Karnataka High Court
Rishi Samskriti Vidya Kendra Trust vs Mr. Siddhant Rishi Prabhakar on 22 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22 N D DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
MF A N O.1384 OF 2022 C/W MF A NO.1386 OF 2022
(CPC)
IN MF A N O.1384 OF 2022
BETWEEN :
Rishi Samskriti Vidya Kend ra Trust
Having its Reg istered Office at No.176
31 s t Cross, 11 t h Main, 4 t h Block East
Jayanag ar
Beng aluru-560 011
Rep. by its Trustee Secretary
Sri Sathyanarayana .K ...Appellant
(By Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Counsel for
Sri Anoop Haran ahalli, Advocate)
AN D:
1. Mr. Siddhant Rishi Prabhakar
S/o Mr. Prabhakar Rag havendra
Aged about 21 years
R/at #41, Rohan Madhub an
Off Paud Road , Bavdhan Khurd
Pune-411021.
2. Mrs. Arund hati Rishi Prab hakar
W/o Mr. Prab hakar Raghavend ra
Aged about 45 years
R/at #41, Rohan Madhub an
Off Paud Road , Bavdhan Khurd
Pune-411021.
:: 2 ::
3. Mr. Abhay Anant Shastri
S/o Sri Anant Govind a Shastry
Aged 64 years
R/at #502, Sidharth Towers, B-b uilding
Ex-Servicemen Colony
Kothrud, Pune
Maharashtra-411038.
4. Mr. S.J. Vijaya Keerthy
S/o Sri Shravand ahalli Jayakeerti
Aged 62 years
R/at #5, Block-7, Shivashakthi Road
Shakthi Nag ar
Mysuru-570019
5. Mr. Shivajirao Baburaoji Shinde
S/o Bab urao Raoji Shind e
Aged about 73 years
R/at House No.74, F-1, N-4, CIDCO
Aurang ab ad
Maharashtra-431001.
6. Ms. Sahana Tambat
W/o Ramesh Mahad ev Tambat
Aged about 37 years
R/at #No.18/2, G-3, 4th Cross
1 s t Main PMK Road
Basavanagud i
Beng aluru-560004. ...Respondents
(By Sri. Sivaramakrishnan M.S, Advocate)
This MFA is filed U/O.43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, ag ainst
the ord er d ated 14.02.2022 p assed on I.A No.1 in O.S
No.398/2022 on the file of the LXI Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Beng aluru City, (CCH-62)
dismissing I.A No.1 filed U/O.39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
:: 3 ::
IN MF A N O.1386 OF 2022
BETWEEN :
Rishi Samskriti Vidya Kend ra Trust
Having its Reg istered Office at No.176
31 s t Cross, 11 t h Main, 4 t h Block East
Jayanag ar, Bengaluru-560 011
Rep. by its Trustee Secretary
Sri Sathyanarayana .K ...Appellant
(By Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Counsel for
Sri Anoop Haran ahalli, Advocate)
AN D:
1. Mr. Siddhant Rishi Prabhakar
S/o Mr. Prabhakar Rag havendra
Aged about 21 years
R/at #41, Rohan Madhub an
Off Paud Road , Bavdhan Khurd
Pune-411021.
2. Mrs. Arund hati Rishi Prab hakar
W/o Mr. Prab hakar Raghavend ra
Aged about 45 years
R/at #41, Rohan Madhub an
Off Paud Road , Bavdhan Khurd
Pune-411021.
3. Mr. Abhay Anant Shastri
S/o Sri Anant Govind a Shastry
Aged 64 years
R/at #502, Sidharth Towers, B-b uilding
Ex-Servicemen Colony
Kothrud, Pune
Maharashtra-411038.
4. Mr. S.J. Vijaya Keerthy
S/o Sri Shravand ahalli Jayakeerti
Aged 62 years
:: 4 ::
R/at #5, Block-7, Shivashakthi Road
Shakthi Nag ar
Mysuru-570019
5. Mr. Shivajirao Baburaoji Shinde
S/o Bab urao Raoji Shind e
Aged about 73 years
R/at House No.74, F-1, N-4, CIDCO
Aurang ab ad
Maharashtra-431001.
