Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jagadguru Channabasavananada ... vs Basavadharma Peetha Religious And ... on 16 January, 2023
Author: Ravi V. Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V. Hosmani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6669 OF 2022 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. JAGADGURU CHANNABASAVANANADA SWAMIJI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/A NO.2035, 20TH MAIN ROAD,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
...APPELLANT
[BY SRI P.D.SURANA, ADVOCATE (PH) ]
AND:
1. BASAVADHARMA PEETHA RELIGIOUS &
CHARITABLE TRUST,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.2035,
20TH MAIN ROAD,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
REP. BY ITS TRUSTEES
THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6.
2. POOJYA SRI JAGADGURU MATE GANGADEVI
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/A NO.2035, 20TH MAIN ROAD,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
2
3. POOJYA SRI JAGADGURU SIDDARAMESHWARA
SWAMIJI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/A NO.2035, 20TH MAIN ROAD,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
ALSO AT NO.488/2,
BASAVA DHARMA PEETHA
MAIN ROAD, TRIPURANT,
BASAVAKALYANA, BIDAR-585 327.
4. POOJYA SRI JAGADGURU BASAVA KUMARA SWAMIJI
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/A NO.2035, 20TH MAIN ROAD,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
5. POOJYA SRI SADGURU MAHADESHWARA SWAMIJI
R/A NO.2035, 20TH MAIN ROAD,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
ALSO AT BASAVA DHARMA PEETHA,
MAHAMANE MAHAMATHA,
KUDALASANGAMA, BAGALKOT-587 112.
6. POOJYA SRI SADGURU MATE BASAVARATHNADEVI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/A: NO.2035, 2OTH MAIN ROAD,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
ALSO AT: BASAVA DHARMA PEETHA,
MAHAMANE MAHAMATHA,
KUDALASANGAMA, BAGALKOT-587 112.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. N.VAGEESH, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/R1, R2 TO R6
(PH)]
3
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER ORDER
43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 01.07.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.996/2022 ON
THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF THE COURT OF THE
XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-9),
BENGALURU, REJECTING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX
RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 31.10.2022, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging impugned order dated 01.07.2022 passed by VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15) at Bengaluru in O.S.no.996/2022 on I.A.no.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC), this appeal is filed.
2. Appellant herein was plaintiff, while respondents herein were defendants no.1 to 6 respectively. For sake of convenience they will be referred to as such.
4
3. O.S.no.996/2022 was filed seeking for:
a. declaration that expulsion of plaintiff from defendant no.1 - Trust stated to have been made by defendants on basis of resolution stated to be made on 04.12.2021 and Deed of Amendment of Trust dated 07.01.2022 and registered as document no.594/2021-22, Book no.4, stored in CD.no.RJND-1059 and registered in office of Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bangalore as null and void and not binding on plaintiff and plaintiff continues to be Trustee of defendant no.1;
b. restrained defendants from enforcing resolution dated 04.12.2021 and Amendment of Trust dated 07.01.2022 and registered as document no.594/2021-22, Book no.4, stored in CD.no.RJND-1059 and registered in office of Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bangalore against plaintiff in interest of justice.
4. In said suit, plaintiff filed I.A.no.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from enforcing resolution dated 04.12.2021 and Amendment of Trust dated 07.01.2022, and registered as document no.594/2021-22, Book no.4, stored in 5 CD.no.RJND-1059 and registered in office of Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bangalore against plaintiff.
5. In affidavit filed in support of application, it was stated that a religious and charitable Trust was established by name 'Basava Dharma Peetha Religious and Charitable Trust' as per registered Trust Deed dated 06.03.2008, authored by Poojya Sree Jagadguru Mate Mahadevi (referred to as 'Mate Mahadevi' for short), who was its founder - President and permanent trustee. Defendants no.2 to 4 were appointed as Trustees by her. It was stated that main object of Trust was to propagate preaching of philosophy of Guru Basavanna and of his contemporary sharanas. For said purpose, Trust Deed provided for adoption of various schemes and ways. It also provided for construction of Basava Mantapas for mass prayers and various activities for spreading Lingayath Dharma.
