainty
- 24 -
by any words or acts, (a) an intention on his part to create thereby a trust, (b) the purpose of the trust,
(c) the beneficiary, and (d) the trust property, and (unless the trust is declared by will or the author of the trust is himself to be the trustee) transfers the trust property to the trustee.
Illustrations
(a) A bequeaths certain property to B, "having the fullest confidence that he will dispose of it for the benefit of C". This creates a trust so far as regards A and C.
(b) A bequeaths certain property to B, "hoping he will continue it in the family". This does not create a trust, as the beneficiary is not indicated with reasonable certainty."
26. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff - Centre was registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 in the year 1963 and late H. Seetharama Reddy volunteered to make a gift of the suit schedule property and there being no gift deed executed in favour of the plaintiff - Centre has not been disputed by the plaintiff. The suit property is an open site of land situated in TS.No.729 Block No. 20 in Ward No.16 (present Ward No.18) of Gandhinagar, 3rd Cross, Ballari. The adjacent site
- 25 -
bearing TS No.728 was gifted in favour of plaintiff-Centre by one Allum Karibasappa is also not in dispute. Defendant No.1-Trust claims to be formed by the son of late H. Seetharama Reddy in the year 1981 under the name and style of Sharada Seva Trust. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that on 27.01.1963 in a General Body Meeting, it was resolved to acquire a site for construction of building for Centre and late H. Seetharama Reddy volunteered to make a gift of his site and the governing body accepted the gift. In order to prove that the deceased H. Seetharama Reddy had desired of volunteered act to make a gift of the suit property, the plaintiff examined PW-3 and PW-4 and the material evidence placed by the plaintiff are:
(i) Exs.P-1 - the certificate of registration dated 16.1.1963, registering Sri Ramakrishna Vivekananda Centre under the Mysore Society Registration Act No.17 of 1960.
(ii) Ex.P-2 - the memorandum of association of Sri Ramakrishna Vivekananda Centre, at Clause No.2, the aims and objects of the society has been enumerated.
(iii) Ex.P-3 - minutes book of Sri Ramakrishna Vivekananda Centre and relevant entry at Ex.P- 3(a) and P-3(d).
- 26 -
(iv) Ex. P-8 - approved plan for construction of the Sri Ramakrishna Vivekananda Centre
(v) Ex.P-9 - original licence issued by the CMC Ballary dated 14.11.1966.
(vi) P-13 - letter addressed by H.Panduranga Reddy son of H. Seetharama Reddy dated 18.06.1984 to the Secretary, Ramakrishna Vivekananda Centre stating that the said Panduranga Reddy has not donated the property to defendant No.1 - Trust.
(vii) Ex.P-14 - letter addressed by H.Seetharama Reddy to Venaiah dated 02.03.1964.
(viii) Ex.P-15 - Memorandum of Association and Rules and regulations report for the year 1963.
(ix) Ex.P-18 - letter addressed by Venkaiah Chetty dated 05.07.1984 along with the copy of the deed of indenture dated 31.12.1979.
(x) Ex.P-18(a) - Deed of Indenture confirming the gift made by H.Seetharama Reddy by his son H. Panduranga Reddy
(xi) Ex.P-23 - letter of the managing Trustee Sharada Seva Trust to A.R.Vishwanath dated 19.12.1983
(xii) Ex.P-25 - Letter from Managing Trustee Sharada Seva Trust to the Secretary, Ramakrishna Vivekananda Centre Ex.D-1 - letter dated 05.02.1963 by H. Shivarama Reddy to Venugopalachari.
(The exhibits referred herein below are as per the sequence of events)
- 27 -
27. Ex.P-14 is the letter dated 02.03.1964 addressed by H. Seetharama Reddy to D. Venugopalachari who was the member of the governing body of the "Centre" stating that the plot of which the deceased is the owner has been donated to the Centre. Ex.P-14 reads as under:
"I am herewith enclosing the original of the Sale Deed executed in my favour in respect of the plot that has been donated by me to Sri. Ramkrishna-Vivekananda Centre.
