Karnataka High Court
K J Srinivasan vs B Rangappa on 26 September, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.8525 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
K.J. SRINIVASAN,
S/O K.M. JAVARAIAH,
AGED 69 YEARS,
PRESIDENT OF SHREE GANAPATHI TEMPLE AND
KALYANA MANTAPA TRUST (R),
BHADRAVATHI
R/O S.J. ROAD,
JANNAPURA BHADRAVATHI,
PIN-577301.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VARADARAJ R. HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. B. RANGAPPA,
S/O LATE BETTE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
TRUSTEE,
SHREE GANAPATHI TEMPLE AND
KALYANA MANTAPA TRUST (R),
R/O RAJAPPA LAYOUT,
JANNAPURA,
BHADRAVATHI-577301.
2. M. VENKATESH,
S/O MOODALAGIRI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
TRUSTEE OF SHREE GANAPATHI TEMPLE
AND KALYANA MANTAPA TRUST (R),
BHADRAVATHI
2
NEAR JAYASHREE KALYANA MANTAPA,
R/O JANNAPURA,
BHADRAVATHI-577301.
3. M.V. MANJUNATH,
S/O LATE VENKATASUBBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
TRUSTEE OF SHREE GANAPATHI TEMPLE
AND KALYANA MANTAPA TRUST (R),
R/O K.C. ROAD, JANNAPURA,
BHADRAVATHI-577301.
4. M. NAGARAJ,
S/O LATE YALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
JOINT SECRETARY OF
SHREE GANAPATHI TEMPLE
AND KALYANA MANTAPA TRUST (R),
R/O K.C. ROAD, JANNAPURA,
BHADRAVATHI-577301.
5. B.M. SATYANARAYANA,
S/O LATE B.J. MARIAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
TRUSTEE OF SHREE GANAPATHI TEMPLE
AND KALYANA MANTAPA TRUST (R),
R/O BESIDE MURARI PROVISION STORES,
JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI-577301.
6. A.N. KARTHIK,
S/O LATE A.B. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
TRUSTEE, SHREE GANAPATHI TEMPLE AND
KALYANA MANTAPA TRUST (R),
R/O GANESHA COLONY,
JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI-577301.
7. D. KENCHAPPA,
S/O LATE DODDARANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
VICE PRESIDENT OF SHREE GANAPATHI TEMPLE
AND KALYANA MANTAPA TRUST (R),
R/O 2ND CROSS, VIDYANAGARA,,
3
HOSADURGA-577527.
8. M. KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O YALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
TREASURER OF SHREE GANAPATHI TEMPLE
AND KALYANA MANTAPA TRUST (R),
R/O RAJAPPA LAYOUT,
JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI-577301.
9. M. CHANDRAKANTHA SENTHIL,
S/O LATE M.D. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
TRUSTEE, SHREE GANAPATHI TEMPLE AND
KALYANA MANTAPA TRUST (R),
R/O NTB OFFICE ROAD,
JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI-577301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.1 TO 6;
VIDE ORDER DATED 18.07.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT NOS.7 TO 9 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS OF THE APPEAL COURT INCLUDING ORDER DATED
31.03.2022 OF THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI PASSED IN M.A.
NO.03/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AND THAT OF THE ORDER DATED
15.02.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF 4TH ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.
NO.12/2022 (ANNEXURE-B) FOR VERIFYING THE FACTUAL
CORRECTNESS AND LEGALITY OF THE SAME AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The plaintiff in O.S.No.12/2022 pending consideration before the file of the IV Addl. Civil Judge and 4 JMFC, Bhadravathi, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 15.02.2022 passed therein, by which, the Trial Court rejected an application filed by him for interim injunction. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi in M.A.No.3/2022, by which, the order refusing interim injunction was confirmed.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court in O.S.No.12/2022.
3. The suit in O.S.No.12/2022 was filed for a declaration that the resolution passed by the defendants at the meeting held on 11.08.2021 divesting the plaintiff from his office as the President of 'Shree Ganapathi Temple and Kalyana Mantapa Trust' is void ab initio and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 from functioning as the Office Bearers of 'Shree Ganapathi Temple and Kalyana Mantapa Trust' until the expiry of the term of office of the plaintiff i.e., till 05.11.2022 and also for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to continue to 5 function as a President of 'Shree Ganapathi Temple and Kalyana Mantapa Trust' and for a direction to the defendants to hold a lawful election for the Office Bearers after the completion of the term of the existing committee i.e., on 05.11.2022.
4. The plaintiff claims that he was one of the trustees of the 'Shree Ganapathi Temple and Kalyana Mantapa Trust', Bhadravathi and was later elected as a President of the Managing Committee of the Trust on 10.08.2016. His term came to end on 10.08.2019. The Committee of the Management extended the term for a period of 3 years from 06.11.2019 to 05.11.2022. He alleged that the defendants were persistently calling upon the plaintiff to hold a meeting of the Trust and addressed letters dated 09.07.2012 and 12.07.2021. The plaintiff who was responsible for convening the meeting, replied to the said letters calling upon the defendants to indicate the agenda for holding a meeting. He stated that since there was no agenda, he did not convene any meeting as requested by the defendants. Thereafter, the defendants 6 sent a notice dated 31.07.2021 to call a special meeting within seven days, failing which the remaining trustees would hold a meeting under the chairmanship of the Hon'ble President. Consequent to such notice, a meeting was held and the defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 were elected as the President, Vice-President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer of the committee of the Management and the Trust.
5. Being aggrieved by his removal and the conduct of an election, the petitioner filed a suit for the reliefs mentioned above primarily contending that his term as the President of the Board of Trustees came to an end on 05.11.2022 and therefore, he could not have been removed from the post of President. An application for interim injunction was also filed by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from interfering with his performance of duties as a President of the Trust.
6. The defendant contested the suit and claimed that as per the trust deed, the plaintiff was entitled to become a President of Board of Trust for a period of three 7 years and not beyond. They claimed that notwithstanding such a stipulation in the Trust Deed, the plaintiff continued as a President of Trust and therefore, the existing members felt that the continuation of the plaintiff as the President of the Trust militated against the purpose of the Trust and hence persistently called upon the plaintiff to conduct a meeting, which did not evoke any positive response and therefore, they issued final notice dated 31.07.2021 calling upon the plaintiff to conduct a meeting to discuss about the discontinuation of the services of the plaintiff as a President of the Board of Trust. However, the plaintiff did not heed to the request of the defendants which compelled them to hold a meeting of Trustees to elect the committee of Management of the Trust. He further contended that the plaintiff had carried away the resolution book and other books relating to the Trust, which must otherwise be kept in the office of the Trust. They contended that the plaintiff was acting against the interest of the Trust and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to continue as the President of the Trust beyond three years. The Trial Court after considering the 8 contentions urged held that the plaintiff is not entitled for interim injunction since the case involved consideration of substantial facts. An appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the Appellate Court in M.A.No.3/2022 was also rejected. The Appellate Court while disposing off the appeal held that though the plaintiff had made out a prima-facie case but still the balance of convinience and comparative hardship was in favour of the defendants and hence, confirmed the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application for interim injunction.
7. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed by the plaintiff.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the Appellate Court having held that the plaintiff had made out a prima-facie case, ought to have granted an order of injunction and could not have refused it on the ground that the question of inconvenience and comparative hardship was in favour of the defendants. Learned counsel submitted that there was no hardship that would be caused to the defendants in as much as there 9 was no serious allegation of misappropriation of funds of the Trust by the plaintiff. He submitted that the term of the plaintiff will come to an end by 05.11.2022 and therefore, no hardship would be caused to the defendants.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6/defendant Nos.1 to 6 submitted that the plaintiff had taken unilateral decision regarding painting and other civil works undertaken in the 'Shree Ganapathi Temple and Kalyana Mantapa Trust' without taking the other trustees into confidence. He submitted that the plaintiff had stonewalled the efforts of the defendants to convince him to conduct a meeting, which compelled them to issue a notice dated 31.07.2021 calling upon the plaintiff to conduct a meeting, which too was not conducted and therefore, the defendants were perforced to hold a meeting, whereat the Board of Management was elected. He submitted that the plaintiff was conducting the affairs of the Trust as if it was his private property and was taking decisions unilaterally and therefore, reinstalling the 10 plaintiff as the President of the Trust would go against the Trust Deed as well as intention of the Trust.
10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. The Trust Deed provided for the term of office of the Board of Trust, which reads as follows:-
"4. Board of Trustees or the Committee of the Trust:-
(a) The Board of Trustees shall ordinarily consists of not less than five (5) and not more than eleven (11) members. The Trustees may nominate/co-opt to the Board of trustees, is necessary to make the total number 15.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall hold Office only for three years and liable for retirement for the board of trustees of committee of the trust. The trustees whose term of office expires after the period of three years, are eligible to be co-opted as Board of Trustees or the Committee of Trust again by the existing Trustees. The managing Trustees may if he/she so desires, resign his/her Board of Trusteeship even before the expiry of the term of his/her Board of Trusteeship.
11
(c) Subject to the provisions hereinafter
contained, the Trust shall vest in and be
administered by a Board of Trustees consisting of One Chairman/President, One Vice Chairman/Vice President, One General Secretary, One Joint Secretary, One Treasurer and Ten Board of trustees or Committee of Trustees."
12. The Bye-Laws, which are framed by the Trust indicates the term of office of the Board of Trust as follows:-
"4. Terms of Office:
The Term of Office of the Board of Trustees coming under the above rules shall ordinarily be three years from the date of nominated or elected as Board of trustees. Provided however that they may be removed and others may be nominated in his place at any time if found any discrepancy or mismanagement against the object of the Trust by express opinion of all the trustees.
Provided that any such trustees shall, notwithstanding the expiry of the said period of three years unless removed earlier continue to hold the office until the nomination of his/her successor is made."12
13. A reading of the above clauses leaves no doubt that the period of Board of Trustees is three years and they could be co-opted by the existing trustees to ensure that the total number of trustees is '15'. The term of Office of the Board of Trustees is only three years and not beyond. In the case on hand, the plaintiff does not dispute the fact that he was elected as a President of Board of Trustees for the first term of three years, which expired on 06.11.2019. His term again was extended for a period covering 06.11.2019 to 05.11.2022, which in fact, was against the intention of the Trust Deed and therefore, the continuation of the office of the plaintiff as the President of the Trust was against the Trust Deed per se.
14. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the power of expulsion of an elected office bearer of an association in the absence of an enabling provision in the deed constituting such association, held that the authority to exercise power of amotion is explicit and implicit and therefore, even if the document constituting such association does not provide for removal 13 of such President, the trustees are bound to be invested with such powers to remove such person, who is holding the post against the tenets of the Trust Deed. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have considered these facts and have rightly come to the conclusion that granting an order of interim injunction would amount to reinstalling the plaintiff into the post of President, which was against the Trust Deed as well as Bye-Laws of the Trust. Even otherwise, the question, whether the plaintiff was entitled to continue to officiate as the President of the Trust and whether there was any allegation made against him, which necessitated the trustees to remove him from the post of President and whether such allegations were justified, are all questions of fact that need to be considered at the trial. Since the Courts have prima-facie rendered a finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to interim order of injunction, this Court does not consider it appropriate to disturb the same in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
14
Hence, this writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR