Bangalore District Court
Veerajaneyaswamy Temple Seva Trust vs Jayappa Reddy on 25 April, 2025
KABC010103842013
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE : AT BANGALORE [CCH-42]
:PRESENT:
SMT. SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), LL.M.
XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Dated this the 25th day of April 2025
O.S. NO.5740/2013
PLAINTIFF : Sree Verranjaneyaswamy
Temple Seva Trust,
Represented by its president,
Sri. C. Munireddy,
Aged about 77 years,
S/o Late Chinnappa,
R/at Next to Government Hospital
Arekere, Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore 560-076.
(By Sri KRISHNA V., Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANT: 1. Sri. Jayappa Reddy,
Aged about 54 years,
O.S No.5740/2013
2
S/o Late Gundappa.
2. Sri. G. Munireddy,
Since dead by his legal heirs,
2(a). Sri. Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 44 years,
H/o Late M. Yashoda,
2(b). Smt. M. Manjula,
D/o Late Muni Reddy,
Aged about 43 years,
2(c). Smt. Sunitha,
D/o Late Muni Reddy,
Aged about 43 years,
2(d). Kum. M. Sudha,
D/o Late Manu Reddy,
Aged about 37 years,
3. Sri. C. Ramaswamy,
Since dead by his L.Rs,
3(a). Smt. Nanjamma,
Aged about 78 years,
W/o Late C. Ramaswamy,
3(b). Sri. Y. Yashodhara Murthy,
Aged about 60 years,
S/o Late. C Ramaswamy,
O.S No.5740/2013
3
3(c). Sri. R. Ravi Kumar,
Aged about 57 years,
S/o Late C Ramaswamy,
3(a) to 3(c) are R/at No.6,
18th Cross, 13th Main Road,
Malleshwaram West,
Bengaluru 560 055.
4. Sri. G. Narayana Reddy,
Since dead by his L.Rs.
4(a). Smt. Kanthamma,
Aged about 65 years,
W/o Late G. Narayana Reddy,
4(b). Sri. Manjunath Reddy,
Aged about 34 years,
S/o Late G. Narayana Reddy.
4(a) to 4(b) are residing at
No.159/2, Mahadevapura,
Begnaluru 560 047.
(D1 - exparte
D2(a), (c) & (d) - exparte
D2(b) - B.S.M., Advocate
D3(a), (b) & (c) by Sri S.J., Advocate,
D4(a) and (b) by Sri Lokesh Malavalli,
advocate)
O.S No.5740/2013
4
Date of Institution of the Suit: 06.08.2013
Nature of the suit
(Suit on Pronote, suit for Declaration
declaration & possession, suit &
for injunction) Injunction
Date of commencement of 24.11.2015
recording of evidence:
Date on which the Judgment was 25.04.2025
pronounced:
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
11 08 19
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for the following reliefs:
1. To declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ;
2. For the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or any other person O.S No.5740/2013 5 claiming through them from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ; and
3. To grant such other reliefs as the Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.
SCHEDULE All the peace and parcel of the vacant land bearing Khaneshumari No.36, measuring in an extent East to West on the Northern side 128 of feet on southern side 100 feet, North to South 100 feet, situated at Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and Bounder on:-
East by : Property of Thigalara Muniyappa and Gundappa.
West by : Property of Chikkaraja.
North by : Property of Chikkaraja and
Channa Channa Basavaraja.
South by : Property of Gowda of Audigodi.
O.S No.5740/2013
6
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are :
2.1 The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, which was acquired by the plaintiff under the Grant No.B3VS24/1959-60 dated 08.01.1961 by the Assistant Commissioner, and S.D.O's Bengaluru Sub-Divison, Bengaluru. The plaintiff has paid Rs.3,433-61 towards Kimmath charges to the Government and the Grant Certificate dated 24.04.1961 has been issued by the Tahasildar. The Saguvali Chit Register extract is for the year 1961-62. Khatha stands in the name of the plaintiff.
2.2 It is further submitted by the plaintiff that at the time of grant of suit schedule property to the plaintiff in the year 1957-60, the plaintiff temple was called as Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple of Arakere Village and the said name continued till the constitution of the trust in 2003. At the time of registration of Trust, the name of the Temple is mentioned O.S No.5740/2013 7 as Sri Veeranjaneyaswamy Temple and therefore, Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple and Sri Veeranjaneyaswamy Temple are one and the same.
2.3 The plaintiff further submits that right from the date of grant the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interference by the third parties. The defendants are strangers, they are not members of the trust nor they have got any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property.
2.4 The ancestral property of the defendants is attached to the eastern side of the suit schedule property and taking advantage of the fact that the suit schedule property is a vacant land, the defendants on 26.07.2013 came near the schedule property with men and material to put up foundation by encroaching on the eastern side of the suit O.S No.5740/2013 8 schedule property. The said illegal acts of the defendants were resisted by the plaintiff trust members.
2.5 It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the schedule property is the temple property and the defendants ancestral property which is abutting on the eastern side of the suit schedule property in the absence of trust members, the defendants may continue their illegal acts in order to grab the Temple property. In this regard the plaintiff has filed the above suit.
