Karnataka High Court
B Sharadamma vs Jhon Christoper on 2 April, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
E is} 52! .1.
DATED THIS THE EEFDRE THE HDN'ELE MR.JusT1cEmm,xuMafi"'x7 mE::3Lm=.R 31:30:43: APPEAL ria.e.i51.»9'2b'oa? '€3'l!?flfll:II§"Q}'I.\ a D91 WIHIDSM n.
E fifififififlfifififi Rflflfl RBGUT 31 JAVA FRASAHV REED HBflUT 73 Mr: 1=~JLu;n.L.2f+3¢2tinz~1;a.1ni::i_:':_ AEEH EBDflT*?5 .
3 fifiiflflflflfifi 4%:-Jar-J'fi"HR;au;I:J' V EEEE AEQUT fix ?EAR§y fiLL_fiRE muitnggm or 'anmE*En3HKnRAIAH ' " --».:ar-a;:«V, 3=;.t4L.,%%;rfi;:-Hz". rm-. ET THEIR '.'f,mF3famLnER APPELLANT ND.5, ~. k ' --:s.:_,x'.;h;'1*;:«?_s:r.p:"r;," 143:.» um. V. qHy $ri h vfimuGo?AL, ADV) ~'.II U'?
1 v 9 Jz 4 . .
_m% V'. cw SEEN CFRi$TO?EF fifD.fiH%NTHmPPH, HEED EHOUT 45 ?ERRS, RUTH DRIVER, 1ST MEIN RGAD, 37?, FORT KflbHH.CITY.
éEUERENT BIEHQP DAY DF APRIL 2068 ~T» "' filfififl" 5 Hfiflfin, mU.flT, lfiT MAIN RDAD, GEMERIEEGE LAYOUT, ULEGWE, EHNGRLURE.
IFii.'E"'U'EP:,EE'JT EIIST. SLJPEFILIDITENDEHT METHODIST cnuncw, % JMm_ MJEEIDN gmmpguwu, 7 ESLRR GITY.
i.-LI THIS nan. IS Flhflfi 1JfS."=16fiV OF "CBC .AaaINsT THE JUfi§EfiE"T 5 EECHEE D?fi-f3»11,fi? Fhfisfifl IN n,A"wm.1?4;£GQ5 mm THE~ FILE. GE THE PRESIDING UFFIGER, FEST TRACK couHT4I:E, K¢LAR;_fi1sMiSsING was AEEEAL AME FILED Aggimsmj j THE-gunemnsnw AND BECREE DTfl 5.4,05_ FASEEQ IN as 3/$fiU1 on THE FILE my THE ERL:,cIvIL JfimGE;A{JR4®wa' Kouaa. wHzfiM,nPsEA¢;_ccMIw:=~03" Fan .AUMISSIDN THIS EH3} ?HE'£mfiRT%DE5fiVERfl§*THE'F$LLmwIM$:
¢.
---" -.E-El' _............_'I _._._.._.'l u' uuuunu ayyua¢ ,Thi$" is '*the '.p;ainfiif '=again:tuthfi fisncurr¢nt finding$ recordefi by the E@mffia«héifiw_$hét Edwin Garsham, who executed the V '_aalajEfi@afi"dfited 1fi.3.1946, had no auth0rity' ta . >$@llj thé~"graparty' aha therafare, the plaintiffs _fiwfié-Ea titla to the auit achadula praparty. r-
3. Far the gurguae at canvenience the Q&£tififl 35% raferrad to 35 they are rafarrad ta M/,,»' in tha ariginal awit.
3. Tha aumjnct matter mf the 3uit is ma landad pxwparty in Sy.No.2 and ;a vacant sité it 7 tha flaid aurvék numbar aituata at Nafihpali?}% "
Hamlat cw' Nazarath village, Huttu:'H§fiii; K§lfip Taluk. The suit amhedule grfiyeétyg 5e@bfi§a fia 7f M%thmdisfi Miaaion Church; Vfimlafgfi V'0fi§K Edw£h fiaraham. being tha Mathudi%£,«Eg;s§fip§i fiMflésien fiflld tha sama iu.favfiuE Qf tn; g13ifitiffs' mmther fihanthamma unda;_ a gagiatéfigg *a%lém aged dated %45 f*f§m ?na3'flatefl fif~w@Ircha3e Th; y1aifiai§fH"€_fiw§h§E'"wfi% f§§"ififiéfiéésian aha aft%r ha: daafifi; ti; §i§iu£ifif3, fiér cniluren aré the awnarg ii.§o£s&%§igfi*fifmfhe said gruperty. The dafanflantm.'hav%. he &m§nhar of right, titla and "*int¢a§&t,_mver Ehe ---------- ~3uit schedula prmperty, but .7hflwfifi&r,u wfien <they' triefl to interfare with the ylaimtfiff$9f~ pomaeasion, the plaintiffs were 'cmnstfaifiad ta fila the auit for daclaratian of ';itle anfl far injunction.