I shall be leaving tomorrow evening for Madras and come back on the 9th morning. I shall be in th th Bangalore from 9 to 12 . I will be going on tour on the 13th probably returning after a week.
Kesava Reddi would have probably told about the condition of my wife's health."
(emphasis supplied)
28. Ex.P-3 is the minutes of the General Body Meeting and the General Body of the Centre has accepted the gift made by Sri H. Seetharama Reddy and authorised the President and Secretary to take gift from Sri H. Seetharama Reddy and Ex.P-3(a) is the relevant proceedings dated 11.03.1963, which reads as under:
- 28 -
"Proceedings of the meeting held on 11.03.1963 at 6 p.m. in the Premises of the Centre:
Subjects: -
1) Steps to be taken to acquire 1) In view of the fact that Sri H. a site for the construction of the Sitarama Reddy, Chairman, Sri Vivekananda Centenary Hall India Coffee Board, generously at Bellary. volunteered to make a gift of his plot of land measuring about 50 to 60 cents in Gandhinagar, Bellary it is resolved to authorize Sri D. Venugopala chari, President of the Centre & Sri. Y.P. Vittal Vice-President to obtain the necessary gift-dead from the donor.
The centre places on record its thanks to Sri H. Sitaram Reddy for the generous gesture move by him.
2) It is resolved that Sri.
K.Chenna Basappa, Secretary of
the Centre be authorized to
correspond with Smt.
V.K.Vasanthamma W/o.
V.K.Chari, Sheristadar, Sub-
Court, Adoni and if necessary to
enter into an agreement with her
to purchase the Plot No.65
measuring 0-51 cents which is
by this side of the plot No.105
- 29 -
which belongs to Sri. H.S.
Reddy, referred to above.
2) Collection of funds: Resolved to enroll life members,
donors and partners and reserve
this class of membership fee
towards the building fund.
Sd/- Sd/-
Secretary President
Sri Ramakrishna Vivekananda Sri Ramakrishna Vivekananda
Centre, BELLARY. Centre, BELLARY."
29. Exs.P-3, P-14 and P-15 make it clear that late H.Seetharama Reddy had volunteered to gift the property in favour of the plaintiff - "Centre" and the plaintiff - "Centre" has accepted the gift under the resolution.
30. Ex.P-18 is the covering letter addressed by Sri Venkayya Chetty to Sri K. Channabasappa enclosing the deed of indenture at Ex.P-18(a) dated 31.12.1979. The relevant portion of the deed of indenture at Ex.P-18(a) executed by Panduranga son of late H. Seetharama Reddy confirming and ratifying the gift made in favour of the Centre by his father H.Seetharama Reddy which reads as under:
"Due to various reasons, the execution and registration of the gift-deed could not be completed
- 30 -
during the life-time of the donor late H.Sitharama Reddy; therefore This agreement confirms and ratifies the gift made on 16-11-1963, by my father to the 2nd party with absolute power of enjoyment and transfer to whom-so-ever the 2nd party intends. The cost of stamp and Registration shall be paid by the Second party and neighter their first party nor his legal heirs, successors, executors etc, who have already divested themselves of all rights in the said property since 16-11-1963, nor shall they had and shall have no right or claim to any rights in this land."
31. The Apex Court in the case of Idol of Sri Ranganathaswamy represented by its Executive Officer, Joint Commissioner vs. P.K. Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam Anandhana Trust represented by its Managing Trustee [(2020)17 SCC 96] draws a distinction between a 'religious charity' as defined in sub-section (16) to Section 6 from a charity associated with a finite group of identifiable persons, which is a charity of a private character. It was observed that: "for a charity to constitute a "religious charity", there is no requirement for the public charity to be connected with a particular temple or a math. In terms of the statutory definition, for a charity to constitute a "religious charity"
- 31 -
under the 1959 Act, two conditions must be met. First, it must be a "public charity" and second, it must be "associated with" a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character. If these two conditions are satisfied, a charity is a "religious charity"."
32. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, and the latter judgment in the case of R.M. Sundaram (stated supra), has held as under:
"29. This decision has referred to an earlier decision in M.J. Thulasiraman v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administration, which had examined and elucidated on the words 'endow' and 'endowment' state that they relate to idea of giving, bequeathing or dedicating something, whether property or otherwise, for some purpose. The purpose should be with respect to religion or charity. In our opinion, the said tests are satisfied in the present case and the specific endowment of the suit jewellery as religious charity is established beyond doubt."
33. What can be gathered from the material on record and the judgment of the Apex Court and considering the facts of the present case, the question stated supra
- 32 -
needs to be answered holding that the act of H. Seetharama Reddy is volunteered to make a gift of the property amounts to a creation of endowment and on going through the Memorandum of Association at Ex.P-15, it is clear that it was for religious purpose, which having been donated the schedule property to the plaintiff - Centre corroborates with the letter at Ex.P-14 by the deceased H. Seetharama Reddy stating about the donating suit schedule property plot in favour of the Centre and in addition, the resolution at Ex. P- 3(a) as stated supra. In light of the material placed before the Court and in light of the specific provision that the dedication by a Hindu to charity there need not be a document in writing or registration, however, it has to be established by cogent and satisfactory evidence and conduct of the parties that there was intention for dedication to charity. The Courts below taking into consideration the material on record have rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established its right over the suit schedule property and has become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
- 33 -
34. In the decision of the Larger Bench, the Apex Court in the case of Deoki Nandan vs. Murlidhar reported in AIR 1957 SC 133 and later by subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Mysore vs. Ratnavarma Hegde [(1977) 1 SCC 525] and in Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das vs. Surjanarayan Das & another [AIR 1967 SC 256] holding that the endowment can validly be created in favour of an idol or temple or public purpose or for dedication or for religious public purpose without performing any ceremonies provided clearly unambiguously expressed its opinion in that behalf and the Apex Court has observed that in an absolute dedication, the dedication is given out to an idol or religious or charitable institution and donor divest himself of all the beneficial interest in the property comprised in the endowment.
35. The Apex Court in the case of R.M. Sundaram stated supra considering the aforementioned judgments of the Apex Court at para 30 has held as under:
"30. Therefore, in view of the judgments quoted above and the aforesaid statutory provisions, it must be held that the case of the appellant that there was
- 34 -
no endowment or specific endowment must fail and has no legs to stand on. The dedication of the suit jewellery does not require an express dedication or document, and can be inferred from the circumstances, especially the uninterrupted and long possession of the suit jewellery by the respondent/Temple. The private character of the jewels had extinguished long back and the appellant has no basis to claim that the suit jewellery was inherited by him from his adoptive parents. The endowment is clearly public in nature and for the purposes of performing religious ceremonies. As confirmed by three courts, with which we are in agreement, the suit jewellery was dedicated for a specific purpose and can only be used during the performance of the religious ceremony during the Adipooram festival."
Therefore, in view of the judgments quoted above and in light of the statutory provisions, it must be held that the plaintiff - "Centre" is a religious endowment and the dedication of the gift by H.Seetharama Reddy does not require any document and can be inferred from the circumstances and intention of the deceased H.Seetharama Reddy as the endowment is clearly for the purpose of "public charity" and "religious charity".
- 35 -
36. The other contention of the appellants is that the plaint in O.S. No.700/1989 filed on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Ballari was returned for want of jurisdiction and the plaint before the appropriate Court, this being so, for all practical purposes the presentation of the plaint ought to have been treated as if the plaintiff has instituted a fresh suit and as such, the appropriate Court accepting the evidence recorded by the incompetent Court which lacks jurisdiction was not justifiable. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that if the Court where the suit is instituted, lacks jurisdiction, the plaint is to be returned in view of the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC and the plaintiff can present it before the Court having competent jurisdiction and on presentation before the Court having competent jurisdiction, the plaint has to be considered as a fresh plaint and the trial is to be conducted de novo even if it stood concluded before the Court having no jurisdiction to try the same, there can be no quarrel about the settled legal proposition of law. However, if the parties as in the present case have accepted the evidence recorded by the incompetent Court to be taken as the evidence before the
- 36 -
appropriate Court by filing a memo and the appropriate trial Court by its order has accepted the said evidence, the defendants now cannot take the advantage of a mistake made by a Court and raise a technical objection since the defendant himself has permitted to take such an evidence on record.