2.6 The cause of action for the suit arose on 26.07.2013 when the defendants interfered with the possession of the plaintiff property.
3. After service of suit summons, the defendant No.1 remained exparte. The defendant No.2 and 3 have filed their written-statements. The defendant No.4 has filed a Memo O.S No.5740/2013 9 adopting the written-statement of defendant No.3.The learned counsel for the defendant No.3 has filed a Memo stating that the defendant No.2 died on 07.03.2017 and the LRs. of defendant No.2 i.e. D2(a) to D2(d) came on record as per dated 29.08.2017.The defendant Nos.2(a), 2(c) and 2(d) remained absent and hence, they are placed exparte. The defendant No.2(d) appeared through counsel Sri B.S.M. but has not filed the written-statement.On 04.09.2018, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.2 had filed a Memo stating that the defendant No.3 died on 15.08.2018 and thereafter, the LRs of defendant No.3 came on record.
Initially the defendant No.3 was placed exparte and thereafter, the defendant No.3 has filed written-statement. The LRs. of defendant No.3 have appeared through their counsel by Sri S.J. and by filing a Memo, they have adopted the written-statement of defendant No.3.
O.S No.5740/2013 10 The defendant No.2 after appearance has filed his written-statement with the following contentions:
He has denied the plaint averments and further contended that the defendants No.1 and 3 are the brothers of defendant No.2.
The defendant No.3 had filed a suit in O.S.No. 230/1963 before the II Munsiff, Bengaluru, seeking the relief of permanent injunction against one Hanumappa and others. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to decree the suit in favour of the defendant No.3 in respect of the same suit schedule property.
It is further contended that on 14.08.1992, the defendants No.2 and 3 have partitioned the said property and have obtained 100 x 50 feet each out of the said property and therefore, they are the absolute owners of the same, under the registered partition deed dated 14.08.1992.
O.S No.5740/2013 11 It is further contended that one Srinivas and six others had filed a suit in O.S.No. 1701/2000 before the 24 th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants No.2 and 3 and the said suit was withdrawn on 21.06.2007 and thus, sought to dismiss the suit with costs.
The defendant No.3 has also filed separate written- statement denying the plaint averments and has contended that the defendant No.3 is the absolute owner of the schedule property and he has got constructed a residential house and as such, he is in actual possession of the suit schedule property.
The defendant No.3 has further contended that in 1963 as there was a threat of dispossession from one Hanumanthappa and others, he had filed a civil suit in O.S.No. 230/1963 was filed before II Munsiff, Bengaluru and O.S No.5740/2013 12 had sought the relief of permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed on 22.11.1965. Against the said decree the defendants therein had preferred a regular appeal in R.A.NO.24/1966, but the appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment in O.S.No. 230/1963. Later on one Venkataswamy Reddy i.e., the plaintiff herein had filed O.S.No. 5903/2000 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from transferring the katha in respect of the plaint schedule property. When the said suit was posted for evidence, the plaintiff did not prosecute the case and hence, it was dismissed for default. The 3 rd defendant has specifically contended that under the registered partition deed dated 14.08.1992, the defendant no.3 has become the owner in actual possession of the schedule property. A suit bearing O.S.No. 1701/2000 was filed by one Srinivas and the present plaintiff challenging the O.S No.5740/2013 13 partition deed entered between the defendants no.1 and 2 as not binding on the plaintiffs as well as public in general and further to declare the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff. The said suit came to be dismissed for default. In so far as the the claim of the plaintiff the defendant no.3 has taken up the following contentions:
The plaintiff has not produced the Grant Order dated 08.01.1961 in the earlier round of litigation and all of a sudden he has produced it in the above suit and therefore, the said document is fabricated and created. The document dated 26.04.1961 issued by Tahasildar, pertains to the cultivation rights; the said document in the absence of the original grant order cannot be considered. The certificate dated 26.04.1961 pertains to house cattle grant certificate which has been misused by the plaintiffs herein by manipulating the said document.The defendant no.3 has O.S No.5740/2013 14 contended that katha extract produced by the plaintiff is issued in the year 2009 but it is a created document as the katha in respect of the schedule property stands in the name of the defendant no.3 and his brothers and without seeking cancellation of katha issued in favour of the defendants, the said katha produced by the plaintiff cannot be considered.
It is further contended that the trust has come into existence in the year 2003 in the name of "Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple Trust". But the certificate produced by the plaintiff as document No.1 denotes that the land has been granted in favour of Anjaneyaswamy Devasthana. Hence, it goes to show that the said document is created by the plaintiff trust to misuse the property of the temple. No documents are produced to show that Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple Trust and Anjaneyaswamy Temple are one and the O.S No.5740/2013 15 same and therefore sought to dismiss the suit with the above contentions.
4. On the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that tit is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that it is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that alleged interference by defendants in his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
5. What decree or order?
O.S No.5740/2013 16 ADDITIONAL ISSUE FRAMED ON 30th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015.
Whether the plaintiff proves that Sri.Anjaneya Swamy Temple and Sri.Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple are one and the same ?
5. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the President of plaintiff Temple Seva Trust is examined as PW.1, the Treasurer as PW.2 and one of the Villagers of Arakere Village is examined as PW.3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.20 and closed their side.
5.1 On behalf of defendants, the defendant No.3(b) by name Sri Yashodhara Murthy is examined as DW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to D.19 and closed their side.
6. Heard both sides and perused the records.
7. My findings to the above issues are as under:
O.S No.5740/2013 17 Issue No.1 : In the Negative Issue no. 2 : In the Negative Issue no. 3 : Does not arise for consideration Issue No.4 : In the Negative Addl. Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.5 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 and Addl. Issue No.1 :- In support of the case of the plaintiff, PW.1 - the President of the plaintiff Trust has adduced his evidence by reiterating the plaint averments and during his examination-in-chief he has got marked ten documents. Subsequently, PW.1 has not tendered himself for cross-examination.
9. When the matter was posted for further cross- examination of PW.1, after marking of 10 documents from O.S No.5740/2013 18 Ex.P.1 to P.10, the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed a memo stating that PW.1 is unable to appear before the court due to old-age ailments of PW1 Therefore, PW.2 - one Lakshminarayana got examined himself as PW.2 by adopting Ex.P.1to P.10 and also got marked Ex.P.11 to P.16. PW2 has reiterated the plaint averments in his affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief.
10. PW.3 is one of the Villagers and he has adduced his evidence by stating that he knows plaintiff temple since childhood. PW.3 has categorically stated in his examination- in-chief that suit property belongs to plaintiff temple and the suit property was granted to the plaintiff temple by Government in the year 1961. He has deposed that earlier the plaintiff temple was called as Anjaneyaswamy Temple and when the plaintiff temple came under the control of Trust, O.S No.5740/2013 19 the name of the trust became Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple Seva Trust.
11. It is further averred in the affidavit that the suit property is the property of the plaintiff temple. After coming into the existence of the Temple Seva Trust, the suit property has come under the control of Working Committee Members of the Trust. He has further pleaded that the defendants are having their ancestral property on the eastern side of the suit property and taking advantage of the same, they have attempted to encroach upon the suit property by denying the right of the Temple property and therefore, for these reasons, the trust members through their President have filed the above suit. PW.3 has further deposed that the plaintiff temple is in possession of the property from the date of grant and therefore, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property.
O.S No.5740/2013 20 He has deposed that the defendants are not the members of the trust and they do not have any right over the suit schedule property.
12. A careful scrutiny of the materials on record reveals it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit property was acquired by the plaintiff under the Grant Order dated 08.01.1961 passed by the Asst. Commissioner. On 26.04.1961, the plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.3433.61 towards Kimmath charges to the Government Taluk Treasury and pursuant to the same the plaintiff was issued with the grant certificate under Ex.P1. According to the plaintiff, at the time of grant of the suit property in the name of the plaintiff in the year 1959-60, the plaintiff temple was called as "Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple" and after the registration of the Trust, the name of the temple is "Veeranjaneya Swamy O.S No.5740/2013 21 Temple". The name Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple and Anjaneyaswamy Temple are one and the same.
13. A plain reading of Ex.P.1, discloses that the Government had granted the suit property in favour of Anjaneyaswamy Temple. Ex.P.2 is a sketch prepared by the Tahasildar, Bengaluru South, denoting the existence, identity and location of the suit schedule property at Arakere Village. Ex.P.3 and 4 are the Saguvali Chits register extracts for the year 1961-62 and house rent assessment list for the year 1990-91 depicting the name of Anjaneyaswamy Temple. Ex.P.5 is the tax paid receipt in the name of Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple ; Ex.P.6 is the katha certificate issued in the name of Anjaneyaswamy Ex.P.7 is the tax paid receipt issued in the name of Anjaneyaswamy Seva Trust.Ex.8 is the tax paid receipt issued in the name of Aanjanayaswamy.
O.S No.5740/2013 22 Ex.P.9 is the certificate indicating that one Venkataswamy Reddy son of Chinnappa is appointed as President .
14. Ex.P.10 is the certified copy of the Trust Deed dated 08.01.2003 executed by one A.S. Srinivas son of Seethappa. In the said Trust Deed, the Trust by name Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple Seva Trust was created by the author of the trust by contributing Rs.5,000/- towards the trust , which is recorded to be the initial property of the Trust. The Trust Deed provides for the founder trustees of Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple Trust and the objectives of the said Trust.
15. A cumulative assessment of the evidence on record discloses that the plaintiff namely Sree Veeranajaneyaswamy Temple Seva trust has filed the above O.S No.5740/2013 23 suit claiming title over the suit property. In the first place it has to be examined whether there is a valid institution of suit by the President as a representative of the trust. In this context it is beneficial to refer to the provisions of Order 31 CPC which reads as under:
1. Representation of beneficiaries in suits concerning property vested in trustees etc.--In all suits concerning property vested in a trustee, executor or administrator, where the contention is between the persons beneficially interested in such property and a third person, the trustee, executor or Administrator,shall represent the persons so interested, and it shall not ordinarily be necessary to make them parties to the suit. But the Court may, if it thinks fit, order them or any of them to be made parties.
