Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The case of the plaintiffs-Trust in brief as under:

It is averred by the plaintiffs that plaintiff is a religious Trust. The Trust constitutes group of Trustees and the author of Trust dedicated the same to the deity of Chikkannamma Devi, Vinayakaswamy, Subrahmanyaswamy and Utsavamurthy of Chikkannamma Devi Temple. The plaintiffs have constituted the Trust of Chikkannamma Devi Temple with object of religious and charitable purpose on 20th April 1992. the Trustees of temple invested their personal funds for the purpose of effective management of the temple property. The plaintiff temple is under management of Trustees and the possession vests with deity of Chikkannamma Devi Temple by constituting temple complex and vacant space in and around the temple managed by the Trustees. The plaintiffs constructed temple as per the sanctioned plan and building license issued by the BBMP authorities having license No.514/1993-1994 dated 07.03.1994. The plaintiffs produced photographs to that effect to prove establishment of temple building and surrounding open space and prakhaara of the temple which will be utilized for kitchen and hall for rendering the devotional services of the devotees and disciples. Such plan of the Chikkannamma Devi temple pertains to the Chikkannmma Devi temple having door No.38 and old door No.3/1 and new door No.65. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of temple having title over suit property for a period of more than period of more than 75 years as per the tippani documents issued by the city survey department, Bengaluru and accordingly plaintiff-Trust is in continuous uninterrupted possession over the suit property, openly to the whole world and perfected its title over A-Schedule property by way of adverse possession. The defendant being adjacent owner of suit property filed O.S.10360/1993 against Sri. Vastad P. Muniswamappa and others without impleading his legal heirs by name Somasundaran and Somanath. Apart from that defendant filed one more suit against plaintiff - Chikkannamma Devi Temple in O.S.300/1966, wherein plaintiff - Trust was constituted with 12 Trustees. In O.S.10360/1993, the defendant prayed for relief of declaration that the building plan sanctioned by the BBMP in respect of plaintiff - Trust temple is null and void and to declare the Trust created by defendant No.3 B.N.Venkatasubba Rao is null and void and also for relief of mandatory injunction and also for perpetual injunction. In the meanwhile, defendant was pursuing the proceedings of O.S.300/1966 for the relief of declaration of title and possession over suit property against the individuals with reference to vacant space situated on the rear-side of schedule temple property and other areas over which the plaintiffs were in possession of that schedule property and plaintiffs of this suit were not parties in O.S.300/1966. They have no knowledge of the proceedings of O.S.300/1966. Therefore, that suit become infractuous and rendered otiso. That suit came to be dismissed. Against the judgment and decree of O.S.300/1966 the aggrieved party preferred R.A.573/1985 before appellate Court and one Sri. B. N. Venkatasubba Rao was party to that suit bearing its number O.S.300/1966, who has created Trust in respect of temple- property and surrounding area of that property and constructed a new temple building by removing the old temple building. That appeal came to be dismissed with observation that the defendant can seek relief of mandatory injunction with respect to the construction of the structure over the suit property even if such construction is completed. Therefore, the defendant could not succeeded in that Misc. First Appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. It is further averred that in O.S.300/1966 filed by Lakshman Singh, the plaintiffs of this present suit Chikkannamma Devi Temple who was defendant in that suit by filing written Statement in that suit denied all the contentions of the plaint and disputed claim of Lakshman Singh. One Sri. B. N. VenkataSubba Rao is the author and Trustee of plaintiff - Chikkannamma Devi Temple Trust. The defendant though litigated at particular point of time, did not pursue the litigation and allowed the plaintiff to enjoy ownership and possession over the suit property without seeking any relief much less possession over the suit property, including Garadimane situated at the western side of suit property. In O.S.300/1966, the defendant pleaded that Garadimane being very old building was alloted to Vastad P. Muniswamappa and others free of rent and accordingly the said persons were in exclusive possession of that Garadimane from the year-1944 itself. Thereafter, the defendants of O.S.300/1966 continued the possession of that property. The schedule of plaint of O.S.300/1966 did not consist of measurement in respect of suit property except demarcation by alphabet letters. Therefore, that suit came to be dismissed. Against the judgment and decree of that suit R.A.287/1990 came to be filed by the aggrieved party and the matter appears to be ended before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which is not within the knowledge of plaintiff. The defendants has gifted suit property to Gopal Singh under Gift Deed dated 23.10.2010 and has acquired ownership and possession over that property. Another Gift Deed was executed by Lakshman Singh in favour of Balaji Singh in respect of another part of suit property under Partition effected in the family of Gopal Singh between Balaji Singh and lakshman singh. Such Gift deed was executed by Lakshman Singh in respect of suit schedule of that document, the measurement of that property shown as East:West - 31.6 ft and North:South - 13.6 ft. The plea put forward in that suit was that the property bearing No.3/1 standing in the name of Chikkannamma Devi Temple. The plan of temple building was sanctioned in the year-1929-1930 and the revenue records were standing in the name of Chikkannamma Devi Temple as its title holder and possessor. In that suit, the defendant did not implead the plaintiffs of this present suit. Hence, it attained finality in Appeal No.437/1998. Thereafter, defendants in O.S.10360/1993 without prosecuting the case abandoned their rights over the suit property and waived their rights against the plaintiffs-Temple Trust. Thereafter, the decree passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2702/2004 is merged in the order of O.S.10360/1993 and it is not binding on the plaintiff - Trust since the plaintiffs are not parties to that proceedings as it became unenforcible. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff Trust demolished the old building of Chikkannamma Devi Temple and constructed new temple building utilizing the entire open-space and passage that claimed in O.S.300/1966. The sketch produced by the plaintiff in O.S.300/1966 was sanctioned by the BBMP for construction of temple building along with prakhara and open-space situated around the temple, shows that suit property belongs to plaintiff and also it shows that plaintiff is in possession of suit property. It is further averred that A-Schedule property belongs to absolute ownership and possession of plaintiffs of this suit. The plaintiffs in O.S.10360/1993 and also in O.S.300/1966 filed suit in respect of same property bearing its Nos.3 and 4 and New Nos.63 and 62 consisting of temple property with open-space and passage situated at Chikkannamma Devi Temple Street, Sunkalpet Bengaluru, which is shown as B - Schedule property of this suit. The defendant in O.S.300/1966 pleaded that suit property was given to 3rd defendant and his father Late. Nanjundaiah who was managing the property along with temple. The property situated abutting to the temple belongs to the defendants ancestors and they have alloted that property to Shamsundar and he has kept Mantapa and other accessories of temple in that property for securing income of temple and erected a shed by obtaining license from BBMP and the same was leased out to one Appajappa under rent document in the year-1939 and later on the same was leased out to one Ramaiah under Lease Deed dated 24.04.1941 and subsequently it was continued by the plaintiffs as vyayama shala managed by the father of Shamsundar. He has obtained sanctioned plan from the BBMP in the year-1929-1930 and erected a Zinc Sheet shed. After partition in the family of defendant it was renovated and given separate door number i.e., No.3/1, which is described as A-schedule property. Therefore, the suit property of this suit is entirely different from schedule property of O.S.300/1966 and schedule property of O.S.10360/1993. Thereafter, the plaintiff had no other alternate remedy except to take steps to protect the temple property and surrounding area described as A schedule property. Since the possession of suit property was taken by the plaintiff after disposal of Civil Appeal No.437/1998, defendants tried to interfere with possession of plaintiff over suit property, in the first week of October - 2010 and attempted to break open the lock of temple including its prakhara and open-space on 30.11.2010. Therefore, the cause of action for this suit has arisen on the above said suit.

