Karnataka High Court

Sri Rangaswamy vs Rama Bhajana Mandira And Sri Vinayaka ... on 29 October, 2024

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                                -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:43635
                                                       MFA No. 8162 of 2023




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                           BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8162 OF 2023


                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SRI. RANGASWAMY
                        S/O NANJAPPA
                        AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
                        NO. 90, KABER MUTT ROAD
                        SUNKENAHALLY
                        BANGALORE- 560 019.

                   2.   SRI.B.R. PRASAD
                        S/O B.RAMU
                        AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
                        NO. 27/38-1, KABIR MUTT ROAD
                        GANESHA TEMPLE, SUNKENAHALLI
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M             BANGALORE NORTH
Location: HIGH          GAVIPURAM EXTENSION
COURT OF
KARNATAKA               BANGALORE -560 019.

                   3.   SRI. SHANTHAKUMAR K
                        S/O LATE KEMPAIAH
                        AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
                        NO. 46/2, SUNKENAHALLI
                        BASAVANAGUDI
                        BANGALORE- 560 019.

                   4.   SRI. K. KRISHNAMURTHY
                        S/O LATE V. SHAMANNA
                            -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:43635
                                     MFA No. 8162 of 2023




     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
     NO.9, SUNKENAHALLI
     BULL TEMPLE ROAD,
     HANUMANTHANAGAR
     BANGALORE -560 019.

5.   SRI. SOMASHEKAR S
     S/O SHIVANNA
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
     NO. 23/2, DHONDUSA LAYOUT
     MONJA ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 019.

6.   SRI. SRIKANTESHWARA
     S/O B.N.BASAVARAJU
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
     NO.21/1, PARK ROAD,
     SUNKENAHALLI
     BANGALORE- 560 019.

7.   SRI. N. MOHAN KUMAR
     S/OT.NARAYANAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
     NO.230/1, 2ND FLOOR
     3RD CROSS, KAMADENU
     THYAGARAJANAGAR
     2ND BLOCK, BANGALORE -560 028

8.   SRI. M. PRASAD
     S/O M. MAHADEVAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
     NO. 339, 13TH CROSS
     KAVERI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 070

9.   SRI. SUBRAMANYA
     S/O VENKATASWAMAPPA
                            -3-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:43635
                                     MFA No. 8162 of 2023




     AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
     NO.40, NEAR BHASKAR MEDICALS
     SUNKENAHALLI, BANGALORE 560 019.
                                             ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAVI.R.S., SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. MAYANNA GOWDA N R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   RAMA BHAJANA MANDIRA AND
     SRI VINAYAKA DEVASTHANA TRUST
     NO.92, 4TH CROSS, GAVIPURAM
     EXTENSION, HANUMANTHNAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 019.
     REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
     SRI.N. NARASIMHAMURHTY
     S/O NARASIMHAIAH

2.   SRI. VISHWANATH B.R @ VINAY
     S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT YEARS
     NO.18, SUNKENAHALLI
     GAVIPURAM GUTTAHALLI
     BANGALORE.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAYEEM PASHA S., ADVOCATE FOR R1
    NOTICE TO R2-DISPENSED WITH)

       THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF
CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2023 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.1598/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CCH-44, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39
RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC.
                                -4-
                                               NC: 2024:KHC:43635
                                           MFA No. 8162 of 2023




     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                      ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and

counsel appearing for respondents.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the rejection of

I.A.No.3 wherein the prayer is sought by the plaintiffs to

restrain the defendants or any body claiming under them

from interfering with the religious functions (village

festival) to be held in the suit schedule property in the

particular month.

3. The factual aspect of the case in brief is that the

plaintiffs before the Trial Court are seeking relief of

declaration, permanent injunction and inter-alia sought for

temporary injunction. It is contended that the property

bearing No.62, Sunkanahalli, Kempegowda Nagar, Ward

No.49, PID No.49-76-62 belongs to Vinayaka Devasthana

Public Trust, having acquired the same from Sri.Gurukar

Chikkanarasimhaiah S/o Gurukar Narasimha Nayaka under

NC: 2024:KHC:43635

the Trust Deed dated 12.11.1951, which is registered

before the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru City. The founder of

the Trust-Sri.Gurukar Chikkanarasimhaiah's brother

Sri.Dodda Narasimhaiah has acquired the schedule

property in auction and in turn made over to the Trust.