2. Joinder of trustees, executors and administrators.--
Where there are several trustees, executors or administrators, they shall all be made parties to a suit against one or more of them.
16. In the light of the above provisions, it is apparent that the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure mandate that where there are several trustees they shall all be made O.S No.5740/2013 24 parties to a suit . In this context it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882.
The provisions contained in Section 46 to 48 of the said Act read as under:
Section 46: Trustee can not renounce after acceptance . -- A trustee who has accepted the trust cannot after wards renounce it except ( a) with the permission of a principal Civil Court of origin al jurisdiction, or ( b) if the beneficiary is competent to contract, with his con sent , or (c) by virtue of a special power in the instrument of trust. Section 47. Trustee cannot delegate.--A trustee cannot delegate his office or any of his duties either to a co -trustee or to a stranger, unless (a) the instrument of trust so provides, or (b) the delegation is in the regular course of business, or (c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation. Explanation.--The appointment of an attorney or proxy to do an act merely ministerial and involving no independent discretion is not a delegation within the meaning of this section.
Section 48. Co-trustees cannot act singly. --When there are more trustees than one, all must join in the execution of the trust, except where the instrument of trust otherwise provides.
O.S No.5740/2013 25
17. A conjoint reading of the provisions order 31 CPC and Section 46 to 48 of the Indian Trust Act clearly indicate that though the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure mandate that all the trustees should be arrayed as parties to the trust to execute the act of the trust, quite contrary to the said requirement the Indian Trust Act provides that when there are more trustees than one, all must join in the execution of the trust, except where the instrument of trust otherwise provides. Therefore, the requirement of impleading all the trustees of the Trust need not be insisted upon when the instrument provides otherwise. In the above case the clause 6(Ya) of the Trust Deed produced at Ex.P10 clearly provides for authorizing a person to represent the trust in legal proceedings . Therefore applying the principles of generalia specialibus non derogant" (the general does not derogate from the special), the provisions of the Trust Act O.S No.5740/2013 26 providing for authorization a person to represent the body of trustees prevail the provisions of the code of civil procedure thereby it can be held that the plaintiff trust has authorized the president to institute the suit and the suit of the plaintiff is duly instituted by the representative of the plaintiff trust.
18. Now adverting to issue no.1, it is necessary to examine whether the plaintiff trust has proved its ownership over the suit property. In order to adjudicate the said issue it is necessary to advert to recitals of the trust refereed in the Trust deed produced at Ex.P10. The relevant portions of the Trust deed are extracted herein below.
(ಇ) ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಕಲ್ಪಃ-
(ಈ) ನ್ಯಾ ಸದ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಕಲ್ಪಗಳೆಂದರೆಃ- (ಯ) ಪ್ರಾ ಚೀನ ಭಾರತದ ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿ ಮತ್ತು ತತ್ವಜ್ಞಾ ನದ ಅಭ್ಯಾ ಸವನ್ನು (ಅಧ್ಯಯನವನ್ನು ) ವೃದ್ದಿಸುವುದು ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರೋತ್ಸಾ ಹಿಸುವುದು.
O.S No.5740/2013 27 (ರ) ಶ್ರೀ ವಿರಾಂಜನೇಯ ಸ್ವಾ ಮಿ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾ ನದ ಮತ್ತು ಬೇರೆ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ನಗರ ಒಳ ಮತ್ತು ಸುತ್ತ ಮುತ್ತಲಿನ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾ ನಗಳ ರಚನೆ ಸುಧಾರಣೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸುಧಾರಣೆಗಾಗಿ ಸಹಾಯ ಮಾಡಲು ಮತ್ತು ದೇವಸ್ಥಾ ನಃ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾ ನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ದಿನಗಳಲ್ಲೂ ಮತ್ತು ವಿಶೇಷ ದಿನಗಳಲ್ಲೂ ಪೂಜೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅರ್ಚನೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಡೆಸುವುದು.
(ಲ) ಬಹು ಸಂಖ್ಯಾ ತ ಜನರ ಲಾಭಕ್ಕಾ ಗಿ ಕಲ್ಯಾ ಣ ಮಂಟಪವನ್ನು ಹಾಗೂ ವಿಶೇಷವಾಗಿ ಅರಕೆರೆ ಜನರಿಗಾಗಿ ಕಟ್ಟಿಸುವುದು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಜಾತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಜನಾಂಗದ ಜನರ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ದಿಗಾಗಿ ಶೈಕ್ಷಣಿಕ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಡೆಸುವುದು ಮೇಲೆ ಕಾಣಿಸಿದ ಶೈಕ್ಷಣಿಕ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳ ವಿದ್ಯಾ ರ್ಥಿಗಳ ಲಾಭಕ್ಕಾ ಗಿ ವಸತಿ ನಿಲಯಗಳನ್ನು ನಡೆಸುವುದು.