6
6. It was further stated that plaintiff was born on 06.08.1971 at Khatak Chincholi village, Balki Taluk to Sri.Mallaiah Swami Dakulage and Smt.Kasturi Bai. He was administered Lingadeekshe by late Poojya Jagadguru Ligananda Mahaswamiji at Basava Mantappa in Bidar during April 2008, when he was 16 years of age. Thereafter, he took active part in activities conducted at Basava Mantappa; he was also very keen on preachings of Basavanna. After completing graduation during year 1993-94, he was totally dedicated in serving community by giving pravachanas and taking part in all activities conducted by Rastriya Basavadala Organization. With intention of entering sanyasa ashrama, he joined Akka Mahadevi Ashrama at Dharwad. He was given sadhaka deekshe at said ashrama during year 1996 with blessings of Mate Mahadevi. During October 1996, he was sent by her to Delhi with object of establishing Basava Dharma Peetha at Delhi. For said purpose he took house on rent. Thereafter defendant no.2 and other Shisya Vrunda joined him. 7 Thereafter they engaged in preaching Basava Dharma and organized Basava Dharma conference at Delhi during October 1997. Thereafter plaintiff was recalled to Karnataka and given responsibility of organizing various activities. It was further stated on 23.09.2002, plaintiff was given jangama deekshe at Kollegal and he was named as Poojya Sri Channabasavananda Swamiji. Between years 2002 and 2005, Mate Mahadevi deputed plaintiff to various places with special task of conducting pravachanas and propagating Basava Dharma. He also organized Lingayath Dharma conference during October 2005 and Basava Dharma conference in Chennai during April 2008. In June 2010, a Jnana Peetha was established at ashram in Kumbalagodu. Upto year 2018, plaintiff was fully immersed in activities of Trust. But at that time, health of Mate Mahadevi began to deteriorate and on 14.03.2019, she left mortal world. But, she had left a registered Will dated 27.04.2017 in relation to various properties acquired with contributions from devotees, and which were dedicated to 8 Trust. As per said Will, defendant no.2 was appointed as Working President of Vishwa Kalyana Mission Charitable Trust. She appointed plaintiff as Trustee in three Trusts established by her namely, Basava Dharma Peetha Religious and Charitable Trust, Vishwa Kalyana Mission Charitable Trust and Basava Mahamane Charitable Trust.
7. Mate Mahadevi also established another Trust by name Jaganmatha Akkamahadevi Anubhava Peetha at Dharwad for welfare of female members of society. Though it was to be managed by women sanyasis, plaintiff was deputed to assist Trustees. He was also appointed as General Secretary of another Trust by name Jagadguru Allamaprabhu Yoga Peetha in Alate, Maharashtra and was incharge of Channabasaveshwara Mutt at Ulvi where he purchased 03 acres of land in name of Mate Mahadevi with donations collected. All these were bequeathed under Will in favour of Trusts established by her.
9
8. It was further stated that plaintiff had dedicated 32 years of his life towards spreading preachings of Dharma Guru Basavanna and had not indulged in any activities of whatsoever in nature contrary to preaching and philosophy and served above mentioned institutions under guidance of Mate Mahadevi. Thereafter, by Deed of Amendment dated 20.03.2012, original Trust Deed was amended to incorporate clauses providing for irrevocability of Trust and naming people of all castes as beneficiaries and for utilization of funds only for objects of Trust. Trust Deed was amended again on 29.03.2019 as per Will of Mate Mahadevi elevating defendant no.2 to post of Working President of Basava Dharma Peetha. But thereafter defendants no.2 to 6 claimed to have executed another Deed of Amendment on 07.01.2022, alleging that in meeting held on 04.12.2021 at Jaganmate Akkamahadevi Anubhava Peetha Dharwad, wherein discussions were held in relation to controversial statements and violations of plaintiff 10 and it was resolved to expel him from trusteeship. It was recorded that plaintiff had attended said meeting.
