Bangalore District Court
Lakshman M vs Muneshwara Swamy Temple Trust on 13 March, 2024
KABC010300572019
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in
Suits (R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-6) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 13th day of March, 2024.
Present:
Kum Sindhu Potadar, B.A.,LL.B., (Hons), LL.M,
XXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-6),
Bengaluru.
Original Suit No: 7046/ 2019
Plaintiff 1 Mr. M.Lakshman,
S/o late Malleshappa,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.38, 5th cross
Anjanesyanagar,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bangalore-560 085
2
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
2 Mr. K.Parthasarathy,
S/o late B.T.Kempanna,
Aged about 58 years,
R/at No.3394, V HBSCS 4tgh Phase,
Girinagar, Hosakerehalli Cross,
BSK 3rd Stage,
Bangalore-560 085
(By B.M.Associates, Advocates)
V/s.
Defendants 1 Muneshwara Swamy Temple Trust,
A Registered Trust
Office at No.105, 3rd Cross,
1st Stage, Additional Girinagar,
Bangalore-560 085
Rept by its Trustee and
Treasurer, Mr. B.Boralingaiah
2 Mr. K.Mariyappa,
S/o late Kunnaiah,
Aged about 71 years,
R/at No.885, 8th B Cross,
Girinagara, 2nd stage,
Bengaluru-560 085
3 Mr. K.Boregowda,
S/o K.Kashipathy,
Aged about 58 years,
R/at No.29, 7th main,
6th cross, Avalahalli BDAExtension,
Banashankari 3rd stage,
Bengaluru-560 085.
3
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
4 Mr. K.Shankar,
S/o K.Kashipathy,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.1616, 4th F Cross,
Avalahalli, 2nd main,
Bengaluru South,
Bengaluru-560 026
5 Mr. Boralingaiah,
S/o Bettaiah,
Aged about 72 years,
R/at No.7/1, 16th main,
50 feet road, Muneshwara
Block,Bengaluru-560 026
6 Mr. B.Gangadharan,
S/o Bettaiah,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.7/1, 16th main,
Muneshwara Block,
Bengaluru-560 026
7 Mrs. Boramma,
W/o late Narasimha Murthy,
Aged about 68 years,
R/at No.212/G, 3rd Cross,
Avalahalli, Girinagara,
Bengaluru South,
Bengaluru-560 026
8 Mr. K.Purutshottama,
S/o K.Kashipathy,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.531, 4th main,
Hosakerehalli Cross,
Banashankari 3rd stage,
Bengaluru-560 008
4
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
9 Mr. Krishnamurthy,
S/o K.Mariyappa,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at Girinagara,
Bengaluru-560 026
10 Mr. Narayanappa.V,
S/o late Venkatappa,
Aged about 62 years,
R/at No.212/G, 2nd E Cross,
Girinagara, Banashankari,
3rd stage, Bengaluru-560 085
11 Mr. Chandrashekhar,
S/o Shankarappa,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.26/41/1, 16th main,
Muneshwara Block,
Srinagar, Bengaluru South,
Bengaluru-560 026
12 Mr. Dhananjaya,
S/o Boralingaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.7/1, 16th main,
50 feet road, Muneshwara Block,
Bengaluru-560 026
13 Mr. Puttaiah,
S/o Vajrappa,
Aged about 68 years,
R/at No.15, 1st Cross,
Aiyannashetty Layout,
Bytatarayanapura,
Bengaluru-560 026
5
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
14 Mr. C.Lingaiah,
S/o late Chikkanna,
Aged about 68 years,
R/at No.10/2(6), 4th main,
Muneshwara Block,
Bangalore-60 085.
( By Sri.I.T for D.1 to D.12
By Sri N.L for D.13 and D.14- Advocates)
Date of Institution of the Suit : 26.09.2019
Nature of the Suit (Suit on Partition, :
pronote, Suit for declaration and
possession, Suit for injunction etc.) For Declaration
Date of the commencement of : 01.06.2022
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment was : 13.03.2024
pronounced
Total duration : Year Months Days
04 05 17
6
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for declaring that the Supplemental Deed of Trust dated. 15.02.2019 is non-est, and is not binding on the plaintiffs and further declare that the plaintiffs are still trustees and they continue to hold office in the 1st defendant Trust as per the terms of Trust Deed dt. 14.06.2006 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants Nos.2 to 12 from interrupting / obstructing the plaintiffs from discharging their duties as the rightful Trustees of the 1st defendant Trust and managing the day to day affairs of the Muneshwaraswamy Temple and for costs and other reliefs.
The plaint schedule reads as follows:
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No. 405 (105), 3rd cross, 1st stage, Additional Hosakerehalli, Bangalore-560 085, (Girnagar Avalahalli), measuring about 160 x 250 feet totally measuring about 40,000 square feet and bounded on:
East by : Private property
West by : Road
North by : Private property and road
South by : Private property
7
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
which houses the Muneshwaraswamy Temple, Mini Party Hall, Kitchen, Watchman Shed, Bathrooms, Separate Toilets, Trust Office, Open Space.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as under:
The plaintiffs averred that, for over 100 years there has been a temple, which houses the deity, Muneshwara Swamy, which is located at the property now bears No.105, Girinagar morefully referred to as the schedule property and said temple has been constructed on the schedule property which was originally donated by Pailwan Mr.B.T.Kempanna and Mrs. Savithramma/the parents of 2nd plaintiff. That over the years, the Temple gained prominence in the local area of its vicinity and the number of devotees who would throng the temple to offer their worship gradually increased with time. In that situation the local residents of the neighborhood who were always involved in the Management of the temple and the premises decided to formally constitute a Trust to manage the day to day affairs of the temple with the guidance and involvement of the descendants/ family members of Mr.T.B.Kempanna who originally 8 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 donated the land/schedule property for construction of the temple and other facilities attached to the temple. Plaintiff No.2 is son of said Mr.B.T.Kempanna and 1st plaintiff is the resident of the neighborhood. They were actively involved in the day to day management of the temple acceded to the idea of the formation of a formal Trust to manage affairs of the Temple. Accordingly a Trust by the name of 'Shri Muneshwara Swami Temple Trust' came to be constituted by way of a registered Trust Deed dt. 14.06.2006 which is defendant No.1- Trust.