37. The Apex Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Limited (stated supra) has held in para Nos. 19 and 21 as under:
"19. In the instant case, a copy of the decree has not been filed by either of the parties. The judgment and order dated 21-9-2006 shows that the plaints were received and registered on 24-3-1986. The respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of a mistake made by the court and raise a technical objection to defeat the cause of substantial justice. The legal maxim, actus curiae neminem gravabit i.e. an act of court shall prejudice no man, comes into play. [See Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho and Bhagwati Developers (P) Ltd. v. Peerless General Finance Investment Co. Ltd.
xxx xxx xxx
21. Thus, the respondent cannot take the benefit of its own mistake. The respondent instituted the suit in the civil court at Mehsana which admittedly had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In spite of the
- 37 -
fact that the civil suit stood decreed, the High Court directed the court at Mehsana to return the plaint in view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. Thus, the respondent presented the plaint before the civil court at Surat on 3-2-1999."
38. Another subsequent judgment of the Apex Court on similar terms in the case of EXL Careers stated supra that the party cannot take the benefit of his own mistake. In the present case, since the defendant has filed the memo before the appropriate Court stating that the evidence recorded before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) to be taken as the evidence in the present suit and now the appellant - defendant cannot contend that the evidence recorded before the Court which lacks jurisdiction cannot be considered as evidence in the present suit as held by the Apex Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas and EXL Careers stated supra. Accordingly, the said contention of the appellant- defendant is unsustainable.
39. Another line of argument by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the there is a registered trust deed as early as in the year 1981 and the building was constructed in the year 1981 by the defendant and there is
- 38 -
a school in the said premises since the year 1981 and mutation has been effected in favour of the Trust and the tax has been paid by the defendants and thus the reasoning of the Courts below that the defendants are in permissive possession is on the face of it contrary to the material on record. In order to answer the said contention, it is relevant to consider Ex.P-3 the minutes book of the plaintiff -
"Centre" from 1962 and the relevant entries at Ex.P-3(d), 3(e) and 3(f) dated 15.03.1980, 20.11.2983, 25.12.1983 and 11.3.1984 are as under:
"Proceedings of the General Body Meeting held 6 p.m. at R.K.V. Centre under the Presidentship of Pola Venkaiah. Members present:
Sd/- (Y.P. Vittal) Sd/- (S.Saranappa) Sd/- (A.R.Vishwanath) Sd/- (G.Rangarao) Sd/- (G.V.Nagi Reddy) Sd/- (R.Narasimhappa) Sd/- (K.B.Thimmaraya) Sd/- (P. Venkaiah Chetty) Sd/- (S.C. Bagreecha) (1) Read and adopted the reports for the year 1979-80 by the Secretary.
(2) Read and adopted the reports of the accounts by the Treasurer for the year 1979-80 upto date.
- 39 -
(3) Read the letter dated 23-2-80 from Sri D. Venugopalachar, President, Shri Ramakrishna - Vivekananda Centre (Reg.) Bellary in the circumstances stated. The General Body accepts with great reluctance the resignation of Sri D.Venugopalachar, President of R.K.V.Centre and while reconsidering with appreciation the valuable services rendered by him to the Centre since many years and further to pray for speedy recovery of Sri D. Venugopalachar.