9. It was stated that on said date, no meeting was convened, but there were discussions with regard to proposal of Government to distribute eggs to school children in mid-day meals and it was resolved to oppose same. Taking advantage of fact that plaintiff had participated in meeting on 04.12.2021, a false recording was made in Deed of Amendment that plaintiff had participated in meeting convened for his expulsion. It was also stated that alleged expulsion was not preceded by any notice calling for explanation and was illegal null and void. It was stated that plaintiff had devoted his life for development of defendant no.1 - Trust established by Mate Mahadevi and was continuously engaged in Dharma Prachara after becoming sanyasi. It was specifically stated that plaintiff had opposed usage of building acquired in Delhi for activities other than 11 those of Trust, which caused displeasure to defendant no.2, who had allowed her poorvashrama sister to use it.
10. It was stated that except above, there were no other reasons for displeasure and that plaintiff had all respect towards defendant no.2. It was therefore contended that balance of convenience lie in his favour and if interim injunction was refused, plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury which could not be compensated in terms of money.
11. Said application was opposed by defendants by filing written statement and objections virtually denying all plaint/application averments. It was stated that Basava Dharma Peetha was apolitical in nature. After induction of plaintiff as Trustee, Mate Mahadevi thought of replacing suffix 'Koodala Sangamadeva' with 'Lingadeva' by publishing book by name Basava Vachana Deepthi. Due to protests, it was banned by Government. Petitions challenging ban order were 12 dismissed by this Court as well as by Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was asserted that right from beginning, plaintiff did not adhere to strict principles of sanyasa deekshe and had inclination towards popularity and fishing in troubled water, he also nurtured ambition of becoming Mahapeethadhipathi. Due to same, Trust was exposed to frequent discomfort. Plaintiff raked up issue of usage of name 'Lingadeva' instead of 'Koodala Sangamadeva' in vachanas of Guru Basavanna inspite of advise by Mathe Mahadevi. In meanwhile, after Government of India introduced Citizenship Amendment Act, several political parties were against said enactment. Plaintiff was not supposed to express his opinion in political matters, began participating in protests and agitation and opposed passing of CAA and NRC. Such conduct was against philosophy and purpose of Trust. Though said issue was brought to knowledge of plaintiff and advised not to repeat and demean Trust, in meeting dated 10.09.2021, which he attended and failed to submit his reply. In meeting dated 04.12.2021, he 13 gave oral account and defended himself. But reasons assigned were unacceptable. Therefore, with intention to save honour and prestige of Peetha, plaintiff was expelled from Trusteeship and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. Since plaintiff put reputation of Trust in jeopardy, it warranted serious action. Therefore, plaintiff was not entitled for temporary injunction.
12. Based on rival pleadings/contentions, trial Court framed following points for its consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff has got prima facie case in his favour?
2. In whose favour balance of convenience lies?
3. Who will be put to irreparable loss?
4. What order?
13. And after answering point no.1 in negative, points no.2 and 3 in favour of defendants, answered point no.4 by passing impugned order dismissing I.A.no.1 filed by plaintiff. 14
14. Aggrieved by said order, plaintiff is in appeal.
15. Sri. P.D. Surana, learned counsel for plaintiff - appellant submitted that impugned order passed by trial Court which is contrary to recognized principles of law governing injunctions. It was submitted that plaintiff was administered Sanyasa deekshe and had dedicated 32 years of his life for preaching Basava dharma and performing all functions of Trust. It was contended that defendant no.1 governed by Indian Trusts Act, 1882, Section 71(c) of which mandated that trustee may be discharged from his office only by such means as may be prescribed by instrument of trust and not otherwise. It was also contended that alleged expulsion was in violation of principles of natural justice.
16. Challenging legality of removal, plaintiff filed suit. In said suit, he sought for temporary injunction by filing I.A. No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for restraining defendants from enforcing alleged resolution in terms of 15 which, plaintiff was expelled from Trusteeship. Said application was illegally rejected by trial Court.