Sl.No. Name Designation in the Trust
1 K.Kashipathy President
2 M.Lakshman/ 1st plaintiff Vice President
3 Puttaiah Chief Secretary
4 C.Lingaiah Joint Secretary
5 B.Boralingaiah Treasurer
6 K.Parthasarathy/ 2nd plaintiff Trustee
3. Further averred that, in terms of the Trust Deed all the trustees including the plaintiffs would hold their office for their entire life and also delineates the responsibilities and duties that were to be expected to be discharged by all the trustees. Ever since the date of 9 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 constitution of the Trust, it was actively involved in the day to day management of the Temple and was involved with the major decision making. The plaintiffs have also played an active part in the management of the Trust. In terms of the Trust Deed, a Trustee can be removed by a resolution in the Board Meeting on majority in the following event/ circumstances;
1) In the event that any Trustee were to absent for three consecutive meetings of the Trust;
2) In the event that any trustee were to become of unsound mind;
3) In the event that any trustee were to misuse the corpus of the Trust (both immovable and movable) for his own benefit or gain;
4) In the event that any trustee were to be convicted of any criminal offence or if she were to participate in any criminal activity:
5) In the event that the Trustee were to conduct herself in any manner that is prejudicial to the interest of the Trust.
4. Apart from the aforementioned grounds, the Trust Deed does not provide for any other mode of disqualification/ removal of a trustee from the 1st defendant Trust. Due to the effective 10 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 management of the 1st defendant trust by inter alia the plaintiffs, the Temple has grown by leaps and bounds ever since. The Management of the Temple has constructed on the schedule premises, a mini hall called as 'Smt Savithramma, Sriman Paliwan B.T.Kempanna Mini Party Hall', a Yoga Hall, a Kitchen, a Bajana Mandira. These are all possible only due to the active involvement of the 1st defendant Trust including the plaintiffs.
5. Further averred that, in the year 2017 two of the Trustees namely Puttaiah and C.Lingaiah had retired from the Trust by submitting their respective letters of resignations, which were duly accepted by office bearers of the 1 st defendant trust. The President of the 1st defendant Trust Mr.K.Kashipathy was already aged 68 years, when the 1st defendant Trust was formed. Due to his advanced age, he was not always able to step in and perform his duties as the President of the 1 st defendant Trust to the full of his abilities. Whenever such contingencies arose, it was always the plaintiffs who would step in and ensure the smooth management of the 1st defendant Trust. Said Kashipathy was suffering from very frail 11 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 health and was continually hospitalized and he was not always active in the management of the trust, and all the books of accounts, ledgers, bills were placed in his custody due to the trust and faith that the other trustees reposed in K.Kashipathy. After a prolonged battle with ill health, K.Kashipathy died on 14.09.2019. The well wishers of the temple, the existing Trustees and the family members all felt that in the better interest of the temple and the management of the same, it would be prudent to set up another Trust to manage the day to day affairs of the temple. Also the fact that the other remaining Trustee Boralingaiah never showed any inclination to participate in the management affairs. Accordingly the plaintiffs and others acceded to the popular demands of the local residents and they had reconstituted the defendant trust to create a new trust by the name of 'Muneshwara Swamy Seva Trust' by way of registered Reconstitution Deed dt. 12.04.2019. This New Trust was constituted by including the family members of B.T.Kempanna, without whom the temple would have never come into existence, with an intention to continue the noble objectives of the 1 st defendant Trust. After the 12 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 constitution of new Trust, the management of the temple vested with the new Trust and effectively carried out the day to day activities.
6. The plaintiffs further averred that, defendants Nos.2 to 12 have made an attempt to interfere with affairs of the management of the temple by the plaintiffs and the New Trust in the last week of June 2019. Therefore the New Trust was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.4722 of 2019 on the file of this court against inter alia the 2nd defendant to 12 defendants and late K.Kashipathy seeking for a decree of permanent injunction. In that case on 03.07.2019 court has granted ex-parte interim order in favour of the New trust. After appearance, by using a degree of deceit defendant No.3 managed to get the interim order dt. 03.07.2019 vacated. The reading of the application filed by defendants Nos.2 to 12 in O.S.No.4722 of 2019 they have discovered that the constitution of the New Trust was a ruse to avoid the plaintiffs from getting to know that the 1st defendant trust had by its duplicitous conduct executed a Supplemental Deed of Trust on 15.02.2019.
13
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
Sl.No. Name Designation in the Trust
1 K.Kashipathy President
2 Mr K.Mariyappa Vice President
3 Mr.K.Boregowda General Secretary
4 Mr. K.Shankar Treasurer
5 B.Boralingaiah Joint Secretary
6 B. Gangadhara Trustee
7 Mrs. Boramma Trustee
8 Mr.K.Purushottama Trustee
9 Mr.Krishnamurthy Trustee
10 Mr.Narayanappa.V. Trustee
11 Mr.Chandshekar.S Trustee
12 Mr.Dhananjaya Trustee
7. Further averred that, only K.Kashipathy and
Borelingaiah are the trustees that are part of both the original Trust Deed dt. 14.06.2006 and the Supplemental trust deed. The mother Trust Deed mentioned all the office bears including the plaintiffs will hold their offices for life subject to the disqualifications that are enumerated above. Even in the even that a trustee were to be disqualified on any one of the grounds that are enumerated above, the same was to be done only after following the due process that is prescribed in the Trust Deed dt. 14.6.2006. The process envisages that any motion for disqualification should be placed before the board of Trustees. The Supplemental deed would indicate that the 14 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 plaintiffs have been disqualified removed from the Trust allegedly on the ground that they have absented themselves from the meetings of the 1st defendant and as a result the remaining Trustees acting in accordance with Clause 10(a0 of the Trust Deed, have removed the plaintiffs from their position as Trustees of the 1 st defendant trust. This allegation of the 1st defendant is highly duplicitous in nature and is without any basis in law for the following reasons:
(a) The plaintiffs were never served with any notice of the alleged meetings that they have allegedly missed;
(b) The Supplemental Deed dated. 15.02.2019 makes no reference to the fact that due process as envisaged in the Trust Deed dt. 14.06.2006 was followed before the illegal removal of the plaintiffs;
(c) As on the date of the Supplemental Trust Deed, two of the trustees of the 1st defendant Trust had already resigned and no new trustees were inducted in their place. Thus, there was no majority and the acts of the remaining trustees is contrary to the terms of the Trust Deed dt. 14.06.2006.15
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 Hence the removal of the plaintiffs from the 1 st defendant trust is illegal, non-est. The plaintiffs are life time trustees of the 1 st defendant Trust as per terms of the Trust Deed dt. 14.06.2006 and they are entitled to continue as the trustees until and unless they resign or they are removed from the 1 st defendant trust. Defendants Nos.2 to 12 have created the Supplemental Deed without any authority and contrary to the objects and terms of the original Trust only with a mala fide intention to exclude the plaintiffs from the management of the temple. Defendants Nos.2 to 12 are making hectic efforts to restrain the plaintiffs discharging their duties as rightful trustees. The cause of action arose for the suit on the date of Supplemental Trust Deed i.e., 15.02.2019 and on every subsequent day. Hence prays to decree the suit.
