Bangalore District Court
M/S Royale Concorde Educaton Trust ... vs Shekara Reddy H S on 24 January, 2026
KABC010389572019
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY.
CCH 33
::PRESENT::
SMT. LATHA,
XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026
O.S.No.9399/2019
Plaintiff : M/S. Royale Concorde
Education Trust (Regd)
Rep By Its Chairman
Sri L.R.Shivaramegowda,
S/o. Late L Ramegowda,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at No.42, Sudha Mansion,
1st Cross, 7th Main , Banagiri
Hills, BSK III Stage, Bangalore
560085.
(Rep. by Sri NKS., Adv.)
V/S.
Defendant : Sri.Shekara Reddy H S
S/o. Srinivasa Reddy,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at No 168/8,
Nisarga Nilaya,
Begur Main Road,
2
Bangalore 560068
Also at:
MTB-139, Begur Main Road,
Hongasandra, Bangalore
560068.
Also at:
No 10, Begur Main Road,
Hongasandra, Bangalore
560068.
(Rep. By Sri VVS., Adv.)
Date of Institution of the
suit: 20.12.2019
Nature of the Suit (Suit for
pronote, suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for Money Suit
injunction, etc,) :
Date of the commencement
of recording of the 10.2.2022
Evidence:
Date on which the 24.1.2026
Judgment was pronounced:
Total Duration : Year/S Month/ Day/S
S
06 01 04
(LATHA)
XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE : BANGALORE.
CCH-33
3 OS.9399/2019
::JUDGMENT::
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking the relief of recovery of money of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum.
2. In the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that the plaintiff is a registered Trust as per the provisions of Indian Trust Act and was running the school in the name and style of M/s.Royale Concorde International School, at Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South. The said school started in the year 2015 and it continued to run till December 2018.
3. The plaintiff further contended that the said school had no playground, therefore, the plaintiff requested the defendant to permit the school to make use of his property which is situated adjacent to the school for playground, that at the request of the plaintiff's Trust authority, the defendant agreed to provide the adjacent land for children's playground for which the defendant agreed for rental basis, that he accepted to receive rent of Rs.36,020/- excluding TDS per 4 month, that the said rent enhanced in the month of 2017 from Rs.36,020/- to Rs.75,000/- including TDS, that the defendant had also demanded an interest free advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff and on the basis of oral lease agreement the plaintiff's Trust had advance an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the defendant.
4. The plaintiff further contended that the plaintiff has decided to close the school, that the plaintiff's Trust handed over the existing school to M/s. SGG Educational Trust and was intended to cancel the lease agreement entered into between the plaintiff's Trust and the defendant. Therefore, plaintiff requested the defendant to repay the advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum. Since the defendant did not heed the request of plaintiff, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 07.08.2019 demanding to repay the said advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum, that the defendant neither replied to the said notice nor paid the said amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed this suit CCH-33 5 OS.9399/2019 seeking the relief of recovery of the said amount with interest at 24% per annum.
5. In response to the suit summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed written statement by admitting that he handed over his land to the school for the purpose of using it as a playground. However, the defendant specifically denied the plaint averments which are traversed against the contention of defendant and specifically contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either under law or on facts, that the plaintiff's Trust either registered or unregistered is not a juristic personality and as such the Trust cannot sue or be sued in its name, therefore, the filing of the suit by the Trust itself independently through its chairman is totally defective and is not maintainable, that the chairman of the plaintiff's Trust has not made available any materials as to his authority to file the suit under his signature and seal of the Trust in the name of the plaintiff's Trust, that he has no authority to file the suit in the name of 6 Trust, that therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
6. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff is guilty of suppretio varie and suggestio falsie and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to any sort of relief in the suit. The defendant has also called upon the plaintiff to prove the plaint allegations with strict proof and specifically contented in Para No.16 that there is no cause of action for the suit and the alleged cause of action is created and concocted by the plaintiff only to bring the suit against him, that the defendant had incurred an expense of Rs.15,00,000/- to make fit the leased vacant land for the activities of the plaintiff's Trust i.e., cleaning and leveling of the land with the help of machinery and put concrete flooring and other expenses incurred towards the land fit for plaintiff's Trust activities, that the same was agreed to be reimbursed by the plaintiff, that believing the version of the plaintiff, the defendant has spent the substantial amount, that on the frequent demand and persuasion by the defendant, the plaintiff issued a cheque for CCH-33 7 OS.9399/2019 Rs.15,00,000/- bearing Cheque No. 041717 dated 15.03.2017 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Bangalore City Branch in favour of the defendant, that on the back side of the said cheque there is a clear endorsement about the purpose for which the same was issued i.e., to say towards reimbursement of the costs incurred by the defendant towards the listed premises that the plaintiff had also requested the defendant not to present the cheque for encashment and thereby the defendant was waiting for instructions from the plaintiff for its presentation.
7. Further, the defendant specifically contended that in the meanwhile the plaintiff has paid the said amount through RTGS into the bank account of the defendant, that the defendant did not return the said cheque as the same was required for record purpose, therefore, there is no question of refunding the said amount to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has filed a frivolous suit for unlawful gain. Accordingly, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with costs as 8 contemplated under Section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
8. On the basis of the pleadings and materials placed before the court, the predecessor in office of this court had framed the following issues.
