Rishi Samskriti Vidya Kendra ... vs Mr. Siddhant Rishi Prabhakar
2022 Latest Caselaw 5173 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 22 N D DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

  MF A N O.1384 OF 2022 C/W MF A NO.1386 OF 2022
                       (CPC)


IN MF A N O.1384 OF 2022

BETWEEN :

Rishi Samskriti Vidya Kend ra Trust
Having its Reg istered Office at No.176
31 s t Cross, 11 t h Main, 4 t h Block East
Jayanag ar
Beng aluru-560 011
Rep. by its Trustee Secretary
Sri Sathyanarayana .K                         ...Appellant

(By Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Counsel for
 Sri Anoop Haran ahalli, Advocate)


AN D:

1. Mr. Siddhant Rishi Prabhakar
   S/o Mr. Prabhakar Rag havendra
   Aged about 21 years
   R/at #41, Rohan Madhub an
   Off Paud Road , Bavdhan Khurd
   Pune-411021.

2. Mrs. Arund hati Rishi Prab hakar
   W/o Mr. Prab hakar Raghavend ra
   Aged about 45 years
   R/at #41, Rohan Madhub an
   Off Paud Road , Bavdhan Khurd
   Pune-411021.
                            :: 2 ::



3. Mr. Abhay Anant Shastri
   S/o Sri Anant Govind a Shastry
   Aged 64 years
   R/at #502, Sidharth Towers, B-b uilding
   Ex-Servicemen Colony
   Kothrud, Pune
   Maharashtra-411038.

4. Mr. S.J. Vijaya Keerthy
   S/o Sri Shravand ahalli Jayakeerti
   Aged 62 years
   R/at #5, Block-7, Shivashakthi Road
   Shakthi Nag ar
   Mysuru-570019

5. Mr. Shivajirao Baburaoji Shinde
   S/o Bab urao Raoji Shind e
   Aged about 73 years
   R/at House No.74, F-1, N-4, CIDCO
   Aurang ab ad
   Maharashtra-431001.

6. Ms. Sahana Tambat
   W/o Ramesh Mahad ev Tambat
   Aged about 37 years
   R/at #No.18/2, G-3, 4th Cross
   1 s t Main PMK Road
   Basavanagud i
   Beng aluru-560004.                    ...Respondents

  (By Sri. Sivaramakrishnan M.S, Advocate)


      This MFA is filed U/O.43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, ag ainst
the ord er d ated 14.02.2022 p assed on I.A No.1 in O.S
No.398/2022 on the file of the LXI Additional City Civil
and   Sessions    Judge,    Beng aluru   City,   (CCH-62)
dismissing I.A No.1 filed U/O.39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
                            :: 3 ::




IN MF A N O.1386 OF 2022

BETWEEN :

Rishi Samskriti Vidya Kend ra Trust
Having its Reg istered Office at No.176
31 s t Cross, 11 t h Main, 4 t h Block East
Jayanag ar, Bengaluru-560 011
Rep. by its Trustee Secretary
Sri Sathyanarayana .K                         ...Appellant

(By Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Counsel for
 Sri Anoop Haran ahalli, Advocate)

AN D:

1. Mr. Siddhant Rishi Prabhakar
   S/o Mr. Prabhakar Rag havendra
   Aged about 21 years
   R/at #41, Rohan Madhub an
   Off Paud Road , Bavdhan Khurd
   Pune-411021.

2. Mrs. Arund hati Rishi Prab hakar
   W/o Mr. Prab hakar Raghavend ra
   Aged about 45 years
   R/at #41, Rohan Madhub an
   Off Paud Road , Bavdhan Khurd
   Pune-411021.

3. Mr. Abhay Anant Shastri
   S/o Sri Anant Govind a Shastry
   Aged 64 years
   R/at #502, Sidharth Towers, B-b uilding
   Ex-Servicemen Colony
   Kothrud, Pune
   Maharashtra-411038.

4. Mr. S.J. Vijaya Keerthy
   S/o Sri Shravand ahalli Jayakeerti
   Aged 62 years
                              :: 4 ::


  R/at #5, Block-7, Shivashakthi Road
  Shakthi Nag ar
  Mysuru-570019

5. Mr. Shivajirao Baburaoji Shinde
   S/o Bab urao Raoji Shind e
   Aged about 73 years
   R/at House No.74, F-1, N-4, CIDCO
   Aurang ab ad
   Maharashtra-431001.

6. Ms. Sahana Tambat
   W/o Ramesh Mahad ev Tambat
   Aged about 37 years
   R/at #No.18/2, G-3, 4th Cross
   1st Main PMK Road
   Basavanagud i
   Beng aluru-560004.                       ...Respondents

  (By Sri Sivaramakrishnan M.S, Ad vocate)


      This MFA is filed U/O.43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, ag ainst
the ord er d ated 14.02.2022 p assed on I.A No.2 in O.S
No.398/2022 on the file of the LXI Additional City Civil
and   Sessions      Judge,    Beng aluru   City,   (CCH-62)
dismissing I.A No.2 filed U/O.39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.


