Bangalore District Court
Meenakshi vs Saravana S on 29 August, 2025
KABC010211822020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-38), BANGALORE CITY.
:PRESENT:
Smt. Nirmala Devi. S. B.Sc., LL.B.,
LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
C/c. XXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
DATED This the 29th day of August 2025
O.S. NO. 5975/2020
PLAINTIFF/S SMT. MEENAKSHI
D/O. A. SUBRAMANYA SWAMY,
W/O. VISHWANATH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 29, CHUNCHAGATTA
KONANAKUNTE CROSS,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-62
(Pls By Sri. MKM, Advocate)
Versus
DEFENDANT/S 1. SRI. SARAVANA S
S/O. A. SUBRAMANYA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
2: SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S
S/O. A. SUBRAMANYA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
O.S.No. 5975/2020
2
3:SUBRAMANYA SWAMY SEVA
TRUST,
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY
ALL ARE R/AT NO. 306,
36TH MAIN ROAD,
BANASHANKARI III STAGE
BANAGIRINAGAR
OPP TO WATER TANK
BENGALURU-85.
4:SMT. SREEDEVI M
D/O. A. SUBRAMANYA SWAMY,
W/O. C.B. MOHAN,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.20 PIPELINE ROAD
F CROSS, J.C. NAGAR
BENGALURU
5: SMT. SREEVALLI Y
D/O. A. SUBRAMANYA SWAMY,
W/O. YOGESH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 7/5 MUNIVENKATAPPA
LAYOUT, NEAR SHANTHI SAGAR
HOTEL, SUBRAMANYA PURA MAIN
ROAD, BENGALURU-61.
6: SMT. PARVATHI K
D/O. A. SUBRAMANYA SWAMY,
W/O. M. KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT 30 CHUNCHAGATTA
KONANAKUNTE CROSS,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-62
(Df No.1 to 3 By Sri. A.S., Adv)
(Df s No. 4 to 6 By Sri. V.K.C. Adv. )
O.S.No. 5975/2020
3
Date of Institution of the suit 27.11. 2020
Nature of suit Injunction Suit
Date of commencement 27.6.2024
of recording of evidence.
Date on which judgment 29.08.2025
was pronounced.
Total Duration. Years Months Days
04 09 02
LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
C/c. XXXVII ACCJ, BANGALORE
O.S.No. 5975/2020
4
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff for Mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction and to declare the Trust deed dt:1.12.2017 is not binding on the plaintiff.
2. The brief case of the plaintiff are as follows:-
That the plaintiff and defendants are sister and brothers. Their father A. Subramanya swamy constructed temple of Lord Subramanya swamy diety in the land bearing No. 306, 36 main road, Banashankari 3rd stage, Banagirinagar, Bengaluru-85. The said immovable property initially bearing Sy. No. 17 totally measuring 12-05 guntas situated at Katriguppe village, Bengaluru. The said property purchased by the father of the plaintiff and defendants from Sri. Mukkadappa S/o.
Chikkamuniyappa in the year 1980. Thereafter their father executed Gift deeds dt: 27.4.2012 and 9.7.2012 and bequeathed a portion of the said immovable property in favour of their mother Smt. S. Mylee W/o. A. Subramanya swamy.
3. Their father passed away on 31.5.2016. Thereafter their mother Smt. Mylee @ Mylamma affected partition on 20.5.2019 of the property received through Gift deeds.
O.S.No. 5975/2020 5
4. Prior to the demise of their father and prior to the execution of registered Gift deed, he had constructed a temple in the adjacent land named as Subramanya swamy temple in an area measuring 6,364 sq ft bearing No. 306 of Banashankari 3 rd stage, Bengaluru. He was managing the affairs and administration of the temple and also performing poojas to the deity and acting as a Poojari in the said temple.
5. For the purpose of better administration of the temple, their father created a family Trust orally during the Ist week of January 2010. The terms and conditions of the said trust was reduced into writing in order to develop the temple by construction of Annadhana Chatram, Prarthan Mandir etc., to arrange for daily Prasadam/Annadana and to promote education for the poor and deserving students by granting Scholarship. The Board of trust consisting of one President, one secretary and one treasurer and the plaintiff and his family members to be founder Trustees. The owner ship of all the properties of the trust is vested absolutely with the trust only. The trust specifically provides that the office bearers to be selected or chosen from among the trustees. The Trustees to hold the office for life and till voluntary retirement. The treasurer o f the O.S.No. 5975/2020 6 trust has been casted with duty of placing the book of account before the board meeting every year for the approval. The trustees entitled to attend the meetings of the board and to participate in the proceedings with a right of vote. The trust empowers the trustees to function not withstanding of the death, registration, disclaimer of the office of any other trustees. As per the conditions of the trust, the trustees have to manage the funds collect and receive interest income and profits to give accounts for the expenses, The trustees have all the powers specifically conferred to do things for proper conduct of the Trust and trustees vested with powers to maintain or defend all such suits for preservation of Trust property and protection of title etc., In view of the said powers and authority conferred on the plaintiff being a trustee is presenting this suit and protect 20.1.2010 and all the members of the trust have contributed Rs. 10,000/- each as a corpus fund for the trust. Every member of the trust was conferred with equal amount of rights and authority/power over the trust properties.
6. The trust was named as "Sri Subramanya swamy Seva Trust" and the address is No. 306, 36 main road, Banashankari 3rd stage,Banagiri nagar, Opp. Water tank, Bengaluru-85. The O.S.No. 5975/2020 7 said trust formed for creating a nucleus to fund execute, expand and enlarge the activities of religious, philanthropic and cultural tenets of Hindu religion and also develop Sri Subramanya swamy temple constructed in the said land. The plaintiff was actively participating in all the day to day activities of the Trust and the temple till her father was alive. After the demise of her father, the defendants No.1 and 2 tried to avoid and prevent the plaintiff from taking participation in the Trust activities. They acting to the prejudices of the trust and also of the plaintiff.
7. The main object of the Trust being to promote and develop temple to construct and develop Subramanya Bhavan in the premises, to assist temple authorities in maintaining and performing regular poojas, vinayogas and festivals and to assist the trust property from being mutualize or wasted by the defendants No.1 and 2.
8. The defendant No..1 and 2 have not conducted any meetings of the trust after the demise of founder president. They are acting to their whims and fancies and taking decision on their own discretion without consulting any other trustees i.e., plaintiff and defendants No. 4 to 6, who are founder trustees. The plaintiff on gaining knowledge of the misdeeds of O.S.No. 5975/2020 8 the defendants No.1 and 2, demanded for giving accounts and insisted for holding meetings of the trust. But they bluntly denied the demands of the plaintiff. Hence, she has filed this suit for issuing directions too the defendants No.1 and 2 to conduct necessary meetings and for holding necessary election for electing new President to the trust.
9. Subsequently the plaintiff got amended the plaint by way of addition of Para No.9(a), wherein she has averred that the alleged Trust deed dt: 1.12.2017 is concocted, created one and even the same is not acted upon. The said deed is not just and proper. The defendants No.1 and 2 by taking undue advantage of the death of their father on 31.5.2016, have created the said Trust deed and same is not binding on her. She had no knowledge about the said trust deed and only after going through the written statement of the defendants she came to know about the fraud played by them. The defendants No.1 and 2 are spoiling the reputation of their father. Until the death of the father, defendant No.1 had occasionally involved in the temple activities and defendants No.2 never involved in the temple activity till the death of the father and not taken care of day today affairs of the temple. After the death of their father O.S.No. 5975/2020 9 they entered in to the temple activities as well as Trust as a trustees. The trust dt: 20.1.2010 is in existence and it is irrevocable trust.
10. The plaintiff demanded to hold meeting on 1.11.2020 and defendants No.1 and 2 refused. They are mismanaging the affairs of the temple without maintaining proper accounts. Further, a memorial of their father has been erected in the temple premises. Now, the defendants No.1 and 2 intending to demolish and remove the said memorial Lomb and Corbet some other structures at the fade place in order to meet their personal goals and to make wrongful gain. The said memorial is a sacrosanct to the plaintiff as it is constructed in memory of their father, who had foiled his labour for construction of temple. They have also threatened to dispose off the assets of trust for making illegal gains at the cost of the Trust. Hence, the plaintiff has constrained to file this suit for permanent injunction.