(ವ) ಧಾರ್ಮಿಕ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿಕ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ಉತ್ತೇಜಿಸುವುದು ಮತ್ತು ವೃದ್ದಿಸುವುದು.
(ಶ) ದೇವಸ್ಥಾ ನಗಳನ್ನ್ಬು ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುವುದು ಸ್ವಾ ಧೀನ ಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳು ವುದು, ರಚಿಸುವುದು ಮತ್ತು ಜೀರ್ಣೋದ್ದಾ ರ ಮಾಡುವುದು.
(ಷ) ಸಾಮಾಜದ ಬಡ ವಿದ್ಯಾ ರ್ಥಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಸಹಾಯವನ್ನು ಒದಗಿಸು ವುದು, ಕಡುಬಡವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಸಹಾಯವನ್ನು ನೀಡುವುದು.
(ಸ) ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳನ್ನು ಪ್ರಕಾಶಿಸುವುದು, ಭಾರತೀಯ ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿ ಮತ್ತು ತತ್ವಜ್ಞಾ ನ ಸಂಬಂಧದ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೋಧಿಸುವುದು ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ವಾ ಧೀನ ಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳು ವುದು, ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುವುದು ಹಾಗುಾ ಗ್ರಂಥಾಲಯಗಳನ್ನು ನಡೆಸುವುದು.
O.S No.5740/2013 28 (ಹ) ಶಾಲೆಗಳು, ಕಾಲೇಜುಗಳು, ಗ್ರಂಥಾಲಯಗಳು, ತರಬೇತಿ ಕೇಂದ್ರಗಳು, ದವಾಖಾನೆಗಳು, ವೈದ್ಯಕೀಯ ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸಾ ಕೇಂದ್ರಗಳು, ವೈದ್ಯಕೀಯ ಶಿಬಿರಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ವೃದ್ದಾ ಶ್ರಮಗಳನ್ನು ಸ್ವಾ ಧೀನಕ್ಕೆಃ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆಗೆ ನಡೆಸುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ರಚಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಅಥವಾ ಸಹಾಯ ಮಾಡುವುದು.
(ಳ) ವೈಧಿಕ ಪಾರಂಪರಿಕ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಯೋಗಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತ ಪಾಠ ಶಾಲೆಗಳು ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಮುಂದುವರೆಸುವುದು ಮತ್ತು ಈ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕಾ ಗಿ ವೃದ್ದಿಸುವುದು.
(ಕ) ಇದೇ ರೀತಿಯ ಧ್ಯೇಯೆಾೕದ್ದೇಶಳ ಬೇರೆ ಧರ್ಮದಾಯ ನ್ಯಾ ಸಗಳನ್ನು ಬೆಂಬಲಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸಹಾಯ ಮಾಡುವುದಕ್ಕೆಃ-
CLAUSE - 4 of Ex.P.10 read as under
4) ಈ ನ್ಯಾ ಸದ ವಿಧಿಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಗಳುಃ-
(ಕ) ಪ್ರವರ್ತಕ ನ್ಯಾ ಸದಾರಿಯು 5000-00 (ಐದು ಸಾವಿರ) ರೂಪಾಯಿಗಳ ಮೊಬಲಗನ್ನು ನಿಶ್ಚಿತಗೊಳಿಸಿದ್ದು ಮತ್ತು ಅದನ್ನೆ ಆ ನ್ಯಾ ಸದ ಪ್ರಥಮ ಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನಾ ಗಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ನ್ಯಾ ಸದಾರಿಗಳ ಮಂಡಳಿಯೂ ಸಹಾ 5000-00 (ಐದು ಸಾವಿರ) ರೂಪಾಯಿಗಳ ಮೊಬಲಗಳನ್ನು ಆ ನ್ಯಾ ಸದ ಪ್ರೀತ್ಯರ್ಥವಾಗಿ ಸಹಾ ಯ ಮಾಡಲು ಆಶ್ವಾ ಶಿಸಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಮತ್ತು ಆಗಾಗ ಸಹಾಯ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದನ್ನೇ ನ್ಯಾ ಸದ ವಿಧಿ ಎಂದು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲಾಗಿದೆ.
O.S No.5740/2013 29 (ಖ) ಈ ನ್ಯಾ ಸವು ಧಾನದ ಯಾವುದೇ ಮೊತ್ತವನ್ನು ಯಾವುದೇ ದಾನಿ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಕಂಪನಿ ಸಂಘ ಮುಂತಾದವರಿಂದ ದೇಣಿಗೆಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯಲಿದ್ದು ಅವುಗಳೇ ಈ ನ್ಯಾ ಸದ ವಿಧಿ ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ವತ್ತಾ ಗುತ್ತದೆ. ವೆುೕಲೆ ಕಾಣಿಸಿದ ಪಡೆಯಲಾದ ಮೊತ್ತಕ್ಕೆ ಸರಿಯಾದ ರಶೀದಿಗಳನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾ ಸದಾರಿಗಳ ಮಂಡಳಿಯು ನೀಡುತ್ತದೆ.