      These MFAs coming on for admission this d ay,
the Court delivered the following:


                       JUDGMENT

These two appeals are disposed of by a

common order as the two applications filed in the :: 5 ::

trial court for temporary injunction were disposed

of by a common order dated 14.02.2022.

2. These appeals are filed by the plaintiff in

O.S.No.398/2022. The plaintiff is a trust called

"Rishi Samskrithi Vidya Kendra Trust" and it is

represented by Secretary Sri. Sathyanarayana K.

The case of the plaintiff is that on 06.02.1982,

Rishi Prabhakar created the Trust by executing a

registered instrument. On 16.10.1982, a

supplementary Trust deed came into existence for

claiming exemption under section 80G of Income

Tax Act. When the Trust was created, initially

there were six trustees, but the author of the

Trust did not become a trustee. From 1982 to

2011, many changes in the constitution of the

Trust took place due to deaths and resignation of

the trustees. Then on 28.9.2011, second

supplementary Trust deed came into existence and :: 6 ::

the scope of the activities of the Trust was

enlarged without altering the main objective.

3. The author of the Trust Sri. R. Prabhakar

passed away on 16.02.2014 and at that time,

there were only four trustees, viz.,

Sathyanarayana K., Sri. H.S. Ramesh Chandra,

Sri. V.B.N. Shinde and Sri. K. Thippeswamy. On

31.12.2018, V.B.N.Shinde died and this caused

difficulty to manage the activities of the Trust.

For this reason as per sub-clauses (iv) and (ix) of

clause 7 of the original Trust deed dated

06.02.1982, a suit was instituted in the Court of

Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

for appointment of new Trustees. An application

under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure

was also filed seeking leave of the court. The said

application was registered as Misc.No.213/2020

and leave was granted.

:: 7 ::

4. Above being the state of affairs, the

defendants began interfering with the functioning

of the plaintiff Trust claming themselves to be the

trustees and informed the managers of the various

banks where the Trust had held accounts that the

first defendant was the authorized signatory. The

plaintiff having gained knowledge of this

information, immediately issued a notice to the

branch manager of all the banks, asking them not

to permit unauthorized persons to operate the

bank accounts. To the surprise of the plaintiff, the

bank managers brought to his notice that the first

defendant had approached them and produced

copy of the third supplementary deed of Trust

dated 23.11.2021. On going through the said

supplementary Trust Deed, the plaintiff came to

know that the defendants had suo motu appointed

themselves as the trustees of the plaintiff Trust

replacing the existing trustees. The plaintiff also

came to know that the first defendant had :: 8 ::

meddled with the email address and the passwords

of the Trust for transaction with the banks and

Income Tax Department. In these circumstances

the plaintiff brought a suit for declaring the third

supplementary deed dated 23.11.2021 null and

void, for permanent injunction to restrain the

defendants from management, constitution and

functioning of the plaintiff Trust and for another

decree of permanent injunction to restrain the

defendants from acting as trustees and dealing

with banks and other statutory authorities.

5. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed two

applications for temporary injunction. The first

application was for restraining the defendants from

interfering with the management and day to day

activities of the Trust till disposal of the suit and

the second application was for restraining the

defendants from acting as trustees and dealing :: 9 ::

with the bank accounts and other properties and

assets of the Trust.

6. The defendants have admitted creation of

the Trust by Rishi Prabhakar on 06.02.1982 and

coming into being of two supplementary Trust

deeds on 16.10.1982 and 28.09.2011. Their main

contention is that in the second supplementary

Trust deed dated 28.09.2011, an amendment was

brought to sub-clause (ix) clause 7 of the original

Trust deed. The amendment was by way of

substitution and it empowered the Founder of the

Trust, i.e., Sri. Rishi Prabhakar or his successor to

nominate the trustees. Thus with effect from

28.09.2011, the term and tenure of the trustees

was subjected to the decision of the Founder or his

successor. The defendants contended that Sri. K.

Sathyanarayana, who has filed a suit on behalf of

the Trust is incompetent to bring the suit as he is

no longer a trustee. After the death of the Founder :: 10 ::

on 16.02.2014, defendants 1 and 2 who are the

son and wife of the Founder respectively, became

the successors in terms of Clause 7(ix) of the trust

deed and they having found the activities of Sri.

K.Sathyanarayana being detrimental to the

activities of the Trust, removed him from

trusteeship on 19.11.2021 and it was

communicated to him on 22.12.2021. Defendants

have stated further that after the death of Sri.