17. Only reasons assigned were that benefit accruing to plaintiff by granting injunction would be very little and forcible continuation was not conducive for proper functioning and performance of activities of Trust. It was further contended that reference to decision in Siddganga Mutt's case in impugned order was wholly unnecessary. It was submitted that even reason that plaintiff had sought interim relief similar to main relief would also be untenable.
18. It was submitted that plaintiff's signature on alleged resolutions dated 10.09.2021 and 04.12.2021, copies of which were produced before trial Court were forged. To establish same, plaintiff had obtained certificate of opinion from Government Handwriting and Document Expert, copy of which was also produced before trial Court. However, trial Court failed to consider same.
16
19. Learned counsel relied upon decision of this Court in Bheemasenacharya Srinivasacharya Gudi & Ors. Vs. Gadag Veera-Narayana Dev & Ors. reported in AIR 2002 Kar.1, for proposition that removal on basis of vague allegations without material particulars such as date, time and place and nature or specific description of alleged act and mode and manner in which it was done by plaintiff would be illegal even if delinquent participated in enquiry. Removal would therefore be illegal. He also referred to case of M/s Mother Therasa Education Society (R) & Ors. Vs. Muniyappa & Ors., reported in 2017 (5) KCCR 994, for proposition that temporary injunction against resolution removing plaintiff from life membership of society and to restrain defendants from appointing any other person as member would be justified, where such removal was on vague allegations without any enquiry, in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel relied upon Division Bench decision in case of Christopher Karkada & 17 Ors. Vs. Church of South India represented by its Moderator and Ors. reported in ILR 2012 Kar.725, for proposition that trustee would only be legal owner of Trust property, but not its beneficial owner as same would vest in beneficiary. Therefore, even without beneficial ownership, trustee would be entitled to protect his legal ownership.
20. He also relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dorab Cavasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 867 for proposition that mandatory injunction could be granted on interlocutory applications also.
21. On other hand, Sri N. Vageesh, learned counsel for defendants supported impugned order. It was submitted that rejection of plaintiff's application for temporary injunction was fully justified as nature of injunction sought by plaintiff in IA no.1 was same as that sought in prayer (b) in suit. It was further submitted that since under impugned resolutions and 18 amendment to Trust Deed, plaintiff was removed from trusteeship and defendants had appointed another person as trustee in place of plaintiff, therefore interim relief as sought for could not be granted. Therefore, rejection was justified.
22. It was further submitted that rejection of application for temporary injunction was also justified due to conduct of plaintiff in adopting contradictory stand. It was submitted that while in plaint pleadings, plaintiff admitted about meetings held on 04.12.2021 and 07.01.2022, but at same time denied holding of any such meeting and about his participation in said meeting.
23. It was submitted that allegations of fraud and forgery against defendants was an obvious afterthought, as it was not urged in plaint. Insofar as report of handwriting expert sought to be relied upon by plaintiff to substantiate his allegation that signature of plaintiff were forged on impugned resolutions, it was contended relying upon decision of this 19 Court in case of Miss. Renuka Vs. Thammanna & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 Kar. 133, that there cannot be appointment of Court Commissioner for collection of evidence.
24. He also relied upon decision of this Court in Sri. Gowrishankara Swamigalu Vs. Sri. Siddaganga Mutt reported in ILR 1989 Kar. 1701, for proposition that while considering application for grant of temporary injunction, in case of Trust, one of considerations would be maintaining administration of Trust free from hassles against meddlesome conduct as same would have impact upon large number of devotees and refusal to grant injunction would not cause hardship upon plaintiff, as he could not be stated to suffer any inconvenience by not visiting Mutt etc.