6. Ms. Sahana Tambat
W/o Ramesh Mahad ev Tambat
Aged about 37 years
R/at #No.18/2, G-3, 4th Cross
1st Main PMK Road
Basavanagud i
Beng aluru-560004. ...Respondents
(By Sri Sivaramakrishnan M.S, Ad vocate)
This MFA is filed U/O.43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, ag ainst
the ord er d ated 14.02.2022 p assed on I.A No.2 in O.S
No.398/2022 on the file of the LXI Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Beng aluru City, (CCH-62)
dismissing I.A No.2 filed U/O.39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
These MFAs coming on for admission this d ay,
the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are disposed of by a common order as the two applications filed in the :: 5 ::
trial court for temporary injunction were disposed of by a common order dated 14.02.2022.
2. These appeals are filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.398/2022. The plaintiff is a trust called "Rishi Samskrithi Vidya Kendra Trust" and it is represented by Secretary Sri. Sathyanarayana K. The case of the plaintiff is that on 06.02.1982, Rishi Prabhakar created the Trust by executing a registered instrument. On 16.10.1982, a supplementary Trust deed came into existence for claiming exemption under section 80G of Income Tax Act. When the Trust was created, initially there were six trustees, but the author of the Trust did not become a trustee. From 1982 to 2011, many changes in the constitution of the Trust took place due to deaths and resignation of the trustees. Then on 28.9.2011, second supplementary Trust deed came into existence and :: 6 ::
the scope of the activities of the Trust was enlarged without altering the main objective.
3. The author of the Trust Sri. R. Prabhakar passed away on 16.02.2014 and at that time, there were only four trustees, viz., Sathyanarayana K., Sri. H.S. Ramesh Chandra, Sri. V.B.N. Shinde and Sri. K. Thippeswamy. On 31.12.2018, V.B.N.Shinde died and this caused difficulty to manage the activities of the Trust. For this reason as per sub-clauses (iv) and (ix) of clause 7 of the original Trust deed dated 06.02.1982, a suit was instituted in the Court of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for appointment of new Trustees. An application under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed seeking leave of the court. The said application was registered as Misc.No.213/2020 and leave was granted.
:: 7 ::
4. Above being the state of affairs, the defendants began interfering with the functioning of the plaintiff Trust claming themselves to be the trustees and informed the managers of the various banks where the Trust had held accounts that the first defendant was the authorized signatory. The plaintiff having gained knowledge of this information, immediately issued a notice to the branch manager of all the banks, asking them not to permit unauthorized persons to operate the bank accounts. To the surprise of the plaintiff, the bank managers brought to his notice that the first defendant had approached them and produced copy of the third supplementary deed of Trust dated 23.11.2021. On going through the said supplementary Trust Deed, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants had suo motu appointed themselves as the trustees of the plaintiff Trust replacing the existing trustees. The plaintiff also came to know that the first defendant had :: 8 ::
meddled with the email address and the passwords of the Trust for transaction with the banks and Income Tax Department. In these circumstances the plaintiff brought a suit for declaring the third supplementary deed dated 23.11.2021 null and void, for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from management, constitution and functioning of the plaintiff Trust and for another decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from acting as trustees and dealing with banks and other statutory authorities.
5. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed two applications for temporary injunction. The first application was for restraining the defendants from interfering with the management and day to day activities of the Trust till disposal of the suit and the second application was for restraining the defendants from acting as trustees and dealing :: 9 ::
with the bank accounts and other properties and assets of the Trust.
6. The defendants have admitted creation of the Trust by Rishi Prabhakar on 06.02.1982 and coming into being of two supplementary Trust deeds on 16.10.1982 and 28.09.2011. Their main contention is that in the second supplementary Trust deed dated 28.09.2011, an amendment was brought to sub-clause (ix) clause 7 of the original Trust deed. The amendment was by way of substitution and it empowered the Founder of the Trust, i.e., Sri. Rishi Prabhakar or his successor to nominate the trustees. Thus with effect from 28.09.2011, the term and tenure of the trustees was subjected to the decision of the Founder or his successor. The defendants contended that Sri. K. Sathyanarayana, who has filed a suit on behalf of the Trust is incompetent to bring the suit as he is no longer a trustee. After the death of the Founder :: 10 ::
on 16.02.2014, defendants 1 and 2 who are the son and wife of the Founder respectively, became the successors in terms of Clause 7(ix) of the trust deed and they having found the activities of Sri. K.Sathyanarayana being detrimental to the activities of the Trust, removed him from trusteeship on 19.11.2021 and it was communicated to him on 22.12.2021. Defendants have stated further that after the death of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar, the defendants 1 and 2 obtained Heirship Certificate from the Court of Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Aurangabad. Their main contention is that when Sri. Rishi Prabhakar was alive, he had seen his successor in the first defendant as the latter had been trained in the practices of Rishi Samskriti Vidya Kendra since his childhood. Rishi Prabhakar had full faith in the first defendant as the latter had embodied all his powers and sadhanas. In fact on 19.10.2018, a ceremony called 'Pattabhishekam' was organized for :: 11 ::
acknowledging the first defendant as the successor of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar. The said function was attended by Sri. K.Satyanarayana also. Therefore first defendant being the successor of the author of the trust was authorized to nominate the trustees in terms of the supplementary deed dated 23.11.2021. The other defendants are the trustees of the newly constituted trust and thereby the suit is frivolous and not maintainable.