ISSUES framed on 15.1.2021
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-
being the advance amount with interest from 1.1.2019 at 24% p.a., till realisation?
2. Whether the defendant proves that there is no cause of action to file the suit?
3. What order or decree?
9. On perusal of the Issues framed by the predecessor in the office of this Court, it appears that an issue regarding maintainability of the suit as pleaded by the defendant in the written statement is missing and therefore an additional issue has to be framed to that effect. Accordingly, the following additional issue is framed.
CCH-33 9 OS.9399/2019 Additional Issue Whether the defendant proves that the suit of the plaintiff as brought is not maintainable? Since both the parties have adduced evidence covering the Additional Issue also, it is the considered opinion of this Court, no further evidence is required. The counsel for defendant substantially cross examined PW2 by attempting to establish the Additional Issue. Therefore, there is no need of posting the matter for further evidence.
10. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, it got examined its Finance Manager as P.W.1 and got 16 documents marked as Exs.P.1 to P.16. On behalf of the defendant, he himself got examined as DW.1 and got 5 documents marked as Ex.D1 to D5 and closed the evidence of both side.
11. This court has gone through the materials placed before the court and heard the arguments of both the counsel for plaintiff and defendant.
10
12. On careful perusal of the rival contentions, on going through the documentary evidence, the finding on the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Negative Issue No.2: In the Affirmative Addl.Issue: In the Affirmative Issue Nos.3: As per the final order, for the following:
::REASONS::
13. Issue Nos.1 & 2: Since these Issues are interlinked and require common discussion, they are taken up together for brevity and to avoid repetition of facts.
14. The plaintiff specifically pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff was a charitable Trustee and was running a School in the name and style of Royale Concorde International School. The said school had no playground to the children, therefore, the plaintiff's Trust requested the defendant who is the adjacent owner of the said school to provide the vacant land to use as playground to the children, that the defendant agreed to lease out the said vacant land on CCH-33 11 OS.9399/2019 monthly rent of Rs.36,020/- and it had been enhanced to Rs.75,000/- per month in the year 2017. It is also the specific contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had advanced an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- without interest towards the land provided for playground on the basis of oral lease agreement. Since the plaintiff stopped running the school and handed over to M/s. SGG Educational Trust requested the defendant to repay the advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum, that as the defendant failed to repay the said loan, the plaintiff approached this court.
15. The plaintiff in order to prove that the defendant is liable to repay advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest has got examined its Finance Manager as PW1 and also got 16 documents marked. In the affidavit filed, in lieu of examination in chief, the said Finance Manager, V. Bheeme Gowda reiterated the averments made in the plaint. Ex.P1 is the authorization letter issued by the plaintiff. Ex.P2 to P6 are the bank payment vouchers. Ex.P7 is the bank account statement pertaining to the plaintiff's bank obtained from 12 Punjab National Bank. Ex.P8 is the legal notice issued to the defendant. Ex.P9 is the postal receipt and Ex.P10 is the unserved RPD postal covers. Ex.P11 is the income tax returns submitted by plaintiff's Trust for the year 2016-2017. Ex.P12 is also the income tax return submitted by the plaintiff for the year 01.07.2018 and Ex.P13 is the list of payment details to the defendant, Ex.p14 is the Bank Statement of plaintiff school, Ex.P15 is the certified copy of the Trust Deed and Ex.P16 is the Income tax returns of plaintiff school.
16. Similarly, the defendant also in order to substantiate his defence got himself examined as DW1 and also got 5 documents marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D5. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the Trust deed dated 12.07.2003 relating to plaintiff Trust, Ex.D2 is the cheque said to be issued by plaintiff's Trust. Ex.P 3 to 5 are the receipts for having purchased the materials for the up-gradation of the playground.
17. To prove this issue, definitely the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the said amount of Rs.15,00,000/-
CCH-33 13 OS.9399/2019 had been advanced by the plaintiff Trust to the defendant towards the advance amount for providing playground on oral lease. Though the plaintiff contended that it was an advance amount, the defendant specifically denied the said contention and pleaded in his written statement that the said amount was paid by the plaintiff towards the expenses incurred by the defendant for up-gradation of the playground.
18. The learned counsel for defendant has also cross examined the PW.1 in length. In para No.8 of the cross examination it is specifically suggested to PW.1 that the said Rs.15 lakhs had been paid by the defendant for the development of play ground and it was not an advance amount. PW.1 has also denied that on the backside of Ex.D2 cheque there is endorsement that the cheque was issued towards the reimbursement of the cost for cleaning the land and put up concrete flooring and other expenses. However, as seen from Ex.D2 the cheque was issued by the authorized signatory of Royale Concorde International School on 15.3.2017 to the defendant and on the back side of the said 14 cheque there is endorsement as aforesaid the school signed the said endorsement on the same day i.e., on 15.3.2017. when the defendant has produced a material document to show that an amount of Rs.15 lakhs was not an advance amount it is issued towards the expenses for up-gradation of the play ground, the plaintiff ought to have produced document to show that the said amount is paid by the plaintiff towards the advance amount on oral lease of the play ground. Further, it is also difficult to accept the contention of the plaintiff that on oral lease the plaintiff Trust advanced a huge amount of Rs.15 lakhs to the defendant. The plaintiff is not a private party, the plaintiff is a charitable Trust, when such being the case without any document more particularly even a resolution of the Trust the amount of Rs.15 lakhs advanced to the defendant means it cannot be accepted. Since the plaintiff is registered charitable Trust for each and every transaction there shall be a document. Apart from that the defendant has also produced invoices which are at Ex.D3 to D5. These documents are dated 9.3.2017, 10.3.2017 and 13.3.2017 to show the expenses incurred by the defendant for CCH-33 15 OS.9399/2019 cleaning the playground and for putting up concrete flooring. With those documents if Ex.D2 is taken into consideration, Ex.D2 cheque is dated 15.3.2017 and therefore, in the absence of any material produced by the plaintiff the Court has to accept the contention of the defendant the amount of Rs.15 lakhs was paid by the plaintiff Trust to the defendant towards the expenses for the up-gradation of the play ground. When such being the case there is no question of repaying the amount to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff failed to prove by producing relevant material that the said amount was paid as an advance amount towards oral lease. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the Negative and Issue No.2 is answered in the Affirmative.
19. Issue No.2 & Addl. Issue: These two issues are taken up together for discussion as they require common discussion.
The defendant in the written statement has taken the specific contention that a Trust either registered or unregistered is not a juristic personality as such it cannot sue 16 or be sued in its name, accordingly, filing of the suit by the Trust itself independently through its chairman is totally defective and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. It is true that since the plaintiff is a charitable Trust by the name of Trust the suit cannot be filed. The said Trust shall be represented by proper representative. The defendant by pleading so has also produced the copy of the registered Trust Deed of Royale Concorde Educational Trust dated 12.7.2003. In page No.18 the powers and duties of the individual office bearers are mentioned more particularly in the page No.19 the powers and duties of secretary of Trust is narrated. The point No.10(2) narrated in page No.23 is as under:-
10.2 Secretary:
he secretary shall:
a. be the executive officer of the Trust. b. accept all notices, summons and writs. c. Sue or be sued for and on behalf of the trust unless otherwise decided.
d. Function as per the directions of the board of th trustees, office bearers of the Trust and the President of the Trust in that order. e. Operate the Bank account along with the Treasurer of the President.
CCH-33 17 OS.9399/2019 f. Provide relevant papers with the notice of the President to any Trustee.
g. Maintain minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of Board of Trustees or the office bearers.
h. Prepare the agenda for the meetings of Board of Trustees or office Bearers.
i. Look after all the correspondence of the Trustees. j. Implement all the resolutions of the Board of Trustees and office bearers of the trust in that order. k. To convey the meetings of Board of Trustees, office Bearers or sub committee.
In view of the specific clause in the Trust deed it is the secretary who has to sue or be sued for and on behalf of the Trust unless otherwise decided. When the Trust deed itself makes clear that the Trust shall be represented by the General Secretary in any legal proceedings then the general secretary of the Trust ought to have filed the suit and not the chairman. If the suit is filed by the chairman, then there must be specific resolution passed in the Trust meeting and authorization letter shall be issued to the person who is nominated to file the suit. But here the chairman of the plaintiff Trust acted against the clause mentioned in the registered Trust deed and filed this suit which is not 18 maintainable and on the sole ground the suit shall fail.
Further, when no amount is due to pay by the defendant to the plaintiff Trust, there is definitely no cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit. The cause of action pleaded in the plaint is an imaginary cause of action. Accordingly, Issue No.2 and Addl Issue are answered in the Affirmative.
20. Issue No.3: In view of the discussions on the foregoing paragraphs, this Court proceeds to pass the following:-
::ORDER::
The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 24th day of January 2026) (LATHA) XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
CCH-33 19 OS.9399/2019 ::ANNEXURE::
1. List of witnesses examined for the:
(a) Plaintiff:
P.W.1 : Sri V.Bheeme Gowda (b) Defendant : D.W.1 : Sri Shekara Reddy H.S. 2. List of documents Exhibited for the: (a) Plaintiff: Ex.P.1 : Authorisation letter issued by plaintiff Ex.P.2 to 6 : Bank payment vouchers Ex.P.7 : Bank account statement of plaintiff Ex.P8 : Legal notice Ex.P9 : Postal receipt Ex.P10 : Unserved postal RPAD covers Ex.p11 : Income tax returns 2016-2017 Ex.P12 : Income tax returns 1.7.2018 Ex.P13 : List of payment details to defendant Ex.P14 : Bank statement of plaintiff school Ex.P15 : Certified copy of Trust Deed Ex.P16 : Income tax returns of plaintiff school (b) Defendant: Ex.D1 : Certified copy of Trust Deed Ex.D2 : Cheque Ex.D3 to 5 : Receipts (LATHA) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE BANGALORE. CN/*