8. After service of suit summons defendants Nos.1 to 14 appeared before their counsel and filed written statements.
Defendants Nos.1 to 12 filed written statement by denying the plaint averments as false and this frivolous suit is filed seeking 16 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 declaratory relief is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The plaintiffs are not competent to file such a suit and not entitled for the reliefs. These defendants contended that, Sri Muneswaraswamy Temple was established at Avalahalli, Girinagara, Hosakerehalli Village by the family of late Kunnaiah about 200 years ago and he had around 80 Acres of family property which was acquired by the B.D.A for the purpose of a layout formed by Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society. In the original layout plan sanctioned by the B.D.A, the temple has been identified and the said temple is occupying the area about 25,000 square feet of land situated at Sy.No.105, 3rd cross, and there mini hall in its precinct was rebuilt and renovated in the year 2006 to 2008 by 1 st defendant Trust. The said temple is being managed by the family of late Kunnaiah and thereafter by the 1st defendant Trust. When the Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society is started interfering with the affairs of the temple, the Muneshwaraswamy temple trust headed by President K.Kashipathy has field the suit in O.S.No.7531 of 2016 before the City Civil Court and obtained injunction against such interference.
17
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
9. Further contended by defendants that, as can be seen from the original registered Trust dated. 14.06.2006, which was amended in terms of the Supplemental Deed dated. 15.02.2019, from out of the 16 Trustees majority of the Trust members are either the children or grandchildren of late Kunnaiah and K.Kashipathy being the son of late Kunnaiah was the President / Managing Trustee. As recited and enumerated in the inner page 9 of the Supplemental Trust Deed, the plaintiffs who were the Trustees in the original Trust deed were discharged/ removed from the Trust for their complete failure to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Trust and considering their persistent anti-Trust activities. Such removal of the plaintiffs along with the other Trustees had occasioned the re-constitution of the Trust in terms of the Supplemental Trust Deed.
10. Further contended that, when the President of the 1st defendant trust Mr.K.Kashipathy at his age of 83 had suffered serious brain injuries had been under treatment since 23.04.2019 18 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 and he died on 14.09.2019. Taking undue advantage of the crisis situation the disgruntled plaintiffs who were removed from the 'Muneshwaraswamy Temple Trust' , appears to have created a fake Trust called 'Muneshwara Swamy Seva Trust' on 12.04.2019 declaring themselves as Trustees and nominating some other localities as Trustees. Neither the original Trust formed in terms of the original Trust Deed dt. 14.06.2006 as amended on 15.02.2019 was dissolved in the manner known to Law or as provided under the deed of Trust nor there was any decisions to rename the Trust in terms of the process incorporated in the original trust Deed. Therefore the ostensible trust named as Muneshwara Swamy Seva Trust' being non-existent, was created by unscrupulous plaintiffs with an ulterior motive of grabbing the temple property. The plaintiffs are not competent to seek for such a declaration and the so called Muneshwara Swamy Seva' is non-est in the eye of law. The Trust Deed dt. 12.04.2019 is ab-initio void, is without any sanctity in law. The over ambitious plaintiffs have filed another suit previously in O.S.No.4722 of 2019 seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants herein who are the original Trustees in their 19 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 clever attempt to oust the original Trustees from the Trust property and obtained an ex-parte injunction.
11. Defendants denied each and every averments of the plaint as false and incorrect. They have contended that there is no cause of action for this suit and pleaded is untenable. If the plaintiffs are grieved by their removal, the remedies is elsewhere. The suit filed by the plaintiff in their individual capacity not even representing the so-called "Muneshwara Swamy Seva Trust' and without making other trustees as parties is not maintainable in view of the statutory bar under section 92 and other provisions of the C.P.C so also provisions of the Indian Trust Act. The suit is also barred under order 2 Rule 2 in view of the former suit. The valuation made in the suit is improper and illegal. The constitution of the suit as well as the reliefs are improper and illegal on the special facts and circumstances of the case. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any reliefs. Hence prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
20
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
12. Defendants Nos.13 and 14 have filed separate written statement. They admitted regarding the construction of the temple, donation of schedule property by Mr. Pailwan, Mr.B.P.Kempanna and Mrs. Savitramma. They contended that, they were the life time Trustees of 1st defendant Trust along with the plaintiff and the other trustees as mentioned in the Trust Deed dt. 14.06.2006. These defendants were actively involved in the day to day management of the temple along with the plaintiffs and other life time Trustees until resignation submitted by these defendants which were accepted by the Managing committee. Defendants Nos.13 and 14 are not personally aware of the subsequent events after their retirement and they were never involved in the management of the 1 st defendant trust after their retirement. These defendants visit the temple and participate in the activities only as devotees and never hindered the plaintiffs or any others from managing the day to day affairs. There is no cause of action against these defendants. Hence prays to dismiss the suit against them with exemplary costs.
21
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
13. On the basis of the above facts, this court has framed the following:-
ISSUES 1 Whether plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs are life time Trustees of defendant No.1 Trust as per the terms of the Trust Deed dt. 14.06.2006 and they are entitled to hold office of 1st defendant Trust?
2 Whether plaintiffs further prove that registered supplementary Trust dated. 15.02.2019 is illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs? 3 Whether plaintiffs further prove the removal of plaintiffs from 1st defendant Trust by way of Supplemental Trust Deed dt. 15.02.2019 is illegal?