7. The court below dismissed the two applications by passing the orders impugned in these appeals. The main reasons given by the court below are that the suit filed by the trust under Section 92 of the CPC is defective, in the sense that a suit is not filed by two or more persons having interest in the trust and that Sri. K.Sathyanarayana who had represented the trust in the suit was discharged from the trusteeship as per the letter of communication dated 22.11.2021.
:: 12 ::
His removal is in accordance with Clause 7(ix) of the original trust deed and section 71(c) of the Indian Trust Act. Therefore plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case; balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff and that no injury would be caused to the plaintiff in case temporary injunction as prayed for in the applications is not granted.
8. I have heard Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Sri. Sivaramakrishnan M.S., learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.
9. It was the argument of Sri. Ashok Haranahalli that the trial court has missed the point that in the second supplementary trust deed dated 28.9.2011, it is clearly mentioned in Clause 7(ix) that the Founder of the Trust viz., Sri. Rishi Prabhakar or his successor could change any of the trustees. When Sri. Rishi Prabhakar was alive, :: 13 ::
he did not appoint his successor. Because of various reasons, the strength of the trustees reduced and that Sri. K.Sathyanarayana was not competent to appoint the trustees because he was a co-opted trustee. In this view, the trust represented by Sri. K.Satyanarayana had to approach the Court of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru under section 92 of CPC for appointment of trustees and the court has granted leave. But the defendants No.1 and 2 claim themselves to be the legal successors of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar and they themselves brought into existence another trust deed dated 23.11.2021. It is now being projected that first defendant is the successor of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar. There is no evidence to show that Sri. Rishi Prabhakar appointed the first defendant as his successor. The first defendant claims to be his successor because he is the son of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar. Merely for this reason, he cannot claim to have :: 14 ::
succeeded to the place of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar to make appointment of trustees. Issuance of legal successor certificate by a court does not confer any right on defendants 1 and 2 to interfere with the Trust matters. Therefore the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. Since the activities of the trust are being disturbed, balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for injuncting the defendants. The interest of the plaintiff would be affected if injunction is not granted.
10. Sri. Sivaramakrishnan's argument was that Sri. K.Sathyanarayana who has filed a suit on behalf of the Trust cannot dispute the authority of defendants 1 and 2 to appoint the trustees in view of Clause 7(ix) of the second supplementary Trust deed dated 28.09.2011. Sri. K. Sathynarayana was one of the signatories to the said supplementary Trust deed. Being aware of the :: 15 ::
successor's right to appoint trustees, he can't say that defendant no.1 is not a successor. When Sri. Rishi Prabhakar was alive, he appointed the first defendant as his successor. This is within the knowledge of Sri. K.Sathyanarayana. Defendants No.1 and 2 have produced documents to show that they are the legal successors and for this reason defendant no.1 has become successor of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar in the matter of appointment of trustees. Document R.4 produced by the defendant shows that Sri. Rishi Prabhakar intended his son to succeed him. Document R.5 is the invitation sent by Sri. K. Sathyanarayana through email in connection with spiritual initiation of the first defendant and therefore the first defendant was acknowledged as the successor of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar. In this view, if the first defendant and the second defendant reconstituted the Trust on 23.11.2021, by removing Sri. Sathyanarayana from the trusteeship, it cannot be :: 16 ::
said that it is contrary to Clause 7(ix) of the second supplementary trust deed. Sri. K. Sathynarayana is no more a trustee and he cannot operate bank accounts. Therefore defendants rightly wrote letters to the bank to recognize them as authorized signatories. Thus seen, the defendant no.1 and 2 are entitled to manage the Trust and therefore the trial court has rightly come to conclusion to reject the applications filed by the plaintiff.