11. The defendants No. 1 to 3, 4 to 6 have appeared through separate advocates and defendants No.1 to 3 filed common written statement and defendants No.4 to 6 have filed separate written statements. The written statements of defendants No. 4 O.S.No. 5975/2020 10 to 6 are one and the same, wherein they have admitted the plaint averments.
12. Defendants No.1 to 3 have contended that the suit is not maintainable. They have contended that the daughters and wife of their father A Subramanya swamy were not happy with he idea of their father in construction of the temple. Their mother Smt.Mylee @ Mylamma was greedy of money and property and hence were obstructing A. Subramanya swamy from developing the property. Smt. Mylee @ Mylamma always quarreling with their father and pressurize him. He surrendered to their pressure and by retaining 6,364 sq. ft for temple, the remaining land was gifted to her by executing gift deed dt: 27.4.2012 and 9.7.2012.
13. That the plaintiff behind the back of their father started looting the temple money and with the help of the said money, she has constructed four luxurious house in Bengaluru and one guest house in Pudur Ponnai. The defendants No.1 and 2 are still living in a small sheeted house and hence, it is necessary to declare the assets of the plaintiff as temple property and to direct Income tax department to recover the black money.
O.S.No. 5975/2020 11
14. That the plaintiff and Smt. S. Mylee @ Mylamma had completely neglected to take care of A. Subramanya swamy and not providing food and not taking care of his well being and hence he suffered with mental agony within a short span of time, he become sick. But he managed to construct the temple consisting of Om Shakthi Velayuda Swamy(Balaji) Palani Bala Dhandayudapani, Tirutani Sri Vali Devasena with Subramanya, Tirupara Kundram Subramanya Murthis and a hall utilized for Annadana. At this point of time he was in need of family support and hence he requested all his family members to co-operate and to actively participate in developing the temples, social service by forming Trust, for which defendants No.1 and 2 agreed and accepted to take responsibility. But plaintiff opposed it and resisted to create Trust and never allowed it to happen and in spite of all efforts, the said trust not registered nor able to open bank account, Pan card, to conduct meetings or to carry out any activities which amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the oral trust dt: 20.1.2010 and Indian Trust Act. Due to the same, their father suffered with agony and his health deteriorated and hence suffered heart attack and expired o n 31/5/ 2016 without materializing his dream.
O.S.No. 5975/2020 12
15. Neither the plaintiff nor any family members have contributed Rs. 10,000/- towards corpus fund of the Trust. The plaintiff not demanded to hold meeting on 1.11.2020. None of the activities of the trust was carried out till date in the name of the alleged trust and the plaintiff is solely responsible for it and the said oral trust is not in existence and hence there is no cause of action to file this suit.
16. These defendants in order to fulfill the dream of their late father have formed a Trust by fulfilling all required formalities and started development works of the temple by spending their hard earned money and dedicated their properties received in family partition held on 20.5.2019. They borrowed loan along with the contribution of the devotees and constructed a building for Annadanam, marriage o f poor people. After defendant No.3 came into existence, they obtained Bank account, Pan card in the name of defendant No.3 the administration of the temple and receipt of donations made is transparent. Income toax returns are filed, water and electricity charges paid regularly.
17. These defendants started managing the temple, the plaintiff unable to digest the formation of defendant No.3 Trust O.S.No. 5975/2020 13 along with her husband Mr. Kashi Vishwanatha started troubling, obstructing in the activities of the temple. They spoiled the reputation of their late father and the temple.
18. After the formation of defendant No.3 trust in 2017 they have conducted regular meetings, maintaining proper accounts of the temple and made various development works and have narrated various developmental work and denied the rest of the plaint averments and prayed to dismiss the suit.
19. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor in office;
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the father of the plaintiff as well as defendants created a family trust orally in the first week of January 2010 and subsequently, it was reducing into writing in the first week of January 2010 with the name "Sri Subramanya Swamy Trust"?
2.Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants No.1 and 2 have not conducted any meeting "Sri Subramanya Swamy Trust" and they have not provided the books of accounts of the trust?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged trust deed dated: 01.02.2017 is concocted, created and it is not acted upon?
4.Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants No.1 and 2 and the persons claiming through them are interfering with the in-charge of dutie4s, obligations and exercising the rights and towards O.S.No. 5975/2020 14 vested with the plaintiff in respect of "Sri Subramanya Swamy Trust"?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants No.1 and 2 and the persons claiming through them are attempting to alienate the "Sri Subramanya Swamy Trust" property to third parties. ?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitle of the relief claimed in the suit ?
7. What order or decree?
20. The plaintiff got examined as PW 1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P4. The defendant No.1 got examined as DW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.D1 to D-112.
21. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for plaintiff and defendants have not adduced their arguments and perused the records.
22. My answer to the above Issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Negative,
Issue No.2 : In the Negative,
Issue No.3 : In the Negative,
Issue No.4 : In the Negative,
Issue No.5 : In the Negative,
Issue No.6 : In the Negative,
Issue No. 7 : As per the final order,
for the following:-
O.S.No. 5975/2020
15
REASONS
23. Issues No. 1 to 3: Since these issues are inter-related with each other, to avoid repetition, these issues are discussed together.
24. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property is an immovable property bearing old Sy.No. 17, New Municipal No. 306 measuring 6364 sq. ft together with Subramanya swamy temple situated at 36th main road, Banashankari 3rd stage, Banagiri Nagara, Opp: water tank, Bengaluru. According to the plaintiff her father purchased the said property, which is part and parcel of Sy. No. 17 totally measuring 12 ½ guntas. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the extent of 12 and ½ guntas was purchased by her father from Mukkadappa S/o. Chikka Muniyappa in the year 1980. In this regard the plaintiff has not produced the sale deed. She has pleaded that her father executed two Gift deeds dt: 27.4.2012 and 9.7.2012 and has produced Ex. P-1 and 2, which are the certified copies of the Gift deeds. On perusal of the said documents, there is no recital regarding purchase of the said property by her father from Mukkadappa S/o. Chikka Muniyappa in the year 1980. On the O.S.No. 5975/2020 16 other hand, there is recital that it is a self acquired property through Will dt: 17.12.1981. However there is no dispute between the parties regarding the ownership of said property and execution of 2 gift deeds at Ex. P-1 and P-2 in favour of Smt. S. Mylee @ Mylamma W/o. K. Subramanya Swamy, by the father of the plaintiff and defendants. Defendants No.1 to 3 have contended that since the plaintiff and Smt. S. Mylee @ Mylamma their mother, pressurized their father and forced him to give property in Sy. No. 17, their father executed the said gift deeds. In this regard PW-1 has cross-examined and she has denied the said contention.
25. Therefore, as per the plaint averments and the contents of written statement of defendants No.1 to 6, a portion of the 12 and ½ guntas in Sy. No. 17 i.e., 6364 sq. ft was reserved for temple and it is the subject matter of trust deed dt: 20.1.2010. The defendants No.1 to 3 have admitted that their deceased father had made oral trust deed for the purpose of promotion and development of temple as averred by the plaintiff and it is reduced into writing and it is dt: 20.1.2010. The plaintiff has produced the said document at Ex. P-4. Admittedly it is an unregistered trust deed dt: 20.1.2010 regarding the said O.S.No. 5975/2020 17 document there is no dispute as the defendants No.1 to 3. have admitted it. But they have contended that the said Trust deed is not acted upon and it is not in existence in view of the obstruction caused by the plaintiff for registration of said document as she was not willing to vest the suit schedule property to the said trust.
26. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that after the demise of their father on 30.5.2016, their mother effected partition in respect of the properties received through Gift deed on 20.5.2019. In this regard she has produced the certified copy of the registered partition deed at Ex. P-3. The defendants No.,1 to 3 have admitted the said partition. Therefore there is no dispute between the parties in respect of the said partition.
27. According too the plaintiff her father made the trust by name Sri. Subramanya swamy Seva trust with an objective of preserve and protect the trust property, to develop the said property financially and technically for construction of "Annadana Chatram", Prarthana Mandir etc., for arrangement of daily prasadam and Annadana and promote education to the poor deserving students by granting Scholarship and he constituted the trust consisting of one President, one secretary O.S.No. 5975/2020 18 and one treasurer and the plaintiff and their family members as founder trustees. As defendant No.1 to 3 have admitted the trust deed, there is no dispute in this regard. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property which is the immovable property measuring 6364 sq. ft is vested in the trust by her father. Therefore in view of the contention of defendants it is necessary to examine whether the said unregistered trust deed is in existence or it superseded in view of the trust deed dt:
1.12.2017. According to the defendants the terms and conditions of unregistered trust deed at Ex. P-4 is not acted upon and not in existence. In the cross-examination of PW-1, she has deposed that during the life time of her father, till his death, he used to manage the temple and its activities. She has also admitted that during the life time of her father no meeting was convened. She has also admitted that no bank account was opened based on the said un-registered trust deed in the name of defendant No.3 trust. So, for more than 6 years after Ex. P-4 Trust deed came into existence, the same is not registered and acted upon it.
28. As per Sec. 5 of Indian Trust Act, a Trust deed pertaining to immovable property, it should be registered and O.S.No. 5975/2020 19 the registration is mandatory. Therefore based on unregistered Trust deed, the plaintiff is claiming the suit schedule property as vested in the defendant No.3 trust and that defendants No.1 to 6 are bound to convene meetings and also give accounts to her. Admittedly the plaintiffs father passed away on 30.5.2016. The trust deed is dt: 20.1.2010. Therefore, as per the evidence of PW-1 till the demise of her father, the terms and conditions of the trust deed is not acted upon. Even thereafter, till filing of this case, the plaintiff not claimed her right though the said document. The said original unregistered Trust deed is produced from the custody of the plaintiff. However, she has pleaded and also admitted that defendants No.1 and 2 are managing the suit schedule property, wherein there is a Temple.
29. According to the defendants No.1 to 3, as the plaintiff and her husband looted money of the temple and have constructed 4 luxurious houses and a guest house and acted detrimental to the interest of defendant No.3 trust, they got registered the trust deed on 1.12.2017 with an object to implement the objectives of their deceased father for the improvement of defendant No.3 trust. They have also contended that after the demise of their father, they have implemented the O.S.No. 5975/2020 20 objectives of the trust as enumerated in Ex. P-4 unregistered trust deed. They have pleaded in detail regarding the developments made by them. In this regard the plaintiff is cross-examined and she has admitted that defendants No.1 to 3 have opened a bank account in the name of defendant No.3 trust, they have secured PAN Card and they have constructed a building for Annadanam and they have also installed various deities and Uthasava Murthy and they are doing pooja and other activities regularly. She has also admitted that defendants No.1 to 3 have installed CCTV in the premises and they have made queue arrangement and also arranged Annadana in the temple. Therefore for the purpose of opening Bank account and taking Pan card and also for submitting Income tax returns, the registration of the Trust is mandatory. Therefore, it is evident that based on the registered Trust deed dt: 1.12.2017 the defendants No.1 to 3 have carried out and implemented the objectives of the unregistered trust created by their deceased father.
30. In this case plaintiff has claimed that the Trust deed dt:
1.12.2017 is a created and concocted document and not binding on her. In this regard the defendants got examined defendant O.S.No. 5975/2020 21 No.1 as DW-1 and produced Ex. D-1 and D-12. The registered trust deed is also produced at Ex. D-1 wherein the defendant No.1 is the President, defendant No.2 is treasurer, defendant No.5 is a secretary and the wife of defendant No.2 is a Dy.
Treasurer and there is no trustees to the said trust deed. But it is duly registered trust. Dw-1 has not offered for cross- examination and therefore his evidence is not subjected to corroboration. In any case as Ex. D-1 is a registered Trust deed, same is superseded the unregistered trust deed dt: 20.1.2010 and hence the unregistered trust deed is not in existence and it is not acted upon.