25. And on decision in case of Sadashivanagar Club Vs. Natraj reported in ILR 1993 Kar. 2313, for proposition that in suit where main relief sought was for declaration that resolution of Managing Committee removing plaintiff from 20 membership as illegal and to restrain giving effect to said resolution, temporary injunction granted against Society giving effect to said resolution was held to be unsustainable and was set aside. Reliance was also placed on Division Bench decision in case of Branch Manager KSFC Vs. M/s Gayatri Agro Products reported in ILR 2015 Kar. 2921 and decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Modi Luft Ltd., reported in 2003 (6) SCC 65 for proposition that interim order which has effect of final order cannot be passed at interlocutory stage. Learned counsel also referred to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Mehtab Khan & Ors. Vs. Khushunma Ibrahim & Ors. reported in 2013 (9) SCC 221 for proposition that for grant of mandatory temporary relief, satisfaction to be recorded by Court would be of highest degree.
26. He also relied upon decision of High Court of Calcutta in case of Bengal Freemason's Trust Association v/s District Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons' of 21 Bengal and Ors., reported in AIR 2018 Cal. 209, for proposition that claim for injunction cannot be in respect of non-suit property.
27. It was further contended that amendment of Trust Deed was for good cause and for benefit of Trust and therefore, not liable for interference. It was contended that participation of plaintiff in meetings could be ascertained from his signature on minutes of meeting. On above grounds, appeal was prayed to be dismissed.
28. Above rival contentions call for decision on following point:
"Whether impugned order passed by trial Court rejecting I.A.no.1 filed by plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC requires interference?"
29. From above submissions, it is not in dispute that in terms of Will of Mate Mahadevi, plaintiff was appointed as Trustee of defendant no.1 - Trust. While plaintiff alleges that 22 defendants have sought to illegally expel him from trusteeship without following procedure stipulated and in violation of principles of natural justice; defendants have contended that plaintiff was acting contrary to interests of Trust and therefore, after following due procedure, he was removed from Trusteeship.
30. But, there is admission about plaintiff holding position of trustee prior to removal and allegation by plaintiff that his removal was illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice, burden would be upon defendants to establish that removal was in accordance with law.
31. In opposition of plaintiff's prayer for interim injunction, defendants contended that for due discharge of obligations of trust, Trust Deed was amended and if interim injunction were granted, day-to-day activities of Trust would be affected. Plaintiff being sanyasi, was required to indulge in religious activities, poojas, pravachans etc., for propagation of 23 Basavanna's teachings and not in political issues. It was further asserted that after grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction, plaintiff had tried to enter into premises of defendant no.1 - Trust at Kumbalagodu with police help, contending that grant of status-quo order had put clock back and claimed right to perform religious functions within premises and sought to occupy a room there. Therefore, intention of plaintiff was not bonafide and grant of injunction was in all likelihood to lead to breach of peace and disruption of activities of Trust, which would affect large number of people. It was further contended that plaintiff had virtually admitted his expulsion from Trust. Such being case, grant of interim injunction as prayed would amount to granting final relief as interim.
32. It was contended that despite usage of word 'Lingadeva' had led to ban on book, plaintiff continued to use it and exposed defendant for action by Government as well as Contempt of Court. Further, though Trust was purely 24 apolitical, participation of plaintiff in anti-CAA and NRC meetings was in violation of philosophy of Trust. This act of plaintiff highlighted his political affiliations and indicated that he was espousing cause of particular political party which was in violation of basic tenets of Trust. It was contended that plaintiff was advised several times and given warnings. Ultimately in Committee meeting held on 10.09.2021 attended by plaintiff, he was asked to show cause reasons against possible action. Despite being put on notice, plaintiff failed to submit any reply or offer explanation. In subsequent meeting held on 04.12.2021, Committee members discussed matter in detail in plaintiff's presence. Plaintiff sought to defend his actions. Not satisfied with reasons stated and since plaintiff did not either express remorse or mended his ways and as his actions had led to irreparable damage, defendants were constrained to remove plaintiff.
33. Defendants also produced copies of resolutions book of defendant no.1 - Trust, wherein conduct of plaintiff 25 involving in CAA and NRC meetings was objected to by Committee members and recommended for disciplinary action. Said resolution book included resolutions dated 10.09.2021 and 04.12.2021.