4 Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought for?
5 What Decree or Order?22
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 ADDITIONAL ISSUE FRAMED ON 07.06.2023 1 Whether the defendants Nos.1 to 12 prove the suit is barred under 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C?
14. In order to prove plaintiffs' case, plaintiff No.2 himself examined as Pw.1 and got marked herself examined as Pw.1 and got marked 17 documents at Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.17. (Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.25 are marked through confrontation during the cross- examination of Dw.1 and closed their side of evidence.
On behalf of defendants, the President of Temple Trust K.Mariyappa examined as Dw.1 and got marked 17 documents as per Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.17. (Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 marked through confrontation during cross-examination of Pw.1) and closed their side of evidence.
15. Heard the arguments. The learned counsels for plaintiffs submitted written arguments and defendants Nos.1 to 12 submitted foundational facts. Perused the records.
23
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 The learned counsel for plaintiffs relied the following decisions:
1) Jaspal Kaur Cheema and another V/s Industrial Trade Links and others reported in (2017) 8 SCC 592
2) Bachhal Nhar V/s Nilima Mandal and another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 491
3) Alka Gupta V/s Narendra Kumar Gupta reported in (2010) 10 SCC 141
4) Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh V/s Randhir Singh and others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 112.
The learned counsel for defendants relied the following decisions:
1) Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Shamli and others V/s Lakshmi Narain and others reported in (1976) 2 SCC 258
2) Sir Surendra Nayak V/s A.M.Mohammed Shafi reported in ILR 2016 KAR 4162
3) Smt. Bismillah V/s Janeshwar Prasad and others V/s (1990) 1 SCC 207.
16. My findings on the above Issues are as under:-
ISSUE No.1 - In Affirmative ISSUE No.2 - In Affirmative 24 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 ISSUE No.3 - In Affirmative ISSUE No.4 - In Affirmative ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1 framed on 07.06.2023 - In Negative ISSUE No. 5- As per final order, for the following :-
REASONS ISSUE Nos.1 and 3: Both these Issues are inter-related with each other, they are being taken up together for discussion at a stretch in order to avoid repetitive discussion of facts.
17. The present suit is filed by the the alleged members of the Trust by name Sri Muneshwara Swamy Temple Trust. Both he parties admit the original Trust Deed dt. 14.6.2006. the plaintiffs have filed the suit claiming to be the life time trustees and the defendants have constituted Supplemental Deed of trust dt. 15.02.2019 by removing them from the Trust. They have also sought for declaration that they still continue to hold the office as per the original trust Deed. The contention of the plaintiffs is that, 25 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 they are not removed as per the procedure provided under the original Trust Deed.
18. In order to prove the contentions, the plaintiff No.2- K.Parthasarathy is examined as Pw.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25. He reiterated the plaint averments. Ex.P.1 is a certified copy of the original Trust Deed which discloses that, plaintiff No.1 was Vice President and plaintiff No.2 was trustee, as this document is admitted not much discussion is required. Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 are the legal notices and postal receipts dt. 12.08.2017 which discloses that defendant No.14 herein has given resignation which is also not disputed. Ex.P.4 is a resolution by the Trust accepting the resignation of defendant No.14 herein. Ex.P.5 is the plaint in O.S.No.4722 of 2019 filed by Muneshwara Swamy Temple Trust now called as Muneshwara Swamy Seva Trust against the other 12 members for permanent injunction. The said suit was filed on 1.7.2019. Ex.P.6 is the order sheet in O.S.No. 4722 of 2019. Ex.P.7 is interlocutory application under Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to vacate the interim order. Ex.P.8 is the alleged supplemental deed 26 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 dt. 15.02.2019. Ex.P.9 is the Reconstitution Trust dt. 12.04.2019. Ex.P.10 is a death certificate of Kashipathy who was originally the Trustee and he died on 14.09.2019. Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.16 are the photographs and Ex.P.17 is the CD. Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.25 are the photographs which are marked on confrontation to Dw.1.
19. Pw.1 in his cross-examination has stated that, the said temple is more than 60 years old and surrounding area belongs to Vishwa Bharathi Housing Co-operative Society Layout. He admits that, Kashipathy is one of the person who fought for the development of the Trust until his death in the year 2019. He admits that original Trust was created in the year 2006 and said Kashipathy was the President and he was also the Trustee till 2019. He admits that he maintains his family out of the income derived from the rent. He denies that income to the temple is received from devotees only. There is audit of the same. He states that there are many devotees who visit the temple once in a year and other days there are less number of devotees. The object of the Trust was to continue the Samudaya Bhavana. He denies that beneficiaries of Trust were the 27 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 Public. He states that Kashipathy was originally an agriculturist. He states that he was not aware that said Kashipathy was suffering from Paralysis. He admits that, Puttaiah and Linganna had resigned from the Trust in the year 2017 and admits his resignation which is marked as Ex.D.1 which was accepted by the then President Kashipathy. The said document is also marked as Ex.D.2. He has admitted Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.4 also. He also admits that after 2017 both of them had no relation with the Trust. He has admitted the resolution dt. 12.02.2019 which is marked as Ex.D.3. He also admits filing of O.S.No.4722 of 2019. He denies that in the resolution at Ex.D.3 the Trustees who had resigned were also included. He admits starting of Muneshwara Swamy Seva Trust in the year 2019. The original suit in O.S.No.4722 of 2019 was filed because Kashipathy and others tried to interfere. He states that he does not remember the resolution which his marked as Annexure-H in the said suit. Her admits that Lakshman is his relative and he is son of sister of Kashipathy. He does not remember whether Lakshman has given power of attorney to depose on his behalf. He also identifies said Lakshman present in the open court. 28
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
20. Pw.1 further states that before 2019 the Trust Meeting was to be held once in 3 months or 6 months and he volunteers that members used to meet daily. He admits that on 10 th of every 3 months there used to be meeting conducted. He states that it was before. He also admits that the date of meeting was to be fixed orally. He states that he has not produced any documents to show that he attended meeting from 2017 to 2019. He denies that he has not attended the meeting. He has not brought to the notice about the Audit of the Trust nor he asked the same to the plaintiff No.1. He states that he does not know that for the past 10 years the Audit of the Trust is done by one Gururaja Rao. He denies that as he has not attended the meeting he does not know about the same. He denies that the plaintiffs had frustration as they were not given higher posts in the trust. He states that Kashipathy was called to the meeting on 12.02.2019 he did not attend as he was not well. He states that apart from this Trust he is not member of any other trust. He does not know about Lakshman being the member of the any other Trust. He also denies that as Supplemental Trust deed was constituted they have formed another Trust. He admits Ex.P.9. 29
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
21. The defendants Nos. 1 to 12 in their written statement have defended the removal of the plaintiffs for their complete failure to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Trust and persistent anti-trust activities. Hence the original trust deed was dissolved and another trust deed dt. 15.02.2019 was constituted on the manner known to law and provided under deed of Trust.