The said property was used for the purpose of religious

activities for villagers of Sunkenahalli by Sri.Dodda

Narasimhaiah and it was used for the purpose of villages

allowing them to perform the pooja and other related

activities. After his death, the said Sri.Gurukar

Chikkanarasimhaih started looking after the functions

carried out in the said properties along with the Vinayaka

Temple and Bajane Mandira of Sunkenahalli. Due to his

old age, Gurukar Chikkanarasimha Nayaka in order to

continue the religious activities for Pooja, Deepaaradhane

performed by his ancestors, he formed the above Trust. As

per the Trust deed the Trustees are prohibited to sell,

lease or mortgage of the trust properties if any of the

trustees violates the terms of the trust they will no longer

NC: 2024:KHC:43635

be the trustee. The plaintiffs being the residents of

Sunkenahalli, Gavipuram Extension, Bangalore, have been

conducting function relating to Pooja and other related

religious activities including "Kadalekayi Parise" since from

several years in the schedule property.

4. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that on

11.02.2023 defendant No.1, who is the President of the

Trust colluded with defendant No.2 is trying to erect

structures and started to use the schedule property for

commercial purposes as if the defendant No.1 is giving

the schedule property for lease to the defendant No.2.

When the plaintiffs along with the villagers questioned the

same, the defendants have threatened them with dire

consequences and a complaint came to be lodged to take

action. Nevertheless, instead of taking action, the police

have referred the matter concerned Tahsildar and

Executive Magistrate. The Executive Magistrate, in

MAG/CR/(107)16/2022-23 dated 23.02.2023 restrained

the plaintiffs from causing the breach of public peace and

NC: 2024:KHC:43635

held that the subject matter is under the ownership of the

1st party of the respondents i.e., defendants herein. The

plaintiffs are representing the public and villagers of

Sunkenahalli in order to protect the property which is

created for conducting religious activities in the village.

The defendants neither having absolute right to sell or

lease the property are trying to use the same for

commercial purposes for the personal benefits and hence,

the very object of creation of Trust will be defeated.

Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit and sought for

interim relief.

5. The defendants have appeared and have filed

objection statement to the application contending that the

suit is lacks of bonafide and is bereft of merits and only

with an intention to harass the Trust, the plaintiffs have

the suit is filed. The plaintiffs have concealed and

suppressed the material facts. The 1st defendant-Trust is

the absolute owner and in possession of the property

bearing Sy.No.62 situated at Sunkanahalli. The defendants

NC: 2024:KHC:43635

are also reiterated with regard to the formation of the

Trust and also contended that the expenditure of the Trust

have gone up and public contribution and income of the

Trust have gone down. Under these circumstances only,

the Trust decided to let out the vacant portion of the land

in the suit property. The lease amount being received is

exclusively being utilized for the purpose of carrying out

the object of the Trust. Plaintiff No.1-Sri.Rangaswamy

being the President of 'Chaluva Kannadigara Mitra Sangha'

and other plaintiff, who are residents of the locality trying

to interfere with the affairs of the Trust's day-to-day

activities. Defendant No.1 had lodged the complaint and

the proceedings also initiated against them and also

requested the concerned Magistrate to invoke the

provisions under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. The

Magistrate by order dated 22.05.2023 restrained the

plaintiffs from cause breach of public peace by interfering

with the possession over the subject property. It is also

contended that plaintiff No.1 also earlier filed a suit in

NC: 2024:KHC:43635

O.S.No.7046/2008 against defendant No.1-Trust and said

suit came to be dismissed on 03.11.2016. By challenging

the same, plaintiff No.1 has preferred an appeal before

this Court in RFA No.249/2017, which was also dismissed

and hence, it is clearly discloses that the plaintiffs are

interfering with the affairs of the Trust.

6. The Trial Court having considered the grounds

urged in the application as well as in the objection

statement has formulated the points with regard to

cardinal principles for granting the relief of temporary

injunction.

7. Having taken note of the pleadings as well as the

contentions and taking note of the fact that the earlier suit

filed was dismissed and also confirmed by the appellate

court, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that

admittedly, the plaintiffs are the private individuals and

they have filed a suit against the registered Trust and also

taking note of the relief is sought and they are not in

possession of the schedule property and hence rejected

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:43635

the application in coming to the conclusion that the private

individuals are not empowered to initiate the proceedings

against the registered Trust. The said question has to be

considered during the trial and hence rejected the prayer.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellants in this appeal

would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has

committed an error mainly relying upon the dismissal of

the earlier suit and confirmation made by the appellate

court and also admitted the fact that the Trust was

registered in the year 1951 is not in dispute. The learned

Counsel for the appellants brought to the notice of this

Court the recitals of the Trust Deed and the Trust is

formed for the purpose of public use of the villagers and it

is also contended that the villagers are performing the

religious civilities since from last 100 years. It is further

contended that making an attempt to erect the structures

for using the same for the commercial purpose, and when

the same was questioned, the defendants are not heeded

to the objection raised by the plaintiffs and the Trial Court

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:43635

also failed to consider the material on record, more

particularly, the Trust Deed and recitals of the Trust Deed

and has committed an error in rejecting the application.

9. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the

respondents would contend that the Trial Court taking

note of the pleadings of the parties particularly, the plaint

pleadings as well as the earlier proceedings initiated by

the very 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.7046/2008, which was

dismissed and confirmed and also taken note of the fact

they are the individuals and coming in the way of the

affairs of the registered Trust and the suit is also filed

against the Trust and whether the private individuals are

empowered to initiate proceedings against the Trust and

the same has to be considered during the trial and the

reasoned order was passed by the Trial Court and no

grounds are made out to interfere with the said order.

10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the

appellants and also Counsel appearing for the respondents

and also taking note of the pleadings of both the parties, it

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:43635

is not in dispute that the originally the property belongs to

the particular family. It is also not in dispute that a Trust

was created on 12.11.1951. Learned Counsel for the

appellants also brought to the notice of the Court to the

recitals made in the Trust Deed and having red the recitals

of the Trust Deed, it is very clear that the Trust has been

created for the purpose of conducting religious functions/

activities in the village and also the recitals also stated

that the affairs of the Trust may be managed by raising

donation of the public as well as income derived from the

properties of the Trust.

11. When such being the material on record, no

doubt, the plaintiffs have contended in the application that

on 11.02.2023 the defendants have trying to erect

structures to use the schedule property for commercial

purposes. When the 1st plaintiff/appellant along with the

villagers questioned the same, the defendants threatened

the plaintiff and villagers. Therefore, the 1st plaintiff has

lodged the complaint on 11.02.2023. It has to be taken

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:43635

note of the fact that the very 1st plaintiff had filed earlier

suit in O.S.No.7046/2008 and admittedly, the same was

dismissed, wherein also the 1st plaintiff claimed that he

was the President and other members are also

unregistered Associations who have filed a suit earlier and

the said suit was dismissed and the same has been

challenged before this Court and this Court also dismissed

the same. The Court has to take note of the conduct of

the plaintiffs also who initiated the proceedings. It is also

important to note that when the interference was done, a

complaint was lodged and the MAG proceedings were also

initiated against the plaintiffs and thereafter only the suit

was filed.

12. Having taken these facts into consideration,

admittedly, the plaintiffs are private individuals and hence,

whether they can maintain the suit or not is a question to

be decided during the trial. Earlier, the attempt made by

the 1st plaintiff by initiating the suit was unsuccessful.

Now, adding of other parties as plaintiffs, who are also the

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:43635

private individuals and a relief is also sought to restrain

from interfering with religious functions/activities. Learned

Counsel appearing for the respondents would also make

the submission that they never interfered with the

religious activities in the village festival and the very Trust

was entrusted to conduct the religious function. The very

pleading clearly disclose that the plaintiffs made an

attempt to interfere and when the Trust started to put up

construction and having taken note of the recitals of the

Trust Deed also, it is clear that the Trust is created for the

purpose of public use and the affairs of the Trust may be

managed by collecting donation and even from the income

from the property of the Trust. When such provisions are

also made in the recitals, it appears that when the attempt

is made to put up constructions and to generate the

income to the Trust and an attempt was made by the

plaintiffs.

13. When such being the case, while granting the

relief of injunction and while exercising its discretionary

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC:43635

power the Court has to take note of the conduct of the

parties also. Hence, I do not find any error committed by

the Trial Court in rejecting the application. A prayer is

also sought, not to interfere with the religious activities

and when the Counsel appearing for the respondents also

made a submission that they have not interfered in

conducting of any religious activities in the village, the

question of granting relief also does not arise. Hence, I do

not fine any merit in the appeal to reverse the finding of

the Trial Court. The Trial Court has also passed the

reasoned order taking note of the earlier dismissal of the

suit filed by the 1st plaintiff and confirming the same by

this Court and hence, the appellants have not made out

any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Trial

Court.

14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER The Miscellaneous First Appeal is

dismissed.

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC:43635

The Trial Court shall not be influenced by

the orders passed by this Court in the appeal

while considering the matter on merits.