(ಗ) ಈ ನ್ಯಾ ಸದ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ವಿಧಾನದ ದೇಣಿಗೆ ಕೊಡುಗೆ ಉಂಬಳಿಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಇನ್ಯಾ ವುದೇ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಸ್ಥಿರ ಚರಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅವುಗಳೇ ನ್ಯಾ ಸದ ಸ್ವತ್ತಾ ಗಿರುತ್ತವೆ.
19. A careful scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions disclose that there are no recitals indicating that the suit property granted in favour of Anjaneyaswamy Temple under the Grant Certificate at Ex.P.1 was transferred to the Trust. Here it is appropriate to refer to refer Section 5 and 6 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882, Section 5: Trust of immovable property: No trust in relation to immovable property is valid unless declared by a non- testamentary instrument in writing signed by the author of the trust or the trustee and registered, or by the will of the author of the trust or of the trustee.
O.S No.5740/2013 30 Section 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 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
20. Therefore in the light of the above provisions, the plaintiff trust ought to have demonstrated that the suit property which was initially owned by the deity of Anjaneyaswamy Temple has in fact transferred the said property in favour of the trustees under the trust deed. Apart from the trust deed at Ex.P10, the plaintiffs have not produced any material evidence to establish the transfer of the suit property in favour of the trustees. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was owned by the author of the trust and he has transferred the suit property in favour of O.S No.5740/2013 31 the trustees under the trust deed. There are no material pleadings indicating the vesting of the suit property with the plaintiff trust. Meanwhile the recitals of the grant certificate produced at Ex.P1 categorically denote that the suit property was granted in favour of the Ananjanayaswamy temple . It is well settled that a Hindu idol is a juristic entity capable of holding property and of being taxed through its shebaits who are entrusted with the possession and management of its property. In Yogendra Nath Naskar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,1969 AIR 1089, the Supreme court referred to observations made by Lord Shaw in Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick & Ors.[1921] 2 K.B. 403, to ultimately hold that a Hindu deity falls within the meaning of the word 'individual" under section 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 and can be treated as a unit of assessment under that section. The observations of Lord Shaw are as under:
O.S No.5740/2013 32 "A Hindu idol is, according to long established authority, founded upon the religious customs of the Hindus, and the recognition thereof by Courts of law, a 'juristic entity'. It has a juridical status with the power of suing and being sued. Its interests are attended to by the person who has the deity in his charge and who is in law its manager with all the powers which would, in such circumstances, on analogy, be given to the manager of the estate of an infant heir. It is unnecessary to quote the authorities; for this doctrine thus simply stated, is firmly established".
21. In State of Madhya Pradesh and another versus Uttam Avam Kalyan Samithi in Civil Appeal No. 4850 of 2021, the Apex Court has held that the presiding deity of the temple is the owner of the land attached to the temple and Pujari is only to perform puja and to maintain the properties of the deity. Therefore from the above judgments it is evident that the deity can hold property as a juristic person and its interests are attended to by the person who has the deity in his charge and who is in law its manager. What is forthcoming O.S No.5740/2013 33 from Ex.P1 is that the suit property by virtue of the grant certificate at Ex.P1 stood vested with the presiding deity of Aanjanaya temple . The presiding deity of Aanjanaya temple and the plaintiff trust are two different entities. Merely because the Ananjanayswamy temple is called as Veeranjananya swamy temple under the trust deed it cannot be said that the property held by the presiding deity of the Ananjanayswamy temple becomes the property of the trust which is created in the name of Verrananjanyaswamy Devasthnam Seva Trust with the objective of rejuvenating the temple of Veerananjanayaswamy and other temples.. The creation of the trust called " Verrananjanyaswamy Devasthnam Seva Trust under Ex.P10 was created with an objective of rejuvenating the Veeranjanayaswamy temple and other temples situated in and around Bangalore city.
O.S No.5740/2013 34
22. There is nothing in the trust deed to suggest that the property which was vested with the deity stood transferred with the trustees of the plaintiff trust. No iota of evidence is produced to establish that the plaintiff trust is the owner of the suit property. In the absence of any reference to the suit schedule property in the Trust Deed, it cannot be held that the suit property is owned by the plaintiff Trust. There are material pleadings and proof to show that the suit property has been transferred to the trust.