22. In order to prove their defence, they have examined Sri. Mariyappa, President of the Trust is examined as Dw.1 and got marked Ex.D.4 to Ex.D.17. Ex.D.1 to 3 got confronted through Pw.1. In his cross-examination he states to have studied upto 4 th Std. Ex.D.1 is Application for resignation given by Puttaiah ie.. defendant No.13. Ex.D.2 is copy of acceptance of resignation letter dt. 21.08.2017. These documents are admitted by both the parties. Ex.D.3 is a Resolution dt. 12.02.2019. Ex.D.3(a) signature of plaintiff No.2 herein. Ex.D.4 is Resolution book of the Trust which is denied and disputed by the plaintiff. Ex.D.5 is order sheet in O.S.No.4722 of 2019 which discloses that the suit is dismissed as withdrawn on 24.05.2023. Ex.D.6 is a Income Tax Returns filed for 30 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 the assessment year 2021- 22. Ex.D.7 is Income Tax Returns filed for the assessment year 2016-17. Ex.D.8 is the Income tax Assessment for the year 2020-21. Ex.D.9 is the Income tax Assessment for the year 2019-20. Ex.D.10 is the Income tax Assessment for the year 2018-19. Ex.D.11 to Ex.D.16 are RTCs with respect to Sy.No.105 in which Kunnaiah & his family members are shown as Genedhars. Ex. D.17 is mutation register extract.
23. He admits that he was not Trustee in the original deed dt. 14.06.2006 and first time in the year 2019 he became the Trustee and he is not aware of the matters prior to he becoming the Trustee. He admits that temple is 200 years old In the year 2008 it was renovated and it is situated in Sy.No.105 of Hosakerehalli. He states that he does not know property originally belonged to B.T.Kempanna and his family. He also states not knowing about Sy.No.105 originally belonging to C.N.Tiwari which B.T.Kempanna purchased later. He also states not knowing about the construction of temple by B.T.Kempanna and his family members. He states not knowing about Kunnaiah and his children filing application 31 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 No.1703 / 1974-75 as the tenants in land Revenue Court. He denies that, in the said application they have stated to be the tenants under B.T.Kempanna. He states that he does not know how his father got 80 acres of land. He denies that he has deposed falsely with respect to said 80 acres land in his affidavit. He states not knowing about submitting revenue documents with respect to Sy.No.105 prior to 1960. He denies that the records were not in his father's name. He admits that, the President under original trust Deed was Kashipathy and all original documents were with him and also admits that, Kashipathy died on 14.09.2019 and he was not well prior to his death. He admits that he became President after his death and original documents are with him. He has seen the original trust deed and knows about the contents of the same and has forgotten now.
24. Dw.1 in his deposition has admitted that original 6 members were present in the Trust. He admits that Kashipathy is his own brother and Parthasarathy is son of B.T.Kempanna. He 32 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 also admits that Puttaiah, Linganna, Laxmana and Parthasarathy are not members of Kunnaiah and his family. He admits that the original 6 trustees were life time Trustees. He admits that the office bearers to the Trust were to be elected once in 5 years. He states not knowing about continuation of the existing Trust in case elections are not conducted. The meeting was conducted once in 3 months. He does not know as to within how many days the meeting has to be conducted. He admits that plaintiff No.1 was the Vice President and Puttaiah was Chief Secretary till 2017. He admits that Puttaiah resigned on 12.08.2017 which was accepted. He also admits that right from beginning of the Trust until resignation Puttaiah was the Chief Secretary of the Trust. He does not remember whether the resolution to accept his resignation is produced or not. He has identified the photographs of the temple and other premises in the temple and also the statue of B.T.Kempanna which are marked as Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.23. He states that there is no impediment to produce original Trust Deed. E also identifies another photographs in which his brother Kashipathy is seen and states that it has taken at the time of statue unveiling 33 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 Ceremony of B.T.Kempanna which are marked as Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.25. He states that he does not know that the statue is placed in the premises as B.T.Kempanna and family had donated the land and had strived for development for a temple.
25. Dw.1 further states that Ex.D.4 is written by his son Krishnamurthy and does not know about the single page pasted to Ex.D.4. He does not know when his son was a Trustee. He states that admitting his son as a Member of the Trust a resolution is passed which is there in Ex.D.4. But does not remember the date and year. He states that there is no resolution to make him as a member of the Trust. He has identified the signature of plaintiffs at Ex.D.4 which are marked as Ex.D.4(b), C, D and E. He states that he does not know about mentioning plaintiffs as absent on 12.06.2009 and 15.03.2009 even though the signatures are found on that day. He has also identified the signatures of Linganna on various dates which are marked as Ex.D.4(f) to (j). He states not knowing about the signatures of Linganna on 05.02.2012 when he 34 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 was absent. He states not knowing about referring Anjanappa as Vice President when the election have to be conducted for the said post. On 08.07.2016 and 10.10.2016 the plaintiffs were not present for the meeting. He states that the decision in the meeting was communicated to the plaintiffs but does not know who has communicated the same. He states not knowing about mentioning K.Boregowda as Chief Secretary when in Ex.D.2 from 14.06.2006 till 12.08.2017 it is mentioned that Puttaiah was working as Chief Secretary. He states not knowing about appointing Krishnamurthy n 10.10.2016 as Chief Secretary in the place of Puttaiah. He does not remember when Boregowda was elected as Chief Secretary or the resolutions prior to 08.07.2016 bears his signatures or not. He states that there was meeting to admit his son as member of the Trust. He admits that the persons who were present on meeting dt.10.04.2017 as exhibited in Ex.D.4 Kashipathy is his brother, Boregowda, Shankar and Purushotham are children of Kashipathy. Boramma is sister of Kashipathy and V.Narayanappa is the son-in- law of Boramma and Gangadhar and Dhananjay are children of Boralingaiah and Shankarappa is son of brother of Boralingaiah. 35
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 Chandru is son of Shankarappa. Jayanthi is grand-son of Kashipathy. Jayamma is wife of Boregowda and admits that all the persons present in the meeting are his family members. He also admits that in Ex.D.4 the meeting on 10.10.2017 the signature of all the above persons is found. There was no show-cause notice issued to the plaintiffs to remove them under a resolution dt. 10.10.2017. He states that they removed as they did not attend the meetings. He states that, he does not know whether there is a mention in the resolution at Ex.D.4 about plaintiffs acting against the interest of Trust as alleged in para-3 of the affidavit in examination- in-chief. He denies that they were working as members of the Trust even after 10.10.2017.
26. Dw.1 admits that on the said date out of the original trustees only Kashipathy and Boralingaiah were present. He states that as the other side left there was no majority. He states that he has forgotten as to why he signed in Ex.D.4 in the year 2016 when he joined the Trust in the year 2019. He denies that Ex.D.4 is 36 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 created for the purpose of this suit and forged the signatures of the plaintiffs. He admits that, all the members referred in Ex.P.8 are his family members. To the suggestion that the original 4 trustees and the family members are not members of the Supplemental Deed of Trust. The witness states that, they have formed another Trust. He states he does not know whether the reason for not including the original trustees and family members is written in Ex.D.8 or not. He states that there is no reference of Ex.P.8 in Ex.D.4. He denies the suggestion that Ex.P.8 is against the object and conditions of original trust, the witness states that, as they have left it is correct. He denies that plaintiffs have managed the trust when Kashipathy was not well. He denies that Boralingaiah was not participating any of the activities of the Trust. To the suggestion that on 12.04.2019 a reconstitution deed was executed on the behest of the devotees and the villagers, the witness states that it is formed by them only. He denies the suggestion that when plaintiffs came to do the work of the committee they have been harassed. He denies that plaintiffs being life members are still the members of the Trust. 37
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
27. In order to establish that plaintiffs are life time trustees the original trust deed dt. 14.6.2006 which is marked as Ex.P.1 is admitted by the defendants in their written statement. In para 2 (III) there is a reference of amended Trust Deed to original Trust Deed dt. 14.6.2016. There is also admission that the plaintiffs were Trustees in the original Trust. Learned counsel for plaintiffs submitted that in view of defendants not specifically denying plaint averments at para 6 to 13 amounts to admission as per order 8 Rule 3, 4 and 5 of CPC and placed reliance on judgment in the case of Jaspal Kaur V/s Industrial Trade Linkis and others, reported in (2017) 8 SCC 592, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, failure to specifically deny the plaint averments or an evasive denial would amounts to an admission of the averments made in the plaint".
28. The learned Senior Counsel for defendants in the course of arguments has also submitted that, the plaintiffs were removed as per the procedure laid down in original Trust Deed and 38 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 drawn the attention of the court to Clause-10 (c) and 12 of the Deed, wherein the procedure for removal of the trustees for life in violation of any law of the Trust and further in case of urgency meeting can be called for and as per Clause-14 the majority decision is final.
29. Perusal of the Ex.D.1, it provides in Clause-10 (a) provides that, if the office bearers of the Trust are continuously absent for 3 meetings the majority members can take action against them. Clause 10(c) provides that, the life members in case of violation of the Trust Act can be removed or may resign. Clause 12 provides that, the working Committee can call meeting in case of urgency to take decisions. Further Clause 14 provides that, in case of difference of opinion the opinion of the majority shall be final. Clause-17 provides for election once in five years in case of non- election the present members would continue. Clause-18 defines majority as 1/3rd members.
39
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
30. The arguments and the averments in the plaint and written statement wherein the defendants have also admit that original Trust Deed is dissolved, as such the document is admitted by both the parties, as both place reliance on the same. One alleges non removal as per the procedure and the defendants allege the removal of plaintiff as procedure provided under Trust Deed. It is also stated that, the plaintiffs are removed as they were not attending the meetings and have remained absent for 3 consecutive meetings and the learned Senior counsel has drawn the attention of the court to Ex.D.4 and resolution dt. 10.10.2017 and for activities against the objectives of the Trust. Further Pw.1 in his cross-examination has also admitted that plaintiffs are life time trustees of defendant No.1 Trust. Defendant No 13 and 14 also admit that plaintiffs were life time trustees. Hence it is proved that plaintiffs are life time trustees of the trust.
31. The defendants admitted that the plaintiffs are life time members and are removed as per the procedure under trust deed. 40
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 Both the counsels have referred to the provisions of trust deed. On the admission that the plaintiffs are life time members they contend that, there is no notice nor procedure followed nor there was majority. Prima-facie burden is on the plaintiffs and the defendants no where state that, the notice is given but in-turn take the defence that in case of urgency no notice can be given. Even though in the evidence, it is admitted that on 10th of Every month the meeting is conducted, since the question of removal of the life time members was involved a notice which is the principle of natural justice was supposed to be given which has not been given. The 2 nd contention of the plaintiff is that, the supplemental deed dt.15.02.2019 does not make any reference to the due process as envisaged in Trust Deed dt. 14.06.2006 is followed and plaintiffs are illegally removed. They further contended that in case of urgency no requirement of notice. Hence the onus has shifted on the defendants to prove that plaintiffs are removed as per the procedure under the Trust. The only point to be considered the removal of the plaintiffs by way of supplemental Trust Deed dt. 15.02.2019 is illegal or not. If yes, then automatically the plaintiffs would be entitled to hold office of 1 st 41 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 defendant Trust even today if no then their removal would be upheld.