31. Therefore in view of the oral evidence placed on record as the plaintiff herself has admitted that the unregistered trust deed is not acted upon, the question of furnishing books of account and also convening meetings by defendants No. 1 and 2 will not arise.
32. In order to prove that defendants No.1 to 3 have convened the meetings of the trust, they have furnished the resolution book at Ex. D-112. It is marked subject to objection as the proceedings is hand written. As Dw-1 has not offered for cross-examination, the said document is not subjected to O.S.No. 5975/2020 22 corroboration. Therefore the defendants have failed to prove the said document. In view of registered trust deed dt: 1.12.2017 as the plaintiff is not a trustee, she has no authority to demand the defendants No.1 and 2 to convene annual meetings of the trust and to conduct Election.
33. The plaintiff has pleaded that defendants obstructing her from participating in the activities of defendant No.3 trust. But in the cross-examination she has deposed that till the death of her father, he was managing the affairs of the temple. She has also deposed that she never participated in the temple activities and affairs. Further she has stated that after filing of the suit from past 4 years she has not visited the temple except on one occasion. Therefore, from the oral evidence of PW-1, it is evident that she never participated in the activities of the temple and not promoted for the development of temple and to implement the terms and conditions of the unregistered trust deed. Therefore the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendants No.1 and 2 have concocted and created the trust deed dt:
1.12.2017 and it is not binding on her. Hence, I answer Issues No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
O.S.No. 5975/2020 23
34. Issues No. 4 to 6:- According to the plaintiff, the defendants No.1 and 2 are not allowing her to participate in the activities of the temple and not convening the meetings and not conducting election and they are not giving accounts. But in view of the findings given to Issues No.1 to 3, she failed to prove the existence of unregistered trust deed dt:20.1.2010. Therefore the defendants No.1 and 2 are not bound by the terms and conditions of the said Trust deed. Therefore, she cannot demand them to give books of accounts and to convene the meetings and also to conduct election.
35. Further the plaintiff has averred that defendants No.1 and 2 are trying to demolish the memorial established in the memory of their father and also threatened to disposed off all the estate of trust. In this regard PW-1 has in cross-examination, she has stated that her mother informed that defendants No.1 and 2 were going to install " Panchamukthi" Shiva lingam on the Samadhi of their father. In the cross-examination she has stated that defendants No.1 and 2 are residing in a sheet roofed house situated within the premises of temple,which is allotted to her share and they have made extensive development. Further she has stated that she has not pleaded that defendants No.1 O.S.No. 5975/2020 24 and 2 are trying to alienate the property. Therefore the plaint averments is not supported by the evidence of Pw-1. Even as per her evidence, she visited the temple situated in the suit schedule property 4 years prior to the suit and after filing the suit once she visited the suit schedule property. So, this would falsify the petition averment that the defendants No.1 and 2 not allowed her to participate in the activities of Temple. Therefore as rightly contended by defendants No.1 and 2, there is no cause of action for the suit and cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff is not proved.
36. Further the plaintiff has pleaded that defendants No.1 and 2 are misusing and misrepresenting the affairs of the trust property and planning to remove the monument of their father has failed to prove the said averments, in view of the admission given by her regarding the extensive developments made by defendants No.1 and 2 and the activities carried on by them. Therefore the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendants No.1 and 2 interfered and obstructed her from participating in the activities of defendant No.3 trust as a trustee and also they mismanaged the affairs of trust property and they are trying to demolish the Samadhi of their father. Therefore in view of the O.S.No. 5975/2020 25 above discussions, the plaintiff is not entitled for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to convene meetings and to produce books of accounts of the Trust and also permit the plaintiff to discharge her duties and obligations. Accordingly she is not entitled for the relief of declaration that the trust deed dt:
1.12.2017 is not binding on her. As she failed to prove the alleged interference and obstruction caused by defendants No.1 and 2 she is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. Hence, I answer Issues No. 4 to 6 in the Negative.