(4) The following members have been elected unanimously for the years 1980nand 1981 as office bearers:
(1) President :- Sri Pola Venkaiah Proposed by Dr. Sri Y.P.Vittal Seconded by Sri S.C.Bagreecha (2) Vice President :- Sri H.Pandu Ranga Reddy Proposed by Sri S.Saranappa Seconded by Sri G.V. Nagi Reddy (3) Vice President :- Sri S.Saranappa Proposed by Dr.Sri K.B.Thimmaraya Seconded by Sri R.Narasimhappa (4) Secretary :- Sri G.V. Nagi Reddy Proposed by Sri Pola Venkaiah Seconded by Sri Dr. Sri Y.P.Vittal (5)Asst.Secretary :- Sri A.R. Viswanath Propoed by Sri G.V.Nagi Reddy Seconded by Sri Pola Venkaiah (6) Treasurer :- Dr. Sri K.B.Thimma Raya Proposed by Sri S.C.Bagreecha Seconded by Sri R.Narasimhappa
- 40 -
(5) The following members have been Elected unanimously to the Governing Body for the year 1980 and 1981:
(1) Dr. Sri Y.P. Vittal (2) Sri R. Narasimhappa (3) Sri G. Bheemappachetty (4) Sri S.C. Bagreecha (5) Sri P. Nagesh Setty (6) General Body Resolved to accept in principle the offer to locate an Educational Institution run by Jana Kalyana Kendra, Bellary in the premises of Sri Ramakrishna - Vivekananda Centre i.e., Back side (vacant place) and recommends to form the Committees of each of the Associations to discuss and formulate further modalities in the above matter. The R.K.V. Centre comprise of the following members:
(1) Pola Venkaiah, Preident (2) Sri G.V. Nagi Reddy, ecretary (3) Sri Dr.Y.P. Vittal (4) Sri G. Bheemappa Chetty, Advocate (5) Sri D.L. Chetty, Advocate and five members nominated by Jana Kalyana Kendra, Bellary.
Sd/- Sd/-
G.V.Nagi Reddy Pola Venkaiah
Secretary President
R.K.V. Centre Sri Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Centre
Bellary 15/3/80
15.3.80
- 41 -
The proceedings of the General Body Meeting held on 20.11.83 at 10.15 a.m. at R.K.V.Centre under the Presidentship of Sri K. Channabasappa, Ret. Judge.
Members Present:
1. Sri D.Venugopalachar sd/-
2. Sri Pola Venkaiah sd/-
3. Sri K. Konachennabasappa sd/-
4. Sri G.V. Nagi Reddy sd/-
5. Sri Dodda Saranappa sd/-
6. Sri D.L. Chetty sd/-
7. Sri C. Bheemappa Chetty sd/-
8. Sri A.R. Viswanath sd/-
9. Sri S.C. Bagreecha sd/-
10. Sri Dr.K.B. Thimmaraya sd/-
11. Sri R. Narasimhappa sd/-
12. Sri R. Ramachandra Rao sd/-
13. Sri N.Nagaraja sd/-
14. Sri Pola Basavaraj sd/-
15. Sri G. Ramanath sd/-
16. Sri H. Daniah Setty sd/-
17. Sri Ranga Rao J.P. sd/-
18. Sri V. Krishna Sastry sd/-
19. Sri H.ubramanyam sd/-
20. Sri G.P. Srinath sd/-
21. Sri H.Keshava Reddy sd/-
22. Sri Bheemappa sd/-
23. Sri J. Somasunder sd/-
(1) The resignation of Sri G.V. Nagi Reddy dt. 27.7.81 Secretary, R.K.V.Centre, Bellary is accepted and
- 42 -
resolved to place on record with thanks the valuable services rendered by him to the Centre. (2) In place of the vacancy caused by the resignation of Sri G.V.Nagi Reddy the Assistant Secretary Sri A.R.Viswanath is authorized to officiate as Secretary of the R.K.V. Centre.