32. Further the perusal of the Supplemental Deed at Ex.P.8 there is no reference of either the resolution dt. 10.10.2017 which is the basis of defence of the defendants and counsel for plaintiffs has referred to Clause-12 of the said deed showing that the principle Trustees remained absent and as per Clause-10A for smooth functioning unanimously their Trusteeship is terminated in par with Trust Rules. The entire document nowhere refers to the resolution. The learned Senior Counsel for the defendants Nos.1 to 12 lays stress on the reference in order passed in O.S.No.4722 of 2019, wherein the Judicial order based on the resolution dt. 10.10.2017 is passed. The said contention does not hold water as neither the supplemental deed nor the written statement there is contention of removal of plaintiffs by resolution dt. 10.10.2017 and plaintiffs have pleaded that, the order in the very suit basis the cause of action of this suit.
42
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
33. The defendants Nos.1 to 12 alleged that, due to the plaintiffs not attending the meeting and acting against the objectives of the Trust they have been removed. The Senior counsel for the defendants has also drawn the attention of the court to the suit filed by the plaintiffs which are marked as Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 and submit that act of the plaintiffs forming another Seva Trust itself shows that they acted against the objectives of the original Trust. Per contra the counsel for plaintiffs submit that, there cannot be any evidence without any pleadings as defendants in their written statement never contended what is the act of the plaintiffs which is against the Trust for which they are removed is forthcoming. Further, the said Trust is created in the year 2019 whereas the alleged removal of the plaintiffs is stated to be under a resolution dt. 10.10.2017, as such the arguments of the defendants cannot be accepted.
34. The first limb of defence and arguments of the defendants Nos.1 to 12 is that, as per Clause 10 (c) and 12 of the original Trust Deed at Ex.P.1, the trustees can be removed if they 43 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 remain absent to the meetings by majority or in the case of violation of any law under the Trust. But no averment as to violation of or any act of the plaintiffs which is against the objectives of the Trust is not at all averred in the written statement nor any circumstances is specifically stated to be against object of original trust. As such the arguments of the learned counsel for plaintiffs that in the absence of pleadings the same cannot be looked into falls within the established principles of law, as such the defendants have failed to make out the ground that the plaintiffs have acted in violation of objectives of the Trust.
35. Second limb of defence and arguments of learned senior counsel is that, the plaintiffs have remained absent for meetings of the Trust, for which they have produced Ex.D.4. The learned counsel for plaintiffs during the course of arguments has in detail drawn the attention of the court how Ex.D.4 is not proved by the defendants nor contended in the written statement. He relies on decision in Bachajr Nahar V/s Neelama Mandal, reported in 2008 44 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 (17) SCC 491, wherein it is held that, 'no amount of evidence on a plea that is not put-forward in the pleadings can be looked into to grant any relief. There are various resolutions passed in the year 2017 and 2019 here there is mention of plaintiffs being absent to the meeting and the resolution and it still bears their signatures on dates of meetings held on 12.06.2009 and 15.03.2009, which is completely contradictory which the defendants have failed to explain. Further, Dw.1 in his cross-examination has stated that handwriting in Ex.D.4 is that of his son but have not made any efforts to get the son examined and prove the document at Ex.D4. Dw.1 in his cross-examination admits that, his son joined in 2016 how he wrote the minutes of meetings of 2006 is not properly explained. Dw.1 has failed to give many explanations in his cross- examination as to the signature in the year 2016 when he became the trustee only in the year 2019, when his son became the trustee. Dw.1 in his cross-examination admits that Puttaiah gave resignation on 12.08.2017 and there is reference in Ex.D.2 that he was the Chief Secretary from the initial days of Trust which is completely contradictory to the statement in Ex.D.4 as to the meeting on 45 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 08.07.2016 referring Boregowda as Chief Secretary. No reasons are forthcoming referring Boregowda as Chief Secretary. The documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 are contradictory as no reference to meting dt. 19.08.2017 is forthcoming. When plaintiffs were removed in the year 2017 when election was conducted, how Mr.Anjinappa is shown as Vice president on resolution dt. 05.02.2012 when plaintiff No.1 was Vice President till 2017 is not explained. In meeting dt. 08.07.2016 Boregowda is shown as Chief Secretary when defendant No.13 is continued as Chief Secretary till August 2017 when his resignation was accepted on 19.08.2017. All these circumstances have created doubt as to the credibility of the document at Ex.D.4 which the defendants have completely failed to establish. Hence the said document remain disproved.
36. The learned counsel for the defendants basis his arguments that in case of urgency no notice is required to be given. But the basic principles of natural justice requires a notice to be given and if the defendants plead urgency they have to prove the same by averring the same in their pleadings but the same does not 46 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 find place in their written statement. They based their arguments under Clause-12 of the original Trust Deed, but have not stated as to what was the urgency to take the decision without giving notice. No iota of documents are placed on the record to show that either the plaintiffs were given show cause of notice or it was communicated to them nor urgency pleaded or proved.
37. Strangely Dw.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that, the persons who were present on the date of the resolution i.e., 10.10.2017 are only his family members and they are the one who are the trustees under the Supplemental Trust Deed which is in question.
38. In so far as the majority trustees is concerned already two Trustees had resigned and only two trustees apart from the trustees to be removed were remaining, how the decision was taken and how they constitute majority is not explained by defendants as provided under Clause-18 of the original Trust Deed, 47 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 wherein majority amounts to 1/3rd and out of 6 life members there are only 2 members. Even if admitted that plaintiffs were removed on 10.10.2017 Ex.D.3 which bears the signatures of plaintiff No.1 which is dt. 12.12.2019 does not explain as to even after removal how plaintiff No.2 was permitted to attend the meeting.
39. The plaintiffs contend that, the suit n O.S.No.4722 of 2019 was filed only for injunction. During the pendency of which they came to know about the supplemental trust deed which is cause of action to this suit. Whereas the defendants allege that, in the said order sheet itself there is mention of resolution dt. 10.10.2017 under which the plaintiffs are removed. Even in the Supplemental Deed at Ex.P.8 there is no mention about removal of the plaintiffs under the resolution dt.10.10.2017. The perusal of Ex.P.8 discloses that the temple is established by Kunnaiah and his family which is completely contradictory to cross of Dw.1 in which he has admitted that Kunnaiah was Genidaar under B.T.Kempanna and it is Kempanna who had donated the land as such his statue is 48 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 also installed in the premises of the Trust. The said document only discloses that few trustees of the original Trust have remained continuously absent and few have voluntarily resigned and as per Clause-10 of the original Deed the 4 persons have been removed and terminated and a new deed is constituted.