" I'_3'_""i 1;1":a5: n.
#. Tha defendants 2 and 3 have filed their dgiandant No.1
-n -« w --.
ramaanad axwarts. Th%§' aant%nde,. an extent. a: 9 [/,x/ village :15 rerervad ftm' Christian urphanage anfi rhurch and tha said property was endowed far the 2 smart banavalant gurpmsa under a ragisteréfl tru§tTtv dead i:."iattrs~::ii 3.3.1991 rzrez-ltted r;ry_..1a;1;e Rneaty. Tha abject and cmrpus at fihfi éb¢vrrtrfig;t;f war tranafrrred by sale 3urtirinfiHTru3te§ gt tre *1~.m.-:51: 1.:-ata F.Ev'.J'-ahn 1a'{jttVr:i;§::1c vviundar raqirtaram aria daad'r§tgdfl15§}fi$i3Hin frfirur cf chgrlaa Framkltt Lig" th@fi :nttrrhr§ cf the I;nanrial Buagd at $fig.h'infii§=Ann&aL Canference mf Hetpnaiat Eyx3cn§icalfiChurrh,"uith the exgress rtirulatiun ta carry Mat dlracticna cantalnad in tha mriginal trust "fia§dV,daté" 3.3.1891. Thé amwva prmparty has been rararvad as such which is "=§L3mf°manif3$t AfEflm¢'thfi entries fauna in the V rrrfirflr»gfrfriqhta and Indax mf lands. They prod@wed rért§fiefl copy of the ragiatared fleeds
--drta$"$;fi¢iéé1 and 1.8.1§34 in support of their rtanfl, V" It is thair further caaa that the .tgiaint3ff3' mmther 3hanthamma'$ vendar Edwin _"Earfihan had nu authwrity tn transfer the suit "5zh@flu;e grmgarty and therefora, rhe did not
-3 a- 'tr! *' --:r'_.1*'_ -r+ ' "'. ' ' . _ ufiufifl Lm:ju4jm5- 4L 13 %%5%% I1at1t1cus transfer k/,/' sw-
V anm tnarfifmrfi, the aaid transfer is void fab initiwp In .fact, late Shanthamma had f;Iafi*}; Eh ruit Ufi.Ma.6QTf1939 fur the raliaf of deciér3fiidfiT""
xf title and far permanent injunction.i Théffiith, ylaimtiff in the suit repr¢36ntéfi":hér a5 ¢tfiE_ Fmwer mf Attmrnmy' Hmlde£I_ m_The ~3aid 3uifi"~waE fiilafl against aha Dayashaalg sud two dthars} wha uwra Chriatians and "_mamharS=f»fif_ Methofiist "4§5£ fimlé J sf CFC seeking parmiwflifirn ta» witfidrafiu the .suit and tn file a frafih aui:.- ThaV@3id épp1icatian was dismissafl mnfl tug p@rmia£iam,wa3"nat grantad. Aggriavad by 2.1., 'E39 .5-=.i"m=. p;?~------£*arred cm=~.1~ar..«.27a«:x:=2-ca, which Is} 3'"tamg =fimA bw dismissed. Subsequently, Bhe filéfi" an 'fl{wL£catiunT for amendment of the suit far flafiétififi tha grayar af daclaratinn and u" bateingd Ntha mnly prayer fc¢% injunatian and. at _;hé. 'Iatwr atage, aha withflraw the suit. u Thar%fmrn, it was cuntanded tha nrgs;nt suit «' . . .
fllfifi an the flame causs mf actlfln 13 net maintsiflabla.
