Karnataka High Court
M/S Chirstu Seva Samaj Antha Ashram vs Sri Bishop Dr. M Francis Jackson on 6 February, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4555 OF 2016 (CPC)
BETWEEN
M/s Chirstu Seva Samaj
Antha Ashram,
#17, Old Cemetery Road,
Opp: St. Xavier's Boy's High School,
Tasker Town, Shivajinagar,
Bangalore-560051.
Represented by its Care Taker
And Committee Member
Sri. Christhu Raju,
S/o. Abraham,
Aged about 46 years,
#17, Old Cemetery Road,
Opp: St. Xavier's Boy's High School,
Tasker Town, Shivajinagar,
Bangalore-560051.
...Appellant
(By Sri. Anjaneya A.B., Advocate)
AND
Sri. Bishop Dr. M Francis Jackson,
Executive director/
Chairman and President,
#17, Old Cemetery Road,
Opp: St. Xavier's Boy's High School,
2
Tasker Town, Shivajinagar,
Bangalore-560051.
Residing at No.12, 3rd Main,
Appaiah Layout,
Saraswathipuram, Ulsoor,
Bengaluru-560008.
...Respondent
This MFA filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC.,
against the order dated 02.04.2016 passed on I.A.No.II
in O.S.No.9959/2015 on the file of the LXVIII Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dismissing
I.A.No.II filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
This appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court made delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the appellant's counsel and respondent's counsel at the time of admission. The plaintiff has challenged the order dated 02.04.2016 on I.A.No.2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in O.S.No.9959/2015. The learned trial judge dismissed 3 the suit for injunction and hence this appeal by the plaintiff.
2. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with Anatha Ashram's work and to declare him as the care taker and manager of the committee of Christu Seva Samaj Anatha Ashram. In the plaint he has stated that he is the manager and care taker of Christu Seva Samaj Anatha Ashram which is a Society registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act. The said institution was registered for the welfare of the beggars, sick people, orphans and mentally retarded people. The Ashram is situated in a place bearing Sy.No.1999, Shivajinagar, Tasker Town, Bangalore which was leased to Mrs. E.G.Eaton by the then Municipal Commissioner, Civil and Military Station, Taskar Town, Shivajinagar, Bangalore. For the smooth running of the Ashram it has a managing body consisting of President, Secretary 4 and a Treasurer. It is stated further that one Rev D. Jacob Sri. Gnanaprakasham was in charge of the Ashram as Hon'ble Secretary and he was managing it very smoothly. On 07.07.1997 the said Gnanaprakasham held a meeting to appoint Kristu Raj i.e., the plaintiff as a care taker of Anantha Ashram and he was appointed also. On 05.05.2005 defendant became the member of the Ashram and he took control over the plaintiff. He became a dictator. In the year 2014 some attempts were made by some of the committee members to sell the Ashram property to some builder. Immediately the plaintiff filed a suit O.S.No.1045/2015 to stop this illegal transaction. It is further alleged that the defendant trespassed over the Ashram and assaulted the inmates to see that they should leave the Ashram and therefore the plaintiff filed the present suit.
5
3. In the written statement it is contended very specifically that the plaintiff approached the defendant and other members somewhere in the year 2001 to give him a place in the Ashram as he was in a helpless condition. On humanitarian grounds, the plaintiff was permitted to stay in a corner and was provided with food. The plaintiff himself told that he did not want any salary. Since the plaintiff resorted to illegal activities, the committee members decided to remove him. It is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to reliefs he has claimed.
4. The learned trial judge dismissed the application giving two reasons, firstly that the Christu Seva Samaj Anatha Ashram appears to be a trust and therefore all the members should be made as parties and secondly that the plaintiff claims to be the care taker and therefore he cannot bring a suit against the Christu Seva Samaj Anatha Ashram.
6
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has committed an error in dismissing the applications by giving reason that the Christu Seva Samaj Anatha Ashram is a trust; actually it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and therefore making all the members as party to the suit is not necessary. He also submits that in the written statement there is a clear admission that the plaintiff was inducted as a committee member in the year 2014 and thereafter his membership was cancelled vide minutes dated 10.10.2015. This admission shows that the plaintiff was member of Anatha Seva Ashram. For these reasons he has every right to maintain the suit to prevent the 1st defendant from entering the premises of the Ashram and beating the inmates of the orphanage.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that by letter dated 17.11.2015 the plaintiff 7 was terminated noticing his illegal activities. He cannot claim to be a care taker.
7. After perusing the pleadings and material available on record, though it appears that Anatha Seva Ashram is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, still the plaintiff is not entitled to seek an order of temporary injunction. Very nature of the reliefs that he has sought in the suit shows that the suit is not maintainable. When he claims to be a care taker of Anatha Seva Ashram¸ he cannot claim a declaration to that effect. It is for the employer to decide whether to continue him or not. The letter dated 17.11.2015 shows that the plaintiff was removed noticing his illegal activities, he cannot claim that he is a care taker. Secondly it is to be stated that the plaintiff cannot represent Christu Seva Samaj Anatha Ashram in the capacity of a care taker. When according to him there is a governing body the said institution must be 8 represented by a President or Secretary as per bye law. Though the trial court has not discussed this aspect of the matter, its conclusion that injunction cannot be granted cannot be disturbed. I do not find merits to admit this appeal, it is dismissed.
sd/-
JUDGE sd