(3)(a) Considered the letter of request written by the Secretary, Divine Life Society dt.30.3.83 and resolved to constitute a sub-committee to work and details of the activities and the methods of carrying out the same and the terms and conditions consisting of the following persons:-
1) Sri C.Bheemappa Setty, Advocate 2) Sri H. Kesava Reddy -do- 3) Sri I. Basavaraj -do- 4) Sri D.L. Chetty -do- 5) Sri A.R. Viswanath -do- 6) Sri V.Krishna Sastry -do- 7) Sri R. Ramachandra Rao -do- 8) Sri G.V.Nagi Reddy -do- 9) Sri Dr. Thimmappa Chetty -do- 10) Sri Y.P. Vittal -do-
(b) In view of the resolution passed by the General Body dt. 15.3.80 accepting the offer made by Jana Kalyana Kendra, Bellary to locate an educational institute in the premises of sree R.K.V.Centre (the backside vacant space) the request of Shri Sharada Seva Trust dt. 2.7.83 is referred to the above Sub- Committee. The Sub-Committee is authorized to
- 43 -
examine the implications - legal & otherwise-& submit its report in the G.Body to be considered within the end of December 1983.
(4) This question does not arise for the present.
The meeting of the sub-committee of the R.K.V. Centre, Bellary held on 10.12.23 Sunday at 9.30 a.m. Members of the sub-committee present:
1. C.Bheemappa Setty, Advocate
2. V.Krishna Sastry
3. A.R. Viswanath
4. R. Ramachandra Rao
5. G.V. Nagi Reddy
6. Dr. K.B. Thimmaraya Chetty
7. Pola Venkaiah President, R.K.V. Centre Read the letter dt. 30.3.83 of Divine Life Society, Bellary, the sub-committee directs them to submit whether the purpose for which they want is charitable & spiritual which is in keeping the object of the R.K.V. Centre & also submit what is the approximate area required for their activities by next meeting i.e., Sunday 25.12.83 9.30 a.m. Read the letter of Sharada Seva Trust dt. 2.7.83, the sub-committee directs them to submit a copy of the Trust Deed of Sharada Seva Trust and Janakalyana Kendra & other correspondence between R.K.V. Centre & the above two trusts enabling this committee to decide within Sunday 25.12.83 9.30 a.m.
- 44 -
Read the correspondence of the Secretary in respect of the constructions. The members are requested not to proceed with further constructions pending the decision of the committee.
Read the resolution No.6 of R.K.V. Centre dt. 15.3.80. Regarding the Sharada Seva Trust and its Location will be examined and decided by the committee after the presentation of the relevant documents & the resolutions referred to above.
The meeting adjourned to 25.12.83 Sunday 9.30 a.m. at R.K.V. Centre, Bellary.
Sd/-
A.R. Viswanath CONVENER.
Proceedings of the sub-committee meeting held on 25.12.83 Sunday 9.30 a.m. in pursuance of the meeting held on 18.12.83 Sunday 9.30 a.m. Sri C.Bheemappa Chetty is requested to preside over the proceedings.
The following members present:
1. Pola Venkaiah President, Ex officio member R.K.V. Centre.
2. D.L. Chetty Garu
3. R. Ramachandra Rao
4. V. Krishna Sastry
5. G.V.Nagi Reddy
6. Dr. K.B. Thimmaraya Chetty
7. C. Bheemappa Chetty
8. A.R. Viswanath
- 45 -
The proceedings of the previous meeting dt. 18.12.83 read out and adopted.
1. Read the resolution of the previous meeting No.1 dated 18.12.83 and read the letter from the Secretary Divine Life Society dt. 22.12.83 and resolved to recommend the General Body to give them permission as a licensee to conduct the activities stated in their letter subject to the condition that they shall obtain prior written permission from the Secretary, R.K.V. Centre to conduct their occasions & functions in the same for the period of five years & resolved to permit them to occupy the Northern Room for carrying on Free Dispensary and Library etc. as a licensee under written agreement for the said period.
2. Heard the pros & cons of the present situation after reading over the Trust Deed of Sharada Seva Trust and activities of Jana Kalyana Kendra and Memorandum of Association & Rules & Regulations of Sri R.K.V. Centre Bellary and other connected papers, this committee resolved to recommend to G.Body of R.K.V. Centre to take necessary decisions as follows:
1. that the R.K.V. Centre will permit the Sharada Seva Trust to build, construct for their educational activities for a period of 25 years on the Western side of the R.K.V. Centre in T.S.No.729, measuring 52 cents as licensee & the Sharada Seva Trust can exercise before the end of the said 25 years their option to continue for another 25 years in case
- 46 -
they build pucca cement roofing building with necessary fittings. In lieu of the R.K.V. Centre permitting Sharada Seva Trust as stated above, the Sharada Seva Trust shall complete the open platform covering with cement sheets and also the sides with weld mesh at their cost as early as possible.
2. Read their letter dated 2.7.83 of the Sharada Seva Trust, the R.K.V. Centre considers that it is not congenial to allow the Sharada Seva Trust to run classes in the Kendra Building but they are at liberty to use the same for any of their special functions with the prior written permission of the Secretary, R.K.V. Centre.
Proceedings of the urgent General Body Meeting held on Friday 27.1.84 at 5 p.m. at R.K.V. Centre under the Presidentship of Sri Pola Venkiah, Bellary. Members Present:
1. Sri D.L. Chetty sd/-
2. Sri C.Bheemappa Chetty sd/-
3. Sri Pola Venkiah Chetty sd/-
4. Sri R. Ramachandra Rao sd/-
5. Sri G. Ramanath sd/-
6. Sri R. Rama Rao sd/-
7. Sri J.P.Ranga Rao sd/-
8. Sri V. Krishna Sastry sd/-
9. Sri G.P. Srinath sd/-
10. Sri K.B.T. Raya sd/-
11. Sri G.V. Nagi Reddy sd/-
12. Sri H. Daniah Setty sd/-
13. Sri A.R. Viswanath sd/-
- 47 -
14. Smt. H. Jayashree sd/-
15. Sri Dodda Saranappa sd/-
The letters of Sri Dr. Y.P. Vittal dated 25.1.84 & Photostat copy of Sri K. chennabasappa dt. 23.1.84 are read over and it is resolved unanimously to adjourn the meeting on 18th Saturday February 1984 at 5 p.m. as delivered by the above members. The agenda will be the same. There will be no further adjournment of the said meeting. Secretary is requested to issue notices to all the members.
Sd/-27.1.83 Proceedings of the urgent General Body meeting held on Saturday 5 p.m. 18.2.84 at R.K.V. Centre under the Presidentship of Sri Pola Venkiah Bellary. Members Present:
1. Sri G.V. Nagi Reddy sd/-
2. Sri R. Ramachandra Rao sd/-
3. Sri Dodda Saranappa sd/-
4. Sri Pola Venkaiah sd/-
5. Sri G. Ramanath Chetty sd/-
6. Sri K.B.T. Raya sd/-
7. Sri S. Saranappa sd/-
8. Sri Y.P. Vittal sd/-
9. Sri J.P. Ranga Rao sd/-
10. Sri G.P. Srinath sd/-
11. xxx sd/-
12. Sri B. Kanakappa sd/-
13. Sri P. Nagesh Setty sd/-
xxx xxx
- 48 -
20. Smt. H. Jayashree sd/-
It is unanimously resolved to adjourn the meeting to 11th March 1984 at 5 p.m. The Secretary is requested to issue notices to all the members.
Sd/- 18.2.84 Proceedings of the urgent General Body Meeting held on Sunday 5 p.m. 11.3.84 at R.K.V. Centre under the Presidentship of Sri Y.P. Vittal.
Members Present:
xxx xxx xxx
1. Resolved to place on record that the site T.S.No.729 donated by Sri H. Sitharama Reddy measuring A.O. 524 which has been in possession and enjoyment eversince the foundation was laid down on 13.1.1964 belongs to the R.K.V.Centre.
2. Resolved to accept the reconsideration of the sub-committee to permit the Sharada Seva Trust as licensee to construct a building run as educational institution for a period of 25 years subject to the conditions:
Firstly: that the Sharada Seva Trust constructs the prayer hall in front of the Shrine with the asbestos sheets and the weld mesh all around within a period of six months. Secondly: that the Sharada Seva Trust constructs the R.C.C. pucca building on the site No.729. Thirdly : that after the first period of 25 years, the Sharada Seva Trust shall have the option to
- 49 -
renew the license for a further period of 25 years by mutual agreement.