56. On the other-hand, in order to disprove the case of plaintiff and to prove the defence of defendants the counsel for defendant cross examined PW1, wherein PW1 admitted in cross examination stating that the office of plaintiff - Trust is not situated within the premises of Chikkannamma Devi Temple and also admitted that there is no registered office of Chikkannamma Devi Temple Trust anywhere. Therefore, such suggestion nullified the object of the so-called Trust created by Venkatasubba Rao and not complied with the conditions of Trust. Further, in the cross examination PW1 admitted that Venkatasubba Rao being author of Ex.P.1 document was working as priest of Chikkannamma Devi Temple. Therefore, such admission proves only the right of worship of temple by Venkatasubba Rao but not ownership of suit property. Further in the cross examination PW1 has admitted that Chikkannamma Devi Temple and its surrounding premises does not belongs to either ownership of Venkatasubba Rao or plaintiff - Trust as per Ex.P.1 - Trust-Deed. Therefore, this admission negatives the relief sought for by the plaintiffs. Further in the cross examination, PW1 has admitted that there is no any signature of trustees in Ex.P.1 - Trust-Deed except author of Trust, Venkatasubba Rao. Therefore, the absence of signature of trustees in Ex.P.1 implies non-acceptance of Trust document by trustees and beneficiaries. Further in the cross examination of PW1, he has admitted that in Ex.P.1 - Trust- Deed there is no mention of measurement and description of suit properties along with its boundaries. Therefore, non-mentioning of the property number and boundaries of A and B - schedule properties in the Trust-Deed is fatal to the case of plaintiffs which implies that the Trust-Deed is defective one. Further in the cross examination PW1 has admitted that from 1992, plaintiff - Trust has not constituted management of committee of Trust and he does not know about the maintenance accounts of plaintiff - Trust. Therefore, this statement reveals that managing Committee is not formed and accounts of alleged Trust are not maintained which is mandatory as per provisions of Indian Trust Act and also as per true letter and spirit of Trust Deed. Further, in the cross examination PW1 has admitted that there is no building committee constituted in respect of plaintiff - temple Trust for the renovation of Temple building. It is deposed by PW1 that renovation of temple started in the year-1992 and completed in the year-1996. Therefore, the PW1 has failed to prove as to from what source of income they collected funds for construction of new temple building, if at all the plaintiffs constructed temple building in the year-1992, the cause of action for filing this suit arose in 1992 itself when the defendants opposed and obstructed the plaintiffs from constructing temple building. Therefore, the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit for declaration and injunction in the year-1992 itself when O.S.300/1966 was pending but not filed the suit within 3 years from that date of cause of action suit and as such suit is barred by Section 58 of Limitation Act.

95. Further in the cross examination, PW3 deposed that does not know full contents of affidavit of his examination in chief. Even though this witness has deposed that, when he was child he studied in the School belonging to Chikkannamma Devi Patashala which was being run from I Standard to 7 th Standard, he has not given particulars of that school and he has not produced any documents to prove existence of that school or certificate for having studied in that School. Therefore, it appears that in all probability PW3 might have deposed falsehood as per the say of the plaintiffs and his evidence is not credit-worthy. Further in the cross examination, PW3 has shown ignorance as to who established Chikkannamma Devi Temple Trust and who was President of that Trust. At one time, PW3 deposed that Devaraju was President of Chikkannamma Devi Temple Trust, but PW1 deposed that himself was President of Trust. Therefore, there is contradiction between evidence of PW1 and PW3 regarding the post of Presidentship of plaintiff- Trust and both these witnesses not produced any documents to prove who is President of plaintiff

112. Further in the cross examination, PW5 deposed that he does not know who has constructed Chikkannamma Devi Temple and when and also shown unawareness about the fact, as to who was priest of Chikkannamma Devi Temple in the year- 1984. Further he has deposed that he does not know who are trustees of Chikkannamma Devi Temple Trust and which community of people are worshiping that temple and who are managing Chikkannamma Devi Temple Trust. He has deposed that except plaintiff No.5 Balachandran, he does not know the name of any other trustees and office-bearers of alleged plaintiff - Temple Trust. Therefore, in all the probability it appears that this witness is tuitored by Balachandran and as per the say of Mr. Balachandran this witness is deposing as hear-say witness. Therefore, his evidence cannot be accepted which is not trustworthy, since he does not know anything about suit property, personally.