Karnataka High Court
Sri K L Narendra vs Sri Keramalu Veerannanavara Ashrama ... on 30 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:29269
MFA No. 4846 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4846 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K.L. NARENDRA
S/O LOKESH KERAMALU LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.17, 6TH MAIN ROAD
'B' MAIN, SRI KERAMALU
VEERANNANAVARA ASHRAMA ROAD
PIPELINE, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
2. SRI. SRI. K.M. UMASHANKAR
S/O K.V. MALLESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/A, NO.9, BDA LAYOUT
DR. SHIVARAM KARANTHANAGARA
HEGGADE NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 077
Digitally signed ...APPELLANTS
by ANJALI M
Location: High (BY SRI. SADANAND G. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
Court of
Karnataka
AND:
1. SRI. KERAMALU VEERANNANAVARA
ASHRAMA TRUST (R)
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI. K.R. PARTHASARATHY
A TRUST REGISTERED UNDER
THE INDIAN TRUSTS ACT, 1882
THE TRUST HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL
PLACE OF BUSINESS AT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:29269
MFA No. 4846 of 2025
HC-KAR
NO.31, 6TH CROSS
SRI KERAMALU VEERANNANAVARA
ASHRAMA ROAD, PIPELINE
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
2. SRI. K.R. PARTHASARATHY
PRESIDENT
SRI KERAMALU VEERANNANAVARA
ASHRAMA TRUST
S/O LATE K.B. RAMACHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT OLD NO.11, NEW NO.21
6TH CROSS, SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION
NEAR DATTATREYA TEMPLE
SUDHINDRA NAGAR
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE-560 003
3. SRI. E. RAMESH BABU
VICE-PRESIDENT
SRI KERAMALU VEERANNANAVARA
ASHRAMA TRUST
S/O ESHWARAIAH K.N
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/A 735, 'HONGIRANA'
G.P. RAJARATNAM ROAD
VISWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT 8TH BLOCK
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE-560 091
4. SRI. K.V. CHANDRASHEKHAR
SECRETARY
SRI KERAMALU VEERANNANAVARA
ASHRAMA TRUST
S/O LATE VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/A, NO.05, 'KOUSALYAMMA' NILAYA
1ST FLOOR, DATTATREYA TEMPLE
PIPELINE ROAD, 6TH CROSS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:29269
MFA No. 4846 of 2025
HC-KAR
NEAR KV ASHRAMA, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN
OS.NO.6978/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-45),
DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1
AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellants/plaintiffs have challenged the order on I.A.No.2 dated 28.04.2025 passed in O.S.No.6978/2024 by the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-45), dismissing the plaintiffs' application filed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, "CPC"), seeking temporary injunction -4- NC: 2025:KHC:29269 MFA No. 4846 of 2025 HC-KAR restraining the defendant-Trust from conducting their day to day activities and staying all further proceedings related to the defendants pending disposal of the suit.
2. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that, the plaintiffs are the members of defendant No. 1 - Trust established under the provisions of Indian Trusts Act, 1882. It is stated that, the primary objective of the Trust has been the welfare and upliftment of the Devanga community. It is stated that, plaintiff No.1 is a software engineer and he is married to a woman from Gowda community. Plaintiff No. 2 is a manager at Mede Move Surgical Products and he is married to a woman from Veerashaiva - Lingayath community. It is stated that, these inter-caste marriages have resulted in friction with the Trust's management. The Trust bylaws, particularly Rule No. 5 exclude individuals who marry outside the community from enjoying full membership privileges, including voting rights. It is further stated that, it is a discriminatory practice which is in violation of the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:29269 MFA No. 4846 of 2025 HC-KAR plaintiff's fundamental and constitutional rights. It is alleged that, the plaintiff No. 1 has been suspended from the Trust on 04.08.2024 solely on account of his inter- caste marriage.
3. He further stated that, under the existing bylaws under Rule 10 of the bylaws of the said Trust, the women born into Kermalu family are denied voting rights and participation in the Trust's governance. The same is direct gender-based discrimination and is a clear violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which grant equality and non-discrimination. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit before the trial Court seeking the following reliefs.