Fourthly: that the Sharada Seva Trust shall donate Rs.50/- per member as donation to Shri R.K.V. Centre.
3. Read the recommendations of the sub- Committee dated 18.12.83 & resolved to accept in toto a permission as a licensee to the Divine Life Society Bellary to conduct the activities as stated in their letter & permit them to occupy the northern room for carrying on free dispensary & library etc. as a licensee for a period of 5 years."
(emphasis supplied)
40. The relevant entries stated supra evidence that in the general body meeting, the members resolved to accept in principle to locate the educational institution run by Jana Kalyana Kendra Ballari in the premises of Sri Ramakrishna Vivekananda Centre i.e., backside (vacant place) and recommended to form a committee to each of the association to discuss and formulate further modalities in the matter and plaintiff - Sri Ramakrishna Vivekananda Centre comprised of Sri Pola Venkayya who was the president and others. On 20.11.1983, as per the proceedings of the general body meeting, it refers to the resolution passed by the general body dated 15.03.1980
- 50 -
accepting the offer given by Jana Kalyana Kendra, Ballari to locate the educational institute in the premises of Sri Ramakrishna Centre. The request of Sri Sharadaseva Trust dated 02.07.1983 is referred to the sub-committee and the sub-committee authorized to examine the implication legal or otherwise and to submit its report to the genera body to be considered at the end of December 1983. The sub- committee meeting was held on 10.12.1983 and 18.12.1983 comprising of the defendants herein and at the meeting, it was recorded that the letter of Sharada Seva Trust dated 02.07.1983 was read and the committee decided to meet on Sunday i.e., 25.12.1983. On 18.12.1983, a sub-committee was drawn and the sub-committee members included defendant Nos.2 and 4 and in subject No.2, it is recorded that pros and cons of the present were heard and trust deed of Sharada Seva Trust and the activities of Jana Kalyana Kendra and the memorandum of association and rules and registration of the plaintiff - "Centre" and the connected papers were read over and thereafter, after due deliberation the sub-committee resolved to recommend to the general body of the plaintiff - "Centre" to take necessary decision
- 51 -
regarding whether the plaintiff - "Centre" would permit Sharada Seva Trust to build, construct for their educational activities for a period of 25 years on the western side of the plaintiff - "Centre" as a licencee and the Sharada Seva Trust can exercise their option to continue for another 25 years in case they build pucca cement roofing building with necessary fittings and accordingly, in light of the recommendation of the sub-committee, an urgent general body meeting was held on 11.3.1984 and it was resolved as stated supra in the entry at Ex.P-3(f).
41. The material on record as stated supra would reveal that the defendants were permitted to use the suit schedule premises as a licencee and the defendants cannot contend that they are in possession of the schedule property as an absolute owner. The buildings put up by the defendant is by the consent of the plaintiff - "Centre" and the defendants have accepted the status of licencee and they are fully aware of the fact that the vacant open site was alone given to them as licencee for the purpose of putting up of structures for a certain period of time and the
- 52 -
defendants do not have right, title or interest over the suit schedule property.
42. In the backdrop of the material, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the manner in which the Courts below have considered the material and evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The second appeal by the defendant is hereby dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and decree of the Courts below stand confirmed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Naa/S*
- 53 -
KSHJ: RSA.NO.6270/2012 24/05/2023 ORDER At this stage, on pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Narayan V.Yaji appearing through video conference seeks three months time to vacate the suit schedule premises on the ground that school is being run in the suit schedule property and in light of this judgment, the warrant in the execution petition would be executed by the respondent and the appellant would be dispossessed from the suit schedule property.
In light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration that the appellant is running a school in the suit schedule property, three months time is granted to vacate the premises subject to filing an undertaking affidavit within a week to the effect that the appellant would vacate the premises on or before 28th August, 2023 without dragging the respondent to execute the order and without seeking further extension of time and shall not induct or create any third party rights. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed.
Sd/-
S* JUDGE