.§. The Trial Ccurt framed 10 issues. Th:
fifth glaintiff was examined as Ew.1 anfi ha héfi V axaminad 5 mitnassaa 55 PW3.E tn 6 and g£ofiu&fi&%fi 23 mflmumentm, which are marked.a3.Ex3§P1"tfi»P23;V Ctr: i:mhz:J..f 03? tjlm defendants,'= or;§»'T'aayanfi§i axamined as uw.1 and 11 flacuments were gféfiuggd;
which are markad as nws.1 ta ii, . a. The Trial camp: -on _a§pEa¢iétiun of the _%idehce on record halanging. tn --th§rvE?hfl:ch, he wafi nut DU;y authmrisad énfl*thaf&for$, the plaintiffs' mathar "'~:.i5_.r:i .17;-£::.r;E..e%Iv;.;g;a:L::e"" title ten the ssuit schedule grwfi&:ty, ufid&r, the regiatered sale deed dated 1fi;3@1%4é; fB@£# however, it found the plaintiffa 'axe ih.§gs#é5aian af the auit achedula praperty ¢n"<tha "fiata af tha auit and tharafara, it . fii§mi%sed tha Suit imaufar aw the declaratiqn i3 ,"cwficmrnem flnfl grantefl a fiecree far permanent "injum$tiQnp Pggrievad by the said judgment and racmrmau my' the Trial Cmurt. find idiamigéafik bath x_f the aypeala. Aggriaved by*thes€_two ccficukrent findingar the plaintiff$ are in aacafifiaapgéalg T. Tha laarnad couhsai fdx, tfig appellants aaaailing tum im3u§nedgjgflgm&mE and fiecrea er the Emurtfi n&lh@' "ghhtand$n VEfigP11F,' a Paws: qf Attarnayg éxafiutmfi by the fihusch in favaur at an !i?
grliar fliat:icf $up¢rinfi%fiflant clearly cantainad a claus% ";amfihari3ing } him' ta alienate the «grQpH£@y," hnwevflr, the caurts b%l¢w have net LflflRfl$ in~tm that clause, but, lfifi tw¢_"fiiaQm&m_'ané cmmmitted a aerious arrcr in _cmmifi§ th- the concluaian that tha District *Smpr@1ntandent had mm authcrity' to \a1ianata the ' gb@p%:ty; Therefare, he cantenda it is a case of :-misfiaafling uf the Fmwer uf Attorney and the fiumgmwnt and dacrae vi the Gourta belaw requires intarfaranaa. I an nmt find any Substance in th? 1/ saifl flflfitflntiflfln
3. Tha material an rfitord shave tuat it isca pragarty balanging ta the Church. In a suit ffir a pp-
maclaratiwn af titla in respect a; a §Chfifiéhf* grmperty without making the church a3 a"ga£VE th¢ Suit mannmt he maintainad againatgitééaffiéiéls,w, In the greaent suit, the chu;ch i§°nut;&jg@%:fi; Fwrthar, the sale dead cmntaihgfi g récifiai E@ the affect that Edwin G%f3ha¢; tfi§:jthan Vfiiétrict supmrintandant, ifl aH§gfifiifig;atha fl$ié deed in pwrauance of ;a'°;§3ml%tinfi7 pfi§Q§d, fi§: the Trust. Rmmittfifliyu 5fid_*$Q§E.:£é$%iufi@fifiE=15 produced anfi tna euiflenca {an Era kg; dé""hmt diaclosa the ma puuar mf>attornaygifi,§xacutad in faveur af t"% *alaimLiffé' vanfiwr and in the absence cf such a V"gmwér_Qf attgfngy, reliance was placed on Ex.F11, a *yduar'"df, fifitorney executad in favour af an .gmrli%r ahiaffict Superintendent" A. raading of .u'fifia,_gfdf@said dmcumanta in the whale clearly fi3fiéhiish that tha fiistrict Superintendent was "nm§ amthmriaefl tm mall tha property belonging to "thfi Truat, an the cflntrary, tnera was a nmnuate that he whauld prmtaat and safagu$rd the interest mf the Trust and ita prnpartias. The Courts balmy hava grc§erly aggreciatgd the recitals_ff r1' L?
1-1! a fi$id fiaaumant and faufifi in tna abfiafica af"afiy'= *a@aiutimn ax tae Trust, the _fiistri¢t%' Superintandent, Edwin Garsham haq no authcfiitfvtc amll the grwyarty. The fiaid finding is haéed fin ¢ lagal evidence anm is in acflprdaficfi with 1gQ;afi@ du nut Huffar frnm any 1agai7ihf;§mity;: IA that viaw afi? the matter, ifis, amfi%fi@fi;#él_quefi£i$n af law fin arisa fmr cnnsifl§fié§ifine ifif the sacand agpeal, wnich meE%§~a$@i3fi§on;v %@fig§; the appeal is diamiaaadfl dfilafinjxa fiféfarring the appeal. Tha£&Wi5 "
K .
. an max;ts, the $21" appllcatfian Ma net auxviva far " Eifiwg'