"Wherefore, the plaintiffs most humbly and respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
i. Allow the above plaint in toto and declare that the bye-law No.05 and 10 in the defendant's Trust at document No.1 are ab initio void;
ii. Set-aside suspension Notice dated 04.08.2024 issued to plaintiff No.1 at document No.3 and -6- NC: 2025:KHC:29269 MFA No. 4846 of 2025 HC-KAR consequently induct him as a member to the defendant Trust;
iii. Pass any such order/direction as this Hon'ble Authority deems fit to be granted under the circumstances of the case including an order as to the costs of this suit, in the interest of justice and equity."
4. The said suit was filed as per the case of the plaintiffs that they have filed W.P.No.26609/2024 before this Court, and it was withdrawn on 26.09.2024, reserving liberty to the plaintiffs to approach the Jurisdictional Court to agitate their rights. Based upon that, the aforesaid suit was filed with the prayers stated supra.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants much relies upon the provisions of Chapter II, Section 4 of the Indian Trust Act and submits that, Chapter II Section 4 of the Indian Trust Act speaks of the creation of Trusts for lawful purposes. He also relied upon the purpose of a Trust and the said Section reads as under:
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:29269 MFA No. 4846 of 2025 HC-KAR "4. Lawful purpose.-- A trust may be created for any lawful purpose. The purpose of a trust is lawful unless it is (a) forbidden by law, or
(b) is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or (c) is fraudulent, or (d) involves or implies injury to the person or property of another, or (e) the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy.
Every trust of which the purpose is unlawful is void. And where a trust is created for two purposes, of which one is lawful and the other unlawful, and the two purposes cannot be separated, the whole trust is void.
Explanation.-- In this section the expression "law" includes, where the trust-property is immoveable and situate in a foreign country, the law of such country."
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that, in view of the prayer made in the plaint, he filed I.A.No. 2 before the trial Court under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking the following relief:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased -8- NC: 2025:KHC:29269 MFA No. 4846 of 2025 HC-KAR to issue an ad-interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction, restraining the respondent Trust, from conducting their day to day activities and stay all further proceedings related to the defendants pending disposal of the above suit, dispensing notice to the respondents in the interest of justice and equity."
7. The learned trial Court, having heard the arguments, dismissed the application of the plaintiffs' upholding the objections of the defendants that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. It is observed by the trial Court that, whether the Civil Court can decide the validity of the bylaws is to be seen at the later stage.
8. Relying upon this observation, the counsel for the plaintiffs submits that, the present application is maintainable in the eyes of the law.
9. On perusal of the prayer so stated supra made in the plaint and if the prayer so made in I.A.No. 2 are compared with each other; the said prayer in the IA is not the prayer in the aid of the final prayer so made by the plaintiffs. It is a settled principle of law that, the interim -9- NC: 2025:KHC:29269 MFA No. 4846 of 2025 HC-KAR relief is granted in the aid of the final relief. By filing I.A.No. 2, the plaintiffs intend to restrain the respondent- Trust from conducting their day to day activities and stay all further proceedings related to the defendants' pending disposal of the suit. This prayer is quite against the main prayer. When there is a suspension of plaintiff No. 1 from the membership, which is alleged to be in violation of the bylaws of the Trust, the plaintiffs must have prayed for appropriate relief by filing interim application. The said prayer so made is not in the aid of the final relief. Merely because the writ petition is withdrawn with a liberty to approach jurisdictional Court, that does not mean that, the plaintiffs can seek reliefs according to their whims and fancies. By praying such a prayer, the plaintiffs want to restrain all the day to day activities and stay all further proceedings of the Trust, which is against the main object of the Trust and bylaws so framed thereunder in respect of the defendant - Trust. However, as the prayer so made in the I.A.No. 2, is not in the aid of final relief, a liberty is
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29269 MFA No. 4846 of 2025 HC-KAR given to the plaintiffs to seek appropriate relief by filing appropriate application before the trial Court.
10. The trial Court to consider the same in merits after hearing both the parties.
With this observation, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35