37. Issue No.7 : - In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer grade-I, computerized by her, and corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, this the 29th Day of August 2025) ( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS O.S.No. 5975/2020 26 JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
Schedule Property All that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing Old. Sy.No. 17, new Municipal No. 306, measuring 6364 sq. ft together with Sri. Subramanya Swamy temple, situated at 36 th main road, Banashankari 3rd stage, Banagirinagar, Opp: water tank, Bengaluru-85.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
PW-1 - Meenakshi Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P-1 Certified copy of the registered gift deed dated 27.04.2012.
Ex.P-2 Certified copy of the registered gift deed dated 09.07.2012.
Ex.P-3 Certified copy of the registered partition deed dated 20.05.2019.
Ex. P-4 Original Trust deed dt: 20.1.2010 I have produced unregistered trust deed dated 12.01.2010. I request to mark the same. (Defendant counsel raised objections contending that the document is insufficiently stamped and it is unregistered. In view of the objections raised by the defendants, further chief examination is deferred to hear regarding admissibility of the document). List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW-1 - S. Saravanan
O.S.No. 5975/2020
27
Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
Ex.D-1 Original registered trust deed of Shree Subramanya Swamy Seva Trust.
Ex.D-2 Notarized copy of the Pan Card of Shree Subramanya Swamy Seva Trust.
Ex.D-3 to Pawn Tickets of Sonal Jewellers and Bankers. Ex.D-6 Ex.D-7 Auditors report with balance sheet of Shree Subramanya Swamy Seva Trust for the financial year 2017-2018. Ex.D-8 Auditors report with Form No.16 and balance sheet of Shree Subramanya Swamy Seva Trust for the financial year 2018- 2019.
Ex.D-9 Auditors report with Form No.16 and balance sheet of Shree Subramanya Swamy Seva Trust for the financial year 2020- 2021.
Ex.D-10 Auditors report with Form No.16 and balance sheet of Shree Subramanya Swamy Seva Trust for the financial year 2022- 2023.
Ex.D-11 Twelve Devotees feed back survey of Shree Subramanya Swamy Seva Trust.
Ex.D-12 & Devotees feed back letters. Ex.D-13 Ex.D-14 & Marriage acknowledgments of bride and bridegroom in Ex.D-15 respect of the marriages taken place in the temple. Ex.D-16 to Various bills related to Subramanya Swamy temple. Ex.D-43 Ex.D-44 Doctorate certificate issued to defendant no.2. Ex.D-45 Bank statement of Shree Subramanya Swamy Seva Trust. Ex.D-46 to 6 photographs of Samadhi of our father. Ex.D-51 Ex.D-52 to 7 photographs of houses of plaintiff and defendant no.1 Ex.D-58 and 2.
Ex.D-60 to 11 photographs of the idols of the temple situated in the O.S.No. 5975/2020 28 Ex.D-70 suit property.
Ex.D-71 to 4 photographs of Annasantharpane in the temple situated Ex.D-74 at suit property.
Ex.D-75 to 3 photographs of the lunch arranged in a marriage taken Ex.D-77 place in the temple.
Ex.D-78 to 4 photographs of drinking water facility arranged in the Ex.D-81 temple.
Ex.D-82 to 4 photographs of Que-Barricades. Ex.D-85 Ex.D-86 to 5 photographs of different festivals taken place in the Ex.D-90 temple.
Ex.D-91 to 13 photographs of the renovation work done in the temple. Ex.D-103 Ex.D-104 3 photographs of painting work done in the temple. to Ex.D-
106 Ex.D-107 CD in respect of Ex.D.46 to Ex.D.106. Ex.D-108 Sec.65(B) certificate in respect of Ex.D.46 to Ex.D.107. Ex.D-109 3 electricity bills.
to Ex.D-
111 Ex.D-112 Minutes of Meetings of Sree Subramanya Swamy Seva Trust with writing in 22 to 34 pages (marked subject to objections of counsel for plaintiff that it is a hand written document).
Ex. D-59 not marked.
( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
O.S.No. 5975/2020 29 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate Judgment ) ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
O.S.No. 5975/2020 30