40. Defendants have based their entire defence on Ex.D.4 which has not at all been proved by them as the plaintiffs denied the signatures and on various dates there is mention of plaintiffs being absent and their signatures are found on the very same day which they have failed to explain and there are many contradictions in the very same document which makes it unbelievable. Hence the same stands disproved. Further, no notice prior to termination or the urgency as pleaded by the defendants to waive off the notice is also neither pleaded or proved. Hence, the removal of the plaintiffs on this ground is also not valid. As such these issues are answered in the Affirmative.
49
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 ISSUE No.2:-
41. The Supplemental Deed is constituted on 15.02.2019. The defendants contended that the said deed is constituted as the original trustees were removed. They contend that they were removed under a resolution dt. 10.10.2017 which does not find a place is in either the written statement or examination-in-chief of dw.1. The plaintiffs have successfully established that the said deed is constituted only by the family members of Kunnaiah leaving out the original trustees. In view of holding that removal of plaintiffs is not according to the provisions under the original trust deeds and the contents of the Supplemental deed at Ex.P.8 dt. 15.02.2019 does not find a mention of resolution dt. 10.10.2017, the reason which the defendants claim for forming of the said deed as such the pleading and evidence being contradictory and also leading evidence without averments. Hence this issue is answered in the Affirmative.
50
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 ISSUE No.4:
42. The learned counsel for defendants relied on decision in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Shamil and others V/s Lakshmi Narain and others reported in (1976) 2 SCC 258, wherein it is held that, the relief of declaration and injunction being discretionary party cannot seek as a matter of right is upheld and learned Senior counsel submits that, the plaintiffs have not sought proper prayer as to challenge the resolution of removal dt. 10.10.2017. Hence, they have not approached this court with clean hands and are not entitled for equitable relief Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. This contention cannot be accepted as the same is submitted in view of filing of O.S.NO.4722 of 2019 at Ex.P.6, as already it is held that a said suit was limited for bare injunction. The cause of action for the present suit arises from the said previous suit. Further also refers to Judgment in Mr.Surendra Naik V/s A.M.Mohammed Shafi reported in ILR 2016 Karnataka 4162, referring to the Doctrine of Estoppel, the party asserting an in consistence possession cannot derive an unfair advantage is held. 51
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 Per contra, the learned counsel for plaintiffs submit that said resolution is no where referred in the supplemental deed or in the written statement and same is not within their knowledge. The decisions relied by the defendants are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand, as no where they have contended in the written statement about the resolution Book or the resolution dt. 10.10.2017 nor the same is found in Supplemental Deed.
43. The learned Senior counsel has also referred Section 3 of the Trust Act. In view of the detailed Trust Deed providing for removal which is admitted by both the parties now this contention cannot be accepted. As the plaintiffs proved that they are still life time trustees and their removal from the trust is not according to the established rules of the Trust and already issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered in the Affirmative, as such the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought for. Hence this issue is answered in the Affirmative. 52
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 ADDITIONAL ISSUE framed on 7.6.2023:-
44. The defendants have contended that in view of plaintiffs filing O.S.No.4722 of 2019 this suit is barred under order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. The documents of the said suit at Ex.P.5 and 6 discloses that it is only a suit for bare injunction and the plaintiffs got to know about the formation of supplemental deed in the said suit itself which is the basis of cause of action to file the present suit.
45. The learned counsel for plaintiffs relied on Alka Gupta V/s Narendra Kumar Gupta reported in 2010 (10) SCC 141, wherein it is stated that, in both the suits it is required to be seen whether the relief claimed is arising from same cause of action and plaintiffs were entitled to more than one relief and without leave omitted to sue for the other relief. In the case on hand, the earlier suit being only for injunction and the written statement in that suit is cause of action for the present suit, which are both different and relief sought is also different. In view of withdrawal of the said suit by an order 53 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 dt. 24.05.2023 and said suit being limited for permanent injunction only as such this issue is answered in the Negative.
ISSUE No.5:-
46. For the reasons and discussion on the above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. Plaintiffs are declared to be still Trustees and continue to hold the office as per the Trust Deed dt. 14.06.2006. The Supplemental Deed of the Trust dt. 15.02.2019 is non-est and binding on the plaintiffs.
Further defendants Nos.2 to 12 are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from interrupting/obstructing the plaintiffs from discharging their duties as a rightful Trustees of 1st defendant trust.54
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019 Draw decree accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, directly on Computer, typed and print out taken by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 13th day of March, 2024).
(Sindhu Potadar) XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
P.W.1 : K.Parthasarathy
2.DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P1 C/c of the original Trust Deed
Ex.P.2,P3 Legal notices
Ex.P.4 Resignation letter dt.21.8.2017
Ex.P.5 C/c of Plaint in O.S.No.4722 of 2019
Ex.P.6 C/c of Order sheet in O.S.4722/2019
Ex.P.7 C/c of I.A U/s.151 of C.P.C
Ex.P.8 C/c of Supplemental deed dt. 15.2.2019
Ex.P.9 Copy of Reconstitution Trust dt. 12.04.2019
Ex.P.10 Death certificate of Kashipathy
Ex.P.11 Photographs along with CD
to Ex.P.17
55
O.S.No. 7046/ 2019
Ex.P.18 Photographs
to
Ex.P.25
3. WITNESS/ES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 : Mariyappa
4. DOCUMENT/S MARKED ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D1 Application for resignation given by D.13
Ex.D2 Copy of acceptance of resignation letter dt.
21.8.2017
Ex.D.3 Resolution dt. 12.02.2019
Ex.D.3(a) Signature of plaintiff No.2 herein Ex.D.4 Resolution book of the Trust Ex.D.5 Copy of Order sheet in O.S.No.4722/ 2019 Ex.D.6 Income Tax Returns for the year 2021-22 and and D.7 2016-17 Ex.D8 Income tax assessment for the year 2020-21 to and 2019-2020, 2018-19 Ex.D.10 Ex.D.11 RTC's to Ex.D.16 Ex.D.17 Mutation register extract (Sindhu Potadar) XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
56 O.S.No. 7046/ 2019