34. On other hand, insofar as allegation of plaintiff attending CAA and NRC meeting and usage of word Lingadeva, there is general denial by plaintiff. It is contended that said allegations were vague and unsubstantiated. However there is specific denial of plaintiff having attended Trust Committee meeting on 04.12.2021, wherein disciplinary action against plaintiff was contemplated. To substantiate that plaintiff's signatures on resolutions dated 10.09.2021 and 04.12.2021 were forged, plaintiff relied upon opinion of handwriting expert, as per which, signatures were found to be not those of plaintiff.
35. While passing impugned order, reasons assigned by trial Court for refusal of interim injunction are firstly, that 26 plaintiff was claiming final relief as interim relief. Secondly, resolution dated 04.12.2021 signed by majority of trustees appeared to be legal and valid. Thirdly, on ground that relationship between plaintiff and defendants was not cordial and if interim injunction were granted, activities of Trust would comes to standstill. Fourthly, benefit of granting injunction to plaintiff was negligible. While coming to such conclusion come trial Court referred to decision in Siddganga Mutt's case.
36. Insofar as bar against grant of main relief at interim stage, indeed such principle is amongst salutary principles evolved to balance rights and interest of both parties. However, it is settled law that only such interim prayers which are ancillary to main prayer can be sought. In instant case, plaintiff is denying calling for and holding of Trust Committee meeting on 10.09.2021 and 04.12.2021, wherein proposal for disciplinary action against plaintiff was considered. Plaintiff claims that his signatures on resolutions were forged and discussion in said meeting was to oppose 27 supply of eggs in mid-day meals by Government. When there is no denial that plaintiff was appointed as Trustee of defendant no.1 - Trust, whether there was sufficient justification for his removal would be matter of trial. At interim stage, if said action is found to be prima facie illegal or unsustainable, ratio in Bheemasenacharya Srinivasacharya Gudi and M/s. Mother Therasa Education Society (R) cases (supra) would not bar plaintiff from seeking interim injunction against defendants preventing plaintiff from acting as Trustee.
37. Insofar as alleged meetings dated 10.09.2021 and 04.12.2021, stand of plaintiff was of denial that they were for taking disciplinary action against plaintiff; while it is contention of defendants that plaintiff was aware that meeting was to take disciplinary action against him and that plaintiff attended meeting which is sought to be substantiated by referring to plaintiff's signature on resolution book. But plaintiff has produced opinion of handwriting expert to indicate that his 28 signatures were forged. As observed above, adjudication of validity of resolution would require trial. At present stage, consideration would be for maintaining status-quo pending final adjudication. Indeed lack of cordial relation between plaintiff and defendants and benefit accruing from grant or refusal of injunction would be relevant considerations. Insofar as lack of cordial relation between plaintiff and defendants, it is firstly seen that provisions of Indian Trust Act, mandate multiple trustees. Even intention of founder Trustee as expressed in Will executed by her would suggest that Trust was supposed to operate on democratic principles. From above, it is contemplated that administration of Trust be on democratic principles which does not scorn multiple opinions. Mere, difference of opinion cannot be considered as threat especially when conduct complained of did not in any manner affect day-to-day administration of Trust.
38. Insofar as meager or negligible benefit accruing to plaintiff from grant of temporary injunction as sought for, Trial 29 Court observed that since plaintiff is a sanyasi, there would be no real benefit by grant of temporary injunction as trusteeship is not attached with any financial or other benefits. It has also taken note of plaintiff's conduct after grant of ex-parte ad- interim injunction while observing that relation between plaintiff and defendants was not cordial and grant of injunction was not feasible. Though acceptance of sanyasa deekshe would mean renouncement of temporal world, but in a society which has subscribed to governance by rule of law with fundamental rights guaranteed by Constitution of India, and a claim for enforcing said rights is laid before Court of law, Court would not be justified in denying same on ground of plaintiff having renounced the world. Ratio of decisions in Bheemasenacharya Srinivasacharya Gudi and M/s Mother Therasa Education Society (R) (supra) cases would be testimony enough for said proposition. Said reasoning of trial Court would not be justified.
30
39. It is not in dispute that Trust Deed provides procedure for removal of Trustee. Section 71(c) of Indian Trusts Act, mandates that where procedure for removal indeed of trust removal was required to be in compliance of same. Admittedly, clause 6 sub-clause 5 of Trust Deed provides for removal of trustee in case he acts against interests of Trust, indulgence in financial irregularities, acts against or renounces principles and preachings of Basavanna or is influenced by any other sect. But, it is also stipulated that removal can only be after issuing prior written notice notifying him about violation and providing opportunity of showing cause against said action. It further mandated for said action being based on opinion of all Committee members with President having casting vote.
40. In instant case, even as per defendants, plaintiff was not given notice in writing. Their claim is that plaintiff was orally notified of his defaults and was called upon to offer explanation. Perusal of resolution dated 10.09.2021, would 31 reveal that said resolution itself was to be treated as show cause notice. But, plaintiff has denied his signatures on resolutions dated 10.09.2021 and 04.12.2021 and legality of said resolution as well as procedure being compliant with provisions of Trust Deed would be matter of trial, finding of trial Court that plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case would be in total ignorance of material on record and would thus be untenable.
41. Further, denial of right to equal protection under law on ground of plaintiff being a sanyasi would also be illegal.
42. In case, there was any material to substantiate concern about smooth functioning and maintenance of activities of Trust, same could have been addressed by adding appropriate conditions instead of whole hog denial of relief. Even otherwise, option of seeking for modification of interim order would be available to defendants.
32
43. Insofar as applicability of ratio of decisions cited by learned counsel for defendants, in instant case, plaintiff is relying upon opinion of handwriting expert as a document. He may also examined said expert as his witness. Same would not amount to appointment of Court Commissioner for collection of evidence. Therefore, decision in Miss. Renuka's case (supra) would not be helpful.
44. In Sri. Siddhaganga Mutt's case, this Court was faced with situation where there was likelihood of parallel administration by two pontiffs competing to be Mahant. Such is not situation herein.
45. In Sadashivanagar Club's case, this Court set aside grant of temporary injunction against order of suspension of plaintiff from Membership of Club (Society) on ground that suspension pending enquiry was not punitive. In M/s. Gayatri Agro Product's case main prayer sought in writ petition was for quashing order passed by KSFC for taking 33 over possession of industry and premises and for writ of mandamus for directing respondent to handover possession back to petitioner. In said writ petition, grant of interim order directing KSFC to handover possession was held unsustainable. But in instant case, it is alleged that defendants by claiming to have passed resolution and amendment to Trust Deed expelled plaintiff from Trusteeship of defendant no.1. Whether order of removal was valid or otherwise, requires trial. It is prima facie established that order of removal was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, ratio in M/s. Gayatri Agro Product's case would not be applicable. Likewise, in Modiluft Ltd.'s case (supra), where interim order in nature of final order was granted based on disputed facts, Hon'ble Apex Court set aside same. Further, reliance upon decision on Mohd. Mehtab Khan's case (supra) would also be misconceived, as it is an authority for proposition that satisfaction to be recorded by trial Court would be of highest order while granting mandatory temporary 34 injunction, unlike in instant case, where no mandatory temporary injunction is sought. Therefore, none of propositions are substantiated by defendants.
46. In view of above discussion, point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative.
47. Hence, I pass following:
ORDER i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. Impugned order dated 01.07.2022 passed by VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15) at Bengaluru in O.S.no.996/2022 on I.A.no.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is set aside.
iii. I.A.no.1 filed by plaintiff is allowed, there shall be an interim order as prayed for.
iv. Both parties are directed to cooperate for early disposal of suit. Trial Court is directed to expedite disposal of suit without granting unnecessary adjournments.
Sd/-
JUDGE GRD