Rishi Prabhakar, the defendants 1 and 2 obtained

Heirship Certificate from the Court of Civil Judge,

Jr.Dn., Aurangabad. Their main contention is that

when Sri. Rishi Prabhakar was alive, he had seen

his successor in the first defendant as the latter

had been trained in the practices of Rishi

Samskriti Vidya Kendra since his childhood. Rishi

Prabhakar had full faith in the first defendant as

the latter had embodied all his powers and

sadhanas. In fact on 19.10.2018, a ceremony

called 'Pattabhishekam' was organized for :: 11 ::

acknowledging the first defendant as the successor

of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar. The said function was

attended by Sri. K.Satyanarayana also. Therefore

first defendant being the successor of the author

of the trust was authorized to nominate the

trustees in terms of the supplementary deed dated

23.11.2021. The other defendants are the

trustees of the newly constituted trust and thereby

the suit is frivolous and not maintainable.

7. The court below dismissed the two

applications by passing the orders impugned in

these appeals. The main reasons given by the

court below are that the suit filed by the trust

under Section 92 of the CPC is defective, in the

sense that a suit is not filed by two or more

persons having interest in the trust and that Sri.

K.Sathyanarayana who had represented the trust

in the suit was discharged from the trusteeship as

per the letter of communication dated 22.11.2021.

:: 12 ::

His removal is in accordance with Clause 7(ix) of

the original trust deed and section 71(c) of the

Indian Trust Act. Therefore plaintiff has not made

out a prima facie case; balance of convenience is

not in favour of the plaintiff and that no injury

would be caused to the plaintiff in case temporary

injunction as prayed for in the applications is not

granted.

8. I have heard Sri. Ashok Haranahalli,

learned senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff

and Sri. Sivaramakrishnan M.S., learned counsel

for the respondents/defendants.

9. It was the argument of Sri. Ashok

Haranahalli that the trial court has missed the

point that in the second supplementary trust deed

dated 28.9.2011, it is clearly mentioned in Clause

7(ix) that the Founder of the Trust viz., Sri. Rishi

Prabhakar or his successor could change any of

the trustees. When Sri. Rishi Prabhakar was alive, :: 13 ::

he did not appoint his successor. Because of

various reasons, the strength of the trustees

reduced and that Sri. K.Sathyanarayana was not

competent to appoint the trustees because he was

a co-opted trustee. In this view, the trust

represented by Sri. K.Satyanarayana had to

approach the Court of Principal City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru under section 92 of

CPC for appointment of trustees and the court has

claim themselves to be the legal successors of Sri.

Rishi Prabhakar and they themselves brought into

existence another trust deed dated 23.11.2021. It

is now being projected that first defendant is the

successor of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar. There is no

evidence to show that Sri. Rishi Prabhakar

appointed the first defendant as his successor.

The first defendant claims to be his successor

because he is the son of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar.

Merely for this reason, he cannot claim to have :: 14 ::

succeeded to the place of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar to

make appointment of trustees. Issuance of legal

successor certificate by a court does not confer

any right on defendants 1 and 2 to interfere with

the Trust matters. Therefore the plaintiff has

made out a prima facie case. Since the activities

of the trust are being disturbed, balance of

convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff to invoke

the jurisdiction of the court for injuncting the

defendants. The interest of the plaintiff would be

affected if injunction is not granted.

10. Sri. Sivaramakrishnan's argument was

that Sri. K.Sathyanarayana who has filed a suit on

behalf of the Trust cannot dispute the authority of

defendants 1 and 2 to appoint the trustees in view

of Clause 7(ix) of the second supplementary Trust

deed dated 28.09.2011. Sri. K. Sathynarayana

was one of the signatories to the said

supplementary Trust deed. Being aware of the :: 15 ::

successor's right to appoint trustees, he can't say

that defendant no.1 is not a successor. When Sri.

Rishi Prabhakar was alive, he appointed the first

defendant as his successor. This is within the

knowledge of Sri. K.Sathyanarayana. Defendants

No.1 and 2 have produced documents to show that

they are the legal successors and for this reason

defendant no.1 has become successor of Sri. Rishi

Prabhakar in the matter of appointment of

trustees. Document R.4 produced by the

defendant shows that Sri. Rishi Prabhakar

intended his son to succeed him. Document R.5 is

the invitation sent by Sri. K. Sathyanarayana

through email in connection with spiritual initiation

of the first defendant and therefore the first

defendant was acknowledged as the successor of

Sri. Rishi Prabhakar. In this view, if the first

defendant and the second defendant reconstituted

the Trust on 23.11.2021, by removing Sri.

Sathyanarayana from the trusteeship, it cannot be :: 16 ::

said that it is contrary to Clause 7(ix) of the

second supplementary trust deed. Sri. K.