11. From the rival contentions, the undisputed facts that can be noticed are that Sri. K.Sathyanarayana was co-opted as a trustee, and that he too was a signatory to the second supplementary trust deed which came into existence on 28.09.2011. The dispute is with regard to third supplementary trust deed dated 23.11.2021. The plaintiff has clearly stated the reason for a suit under section 92 of CPC being :: 17 ::
filed for appointment of trustees. The trial court has held that the suit is defective because it is filed by only one person. The fact remains that the Principle City Civil Judge granted leave under section 92 CPC for filing a suit. Once the leave is granted, the court below could not have commented that there is a defect in the suit and could not have considered the defect in the suit as one of the reasons for denying the temporary injunction as prayed for in the applications.
12. Now the controversy revolves around the defendants 1 and 2 claiming right over the Trust.
Particularly first defendant claims to be the successor of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar. He and his mother i.e., the second defendant claim authority over the Trust on the basis of a legal successor certificate issued by the court at Aurangabad. The first defendant and the second defendant being the son and wife of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar respectively :: 18 ::
may claim to be legal heirs or legal successors, it is different altogether; but when it comes to management of the Trust and appointment of trustees, only the terms of the Trust deed should be looked into.
13. It cannot be disputed that the second supplementary trust deed states very clearly that the appointment of trustees is for life time unless the Founder Sri. Rishi Prabhakar or his successor decides to change any of the trustees. The trouble started only after the death of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar. If the third supplementary deed dated 23.11.2021 is read, it becomes very clear that the first and second defendants claim right to reconstitute a Trust on the basis of legal successor certificate issued by the court. This third supplementary trust deed does not contain a recital that Sri. Rishi Prabhakar appointed the first defendant as his successor when he was alive. If :: 19 ::
at all the first defendant can claim to be successor, there must be a document showing that he was appointed by Sri. Rishi Prabhakar as his successor. No such document is forth coming. Even in the third supplementary trust deed it is not stated that Sri. Rishi Prabhakar appointed the first defendant. Only on the basis of some ceremony held on 19.10.2018 as evidenced by document R.5, first defendant claims that he became the successor of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar. Document R.5 shows that first defendant was given spiritual initiation, it does not indicate that the other trustees, by virtue of this initiation acknowledged him to be the successor. Document R.4 shows that Sri. Rishi Prabhakar expressed an opinion that his son Sri. Siddhanth had possessed all the qualities to tread in the spiritual path and that he did not need anybody's approval to own RSVK in spirit. This mail was sent by Sri. Rishi Prabhakar to Manoj Lekhi, probably his disciple.
:: 20 ::
This is not sufficient and whether this mail communication can be accepted as a valid document for recognizing the first defendant as the successor is a matter of trial. No importance can be given to this document now.
14. According to the defendants Sri. K. Sathyanarayan might have been discharged of trusteeship. In view of the discussion made above, the right of the defendants to remove Sri. K. Sathynarayana from the Trust is again a matter of trial.
15. The Trust has already instituted a suit and leave has been granted by the court. Of course, as has been observed by the trial court, the suit is not filed by atleast two persons having interest in the Trust and in that view there may be some formal defect. But leave has been granted which is not questioned. In the said suit itself the Trust could have impleaded the defendants of the :: 21 ::
present suit and made applications for temporary injunction. But the separate suit is also maintainable because according to the plaintiffs, the defendants are strangers to the Trust and if they started interfering with the affairs of the Trust, temporary injunction against them can be sought. The facts discussed above clearly disclose that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. Since the defendants appear to be strangers, convenience lies in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff and if strangers start interfering with the affairs of the Trust, it will result in injury to the plaintiff. Therefore I am of the opinion that the plaintiff being the appellant has convinced me that the trial court has not properly exercised its discretion in deciding the applications for temporary injunction. For these reasons, appeals deserve to be allowed and hence the following:
:: 22 ::
ORDER Appeals are allowed. Order dated 14.02.2022 on application I.A.1 and 2 filed in O.S.No.398/2022 on the file of LXI Addl. City Civil Court, Bengaluru, are set aside. I.As.1 and 2 are allowed and temporary injunction as prayed for in the applications are granted. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE sd