23. It is noticed that Ex.P.3 and 4 are the Saguvali Chits register extracts for the year 1961-62 and house rent assessment list for the year 1990-91 depicting the name of Anjaneyaswamy Temple; Ex.P.5 is the property extract issued in the name of Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple ; Ex.P.6 is the katha certificate issued in the name of Anjaneyaswamy O.S No.5740/2013 35 Temple; Ex.P.7 is the tax paid receipt issued in the name of Anjaneyaswamy Temple Seva Trust ; Ex.P8 is another tax paid receipt issued in the name of Anjaneyaswamy; Ex.P.9 is the certificate indicating that one Venkataswamy Reddy son of Chinnappa is appointed as President ; Ex.P11 to16 are invitation cards published by the plaintiff trust. It is material to note that except Ex.P7 tax paid receipt none of the property extracts disclose the name of the plaintiff trust as they are all issued either in the name of the Aanjanayaswamy temple or Veeranjanayaswamy temple. The tax paid receipt not being a title document, the plaintiff trust cannot claim title on the ground that it has paid taxes towards the suit property on the basis of Ex.P7. No doubt, the plaintiff has produced invitation cards produced at Ex.P.11 to P.16 issued by the Trust for celebration of various ceremonies and Poojas at Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple but the said documents would O.S No.5740/2013 36 not come to the assistance of the plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule property is owned by the Trust. It is also not the case of the plaintiff trust that the above suit has been instituted by the trust on behalf of the beneficiaries to protect the temple property held by the presiding deity. No averments are made out to denote that the suit is filed in a representative capacity to protect the temple property. PW. 2 and 3 have admitted in their cross-examination that the Government had granted the suit property to the temple. PW2 has categorically admitted that there is no reference to the suit property in the trust deed at Ex.P10. PW3 has merely deposed in his examination in chief that after the coming into the existence of the plaintiff trust, the suit property has come under the control of the working committees members of the plaintiff trust and no reference is made to any document of O.S No.5740/2013 37 title to indicate the vesting of the suit property in favour of the trust.
24. The plaint averments indicate that the trust itself is asserting ownership rights over the suit property. In Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar vs Krishna Nandan Singh in Civil Appeal NO. 6760 OF 2019, the Supreme Court referring to Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Society Represented by its Chairman v. Ponniamman Educational Trust Represented by its Chairman/ Managing Trustee (2012) 8 SCC 706 and A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Another. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163 the Apex court has sought to explain that the cause of action means every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to seek a decree and relief against the defendant. Cause of action requires infringement of the O.S No.5740/2013 38 right or breach of an obligation and comprises of all material facts on which the right and claim for breach is founded, that is, some act done by the defendant to infringe and violate the right or breach an obligation and further it was held that there does not exist any legal right which the plaintiff or the first respondent is entitled to invoke and enforce. For a right to exist, there must be a corelative duty which can be enforced in a law suit. From the above principle of law it is apparent that a right cannot exist without an enforceable duty. In the present case, the pleadings fail to establish violation of proprietary rights of the plaintiff trustees which creates an enforceable right in favour of the plaintiff trust in the court of law. The plaint averments clearly disclose that the plaintiff trust has failed to make out a clear right to sue the defendants as no cause of action is made by the plaintiffs to claim the relief of declaration of ownership. Therefore, in the O.S No.5740/2013 39 absence of any materials placed before the court to prove issue no.1.Hence issue no.1 is answered in the Negative.
25. Additional issue no.1: It is the specific case of the plaintiff that at the time of grant of suit schedule property to the plaintiff in the year 1957-60 the plaintiff temple was called as Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple of Arakere Village. The said of the temple name continued till the constitution of the trust for the benefit of the temple. However at the time of registration of trust, the name of the Temple is mentioned as Sri Veeranjaneyaswamy Temple and therefore, Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple and Sri Veeranjaneyaswamy Temple are one and the same. As regards this claim of the plaintiff trust that Anajanaswamy temple and Veerananajanya swamy temple are one and the same it is noted that the defendant no.2 and 3 have denied the claim of the plaintiff to this effect O.S No.5740/2013 40 in their written statement. But there are material pleadings in the written statement to denote that the Anjaneyaswamy Temple and Sri Veeranjaneyaswamy Temple are two different temples .Order 8 rule 2,3, 4 and 5 of CPC provide that the defendant must raise by his pleading all matters which show the suit not be maintainable and deny the claim of the plaintiff specifically. The defendant is further ordained that while denying the claim of the plaintiff in his written statement he must not deny it evasively but must answer the point of substance. Therefore when these parameters are made applicable to the facts of the case it is evident that the defendants have not complied with the mandate of law by answering the point of substance with material particulars. Similarly there is no material cross examination to disprove the assertion of the plaintiff. PW2 has categorically deposed Anajanaswamy temple and Veerananajanya swamy temple O.S No.5740/2013 41 are one and the same in paragraph no. 5 of his evidence affidavit but the defendants have not rebutted the said claim by any cogent and reliable evidence. Ex.P5 the property extract of the suit property for the year 2012-2013 which discloses that it is issued in the name of Veerananjanayaswamy temple. Therefore it is evident that the name Aanjanayaswamy temple and Veeranajananyaswamy temple are used interchangeably. Therefore the plaintiff has proved that Anajanaswamy temple and Veerananajanya swamy temple are one and the same. Addl.Issue No.1 framed on 30.10.2015 is answered in the Affirmative.
26. Issue Nos.2 and 3 :- It is the case of the plaintiff trust that right from the date of grant the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interference by the third parties. It is the O.S No.5740/2013 42 further case of the plaintiff that the defendants are strangers and they have got any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property but they are causing interference to the suit property. It is material to note that the claim of ownership of plaintiff trust over the suit property has been turned by this court while recording findings on issue no.1, It is material to note that though the plaintiff has asserted that the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit property from the date of grant no documents are produced by the plaintiff to prove the possession of the plaintiff trust even as on the date much less from the date of grant. Ex.P7 is only a tax paid receipt issued in the name of the plaintiff trust but the said document cannot be relied upon to hold that the plaintiff is in the possession of the trust. A tax paid receipt is neither a document of title nor possession, it merely denotes the name of the payee. Similarly the invitation cards published by the O.S No.5740/2013 43 plaintiff trust at Ex.P11 to 16 also cannot be relied upon to hold that the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit property as they do not disclose the actual possession of the suit property. PW2 and PW3 have deposed in their examination in chief that from the date of grant the suit property is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff temple authority and after the coming into the existence of the trust in 2003, the suit property has come under the control of the working committee of the temple seva trust. This piece of evidence of the witnesses of the plaintiff clearly demonstrates the inconsistency with the case of the plaintiff in the plaint and evidence. In the plaint the plaintiff has claimed to be in the possession of the suit property on the basis of the ownership and not in the capacity of the temple seva trust. It is not the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit property as a temple seva trust. The O.S No.5740/2013 44 evidence on record is irreconsilable with the pleadings of the plaintiff. The inconsistency and discrepancy in the evidence touches the core of the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff having claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit property could not have improvised its case by stating that the temple seva trust is in the possession of the suit property when admittedly the above suit by the trust is not filed on behalf the deity of Aanjanayaswamy temple in its representative capacity. The pleadings reflect that the plaintiff has not pleaded any alternate facts to claim possession on behalf of the temple seva trust. When the evidence adduced by the plaintiff has created a dent in the case of the plaintiff, the question of considering the rival claim of the defendants over the suit property does not arise. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Ors, AIR 2009 SC 1103 that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not O.S No.5740/2013 45 suggested in the pleadings,can be looked into to grant any relief .No doubt PW2 has denied that the suit property is in the possession of the defendant no.1 to 3 but the plaintiff has not endeavored to prove its possession over the suit property. Therefore in view of the apparent inconsistency between the evidence and pleadings narrated in the plaint it can be held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the possession over the suit property. Once the plaintiff has failed to prove its lawful possession, the question of interference does not arise. Hence Issue Nos.2 is answered in the negative and issue no. 3 do not survive for consideration.
27. Issue No.4 :- In view of my finding on Issue Nos.1 to 3, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any of the reliefs sought in the suit. Hence, Issue No.4 is answered in the Negative.
O.S No.5740/2013 46
28. Issue No.5 :- In view of my observations stated supra, and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Shirestedar (Stenographer Grade-I), transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 25th day of April 2025).
(SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI) XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 - Sri C. Venkataswamy Reddy -24.11.2015 PW.2 - Sri A.M. Lakshminarayana - 04.06.2016 PW.3 - Sri M. Vajrappa - 02.07.2018 O.S No.5740/2013 47
b) Defendants' side:
DW.1 - Sri Yashodhara Murthy - 09.03.2020 II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of the grant
certificate.
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of the survey
sketch of Suit schedule
property
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of the Saguvali
chit register extract for the
year 1961-62.
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of the land
Assessment extract for the
year 1990-91.
Ex.P.5 Certified copy of the BBMP
Assessment extract.
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of the BBMP
Katha certificate.
Ex.P.7 and 8 Two Tax paid receipts.
Ex.P.9 Authorization letter.
Ex.P.10 Certified copy of the trust
deed.
Ex.P.11 to16 6 Annual Pooja celebration
O.S No.5740/2013
48
invitation cards
Ex.P.17 Certified copy of the grant
certificate dated 06.04.1961.
Ex.P.18 Certified copy of the Saguvali
chit register extract for the
year 1961-1962.
Ex.P.19 Certified copy of the grant
certificate dated 31.03.1962
in the name of C.
Narayanappa.
Ex.P.19(a) Annexed Sketch
Ex.P.20 Certified copy of grant
certificate dated 31.03.1962 in
the name of Seenappa
Modaliar.
Ex.P.20(a) Annexed Sketch
b) Defendants' side :
Ex.D.1 and 2 Certified copy of judgment
and decree in OS
No.230/1963
Ex.D.3 and 4 Certified copy of plaint and
order sheet in OS
No.5703/2000.
Ex.D.5 Certified copy of order sheet
in OS No.1701/2000.
Ex.D.6 Certified copy of registered
O.S No.5740/2013
49
partition deed dated
14.08.1992.
Ex.D.7 5 Photographs are together
marked.
Ex.D.7(a) CD.
Ex.D.8 to 10 3 Endorsements all dated
11.09.2017
Ex.D.11 Application dated 29.08.201
Ex.D.12 to 14 3 Endorsements all dated
29.08.2017
Ex.D.15 Two applications both dated
and 16 24.06.2017.
Ex.D.17 The Endorsement issued by
Tahasildar, Bangalore South
dated 07.10.2015.
Ex.D.18 The application dated
05.02.2016 bearing
endorsement.
Ex.D.19 Endorsement dated
11.06.2016 by Assistant
commissioner, Bangalore
South Sub-division.
(SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI)
XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S No.5740/2013 50