Sathynarayana is no more a trustee and he cannot

operate bank accounts. Therefore defendants

rightly wrote letters to the bank to recognize them

as authorized signatories. Thus seen, the

defendant no.1 and 2 are entitled to manage the

Trust and therefore the trial court has rightly come

to conclusion to reject the applications filed by the

plaintiff.

11. From the rival contentions, the

undisputed facts that can be noticed are that Sri.

K.Sathyanarayana was co-opted as a trustee, and

that he too was a signatory to the second

supplementary trust deed which came into

existence on 28.09.2011. The dispute is with

regard to third supplementary trust deed dated

23.11.2021. The plaintiff has clearly stated the

reason for a suit under section 92 of CPC being :: 17 ::

filed for appointment of trustees. The trial court

has held that the suit is defective because it is

filed by only one person. The fact remains that

the Principle City Civil Judge granted leave under

section 92 CPC for filing a suit. Once the leave is

granted, the court below could not have

commented that there is a defect in the suit and

could not have considered the defect in the suit as

one of the reasons for denying the temporary

injunction as prayed for in the applications.

12. Now the controversy revolves around the

defendants 1 and 2 claiming right over the Trust.

Particularly first defendant claims to be the

successor of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar. He and his

mother i.e., the second defendant claim authority

over the Trust on the basis of a legal successor

certificate issued by the court at Aurangabad. The

first defendant and the second defendant being the

son and wife of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar respectively :: 18 ::

may claim to be legal heirs or legal successors, it

is different altogether; but when it comes to

management of the Trust and appointment of

trustees, only the terms of the Trust deed should

be looked into.

13. It cannot be disputed that the second

supplementary trust deed states very clearly that

the appointment of trustees is for life time unless

the Founder Sri. Rishi Prabhakar or his successor

decides to change any of the trustees. The trouble

started only after the death of Sri. Rishi

Prabhakar. If the third supplementary deed dated

23.11.2021 is read, it becomes very clear that the

first and second defendants claim right to

reconstitute a Trust on the basis of legal successor

certificate issued by the court. This third

supplementary trust deed does not contain a

recital that Sri. Rishi Prabhakar appointed the first

defendant as his successor when he was alive. If :: 19 ::

at all the first defendant can claim to be

successor, there must be a document showing that

he was appointed by Sri. Rishi Prabhakar as his

successor. No such document is forth coming.

Even in the third supplementary trust deed it is

not stated that Sri. Rishi Prabhakar appointed the

first defendant. Only on the basis of some

ceremony held on 19.10.2018 as evidenced by

document R.5, first defendant claims that he

became the successor of Sri. Rishi Prabhakar.

Document R.5 shows that first defendant was

given spiritual initiation, it does not indicate that

the other trustees, by virtue of this initiation

acknowledged him to be the successor. Document

R.4 shows that Sri. Rishi Prabhakar expressed an

opinion that his son Sri. Siddhanth had possessed

all the qualities to tread in the spiritual path and

that he did not need anybody's approval to own

RSVK in spirit. This mail was sent by Sri. Rishi

Prabhakar to Manoj Lekhi, probably his disciple.

:: 20 ::

This is not sufficient and whether this mail

communication can be accepted as a valid

document for recognizing the first defendant as

the successor is a matter of trial. No importance

can be given to this document now.

14. According to the defendants Sri. K.

Sathyanarayan might have been discharged of

trusteeship. In view of the discussion made

above, the right of the defendants to remove Sri.

K. Sathynarayana from the Trust is again a matter

of trial.

15. The Trust has already instituted a suit

and leave has been granted by the court. Of

course, as has been observed by the trial court,

the suit is not filed by atleast two persons having

interest in the Trust and in that view there may be

some formal defect. But leave has been granted

which is not questioned. In the said suit itself the

Trust could have impleaded the defendants of the :: 21 ::

present suit and made applications for temporary

injunction. But the separate suit is also

maintainable because according to the plaintiffs,

the defendants are strangers to the Trust and if

they started interfering with the affairs of the

Trust, temporary injunction against them can be

sought. The facts discussed above clearly disclose

that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case.

Since the defendants appear to be strangers,

convenience lies in granting injunction in favour of

the plaintiff and if strangers start interfering with

the affairs of the Trust, it will result in injury to

the plaintiff. Therefore I am of the opinion that

the plaintiff being the appellant has convinced me

that the trial court has not properly exercised its

discretion in deciding the applications for

temporary injunction. For these reasons, appeals

deserve to be allowed and hence the following:

:: 22 ::

ORDER

Appeals are allowed. Order dated 14.02.2022

on application I.A.1 and 2 filed in

O.S.No.398/2022 on the file of LXI Addl. City Civil

Court, Bengaluru, are set aside. I.As.1 and 2 are

allowed and temporary injunction as prayed for in

the applications are granted. There is no order as

to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd