Karnataka High Court
P Doddasiddaiah vs The Chief Secretary on 6 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19134
RSA No. 1150 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1150 OF 2022 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. P. DODDASIDDAIAH
S/O LATE PUTTANNA
AGED AOBUT 78 YEARS
R/O KOLATHALU VILLAGE
KORATAGERE TLAUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129.
2. R. RAJANNA
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O SIDDANABETTA
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.S., ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION
MADHUGIRI
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19134
RSA No. 1150 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. THE TAHSILDAR
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129.
4. MUZARAI TAHSILDAR
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
D C OFFICE
TUMAKURU-572 101.
5. G.D. VEERAMALLAIAH
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
GOWJUGALLU VILLAGE
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129.
6. PAARU PATTEDAR
SRI SIDDESWARASWAMY TEMPLE
SIDDARABETTA, NEGALALA POST
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.02.2022
PASSED IN R.A.NO.34/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2019
PASSED ON IA IN O.S.NO.113/2019 ON TH FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, KORATAGERE ALLOWING THE IA FILED
UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF
PLAINT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:19134
RSA No. 1150 of 2022
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2022 for
condonation of delay of 33 days in filing the appeal. Before
issuing notice on delay, this Court has considered the matter
regarding the findings of the Trial Court, since the Trial Court
has entertained an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC,
when the appeal was filed by the defendants to reject the plaint
as barred by law under Section 68 of Hindu Religious
Institutions and Charitable Endowments Acts, having no
jurisdiction to try the subject matter of above suit.
2. In support of this application, it is stated in the
affidavit accompanying the application that plaintiffs are
running Dasoha Samithi under the name of Siddeshwara
Swamiji of Siddarabetta voluntarily from 1988, which is not
permissible under the law. It is stated that under Section 69(b)
of Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable endowments Act
('the Act' for short), such Samithi or development institution
are not permissible without registration by the competent
authority. The Seva Samithi which is alleged by the plaintiffs is
NC: 2025:KHC:19134
HC-KAR
said to have been registered in S.O.C.No.132/1988-89 dated
31.08.1988 which is in fact not tenable under law. There is a
rule that Sangha, Samithi or Trust shall not be registered which
are coming under the notified institutions as per the Act. It is
stated in the plaint that plaintiff Samithi has kept
Rs.30,00,000/- in fixed deposit which is also not permissible
under Section 69(c) of the Act. It is also stated that audit will
be held in Samithi, but the veracity of such statement will have
to be verified. Further plaintiffs have not disclosed for what
purpose the property was leased to them from the Zilla
Panchayath. If the Zilla Panchayath has leased the property in
favour of Samithi for Dasoha purpose, that is not proper under
law. The alleged constructions made by the plaintiffs Samithi in
the suit schedule property out of the income all are illegal
constructions and they will have to be taken possession in
favour of Government. Before conducting any function etc, the
Samithi has not taken any prior permission. Further, plaintiffs
stated that in the plaint that the Hundi maintained by Samithi
and the Hundi of Temple are two different properties and by
the Hundi maintained by Samithi, no harm or injury will be
caused to the temple, but as per the Act, no organization,
NC: 2025:KHC:19134
HC-KAR
individual or Seva Samithi can collect fund or donation of any
purpose in the name of notified institutions or declared
institutions, unless it is sanctioned by the prescribed authority.
Therefore, any amount collected by the Samithi is illegal.
Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
3. Having filed the said application, objections are also
filed contending that the very grounds which have been urged
in the application cannot be considered. It is contended that
defendants have conducted illegal activities in the temple and
they have colluded to take over the income of the Samithi, so
that income of the temple will be increased. Therefore, the
application filed by them is not maintainable. It is also
contended that Section 68 is not applicable to the relief's
claimed under Section 26 of Specific Relief Act and contend that
the very application is filed with an intention to defeat the
rights of the plaintiffs.
4. The Trial Court having considered the averments
made in the plaint as well as the grounds which are urged in
the application, formulated the point whether the plaint is
barred by law.
NC: 2025:KHC:19134
HC-KAR
5. The Trial Court having considered the grounds
which have been urged in the applications and also the law,
extracted Section 68 and so also Section 69-B of the Act
regarding bar of jurisdiction as well as collecting of such
amount by formulating any Committee and also taken note of
Section 69-B that no individual, organization, seva samithi or
development committee registered or not shall be entitled to
collect seva fund or donation for any purpose in the name of
notified institutions or declared institutions, unless it is
sanctioned by the prescribed authority. The Trial Court having
considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record comes to the conclusion that dispute raised by the
plaintiffs directly goes to collection of funds for the purpose of
Dasoha which is purely the subject matter under the Act.
Without deciding the same, point of permanent injunction
cannot be considered. It is further held that if the question do
not fall under those category, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is
not barred was not accepted and also taking note of Section
69-B of the Act held that inquiry under Section 69-B will have
to be conducted by the officer appointed under the Act and he
has to decide or deal with such question. The plaintiffs also
NC: 2025:KHC:19134
HC-KAR
relied upon the judgment of this Court in
M.F.A.NO.7470/2018 in DR. M. SUNIL HEGDE VS. STATE
OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS and the Trial Court comes to
the conclusion that said judgment is not applicable to the facts
of the case, since there is a clear bar under Sections 68 and
69-B of the Act.
6. Being aggrieved by the application filed under Order
7 Rule 11(d) CPC, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate
Court in R.A.No.34/2020. The First Appellate Court also having
considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo as well as
the contention of the parties, formulated the point whether the
suit is barred under Section 68 of Karnataka Religious
Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and whether
the judgment of the Trial Court requires interference at the
hands of this Court. Having reassessed the material on record,
including the grounds urged and also Sections 68 and 69-B of
the Act, reconsidered the material on record and taken note of
the pleadings of the very plaintiffs that Committee have
maintained separate 3 hundies at Dasoha premises to collect
funds for the Dasoha and it has maintained proper accounts.
NC: 2025:KHC:19134
HC-KAR
When once the plaint averments itself reveal that the
Committee is collecting funds and kept 3 separate hundies for
collection of the funds, it is clear that this suit is barred by
provisions of Section 68 of the Act and further taken note of
Section 69-B of the Act that the Committee or Samithi shall not
be entitled to collect seva fund or donation for any purpose in
the name of notified institutions.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants also not disputes
the fact that this institution is notified institution. When there is
no dispute with regard to the said fact even for formation of
any Committee and the very contention that they have formed
Committee and collecting funds for Dasoha and the same is not
permissible under law. The Trial Court while dealing with
application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC comes to definite
conclusion that the dispute raised by the plaintiffs directly goes
to collection of funds which is purely a subject matter of the
Act. Having taken note of Sections 68 and 69-B of the Act,
there is a clear bar that no individual, organization, seva
samithi or development committee registered or not shall be
entitled to collect seva fund or donation for any purpose in the
NC: 2025:KHC:19134
HC-KAR
name of notified institutions or declared institutions unless it is
sanctioned by the prescribed authority. When the proviso is
very clear and the appellants are individual persons, who have
filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining
the respondents/State and when such relief is sought and suit
itself is not maintainable, I do not find any error committed by
the Trial Court in invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The First
Appellate Court also having considered proviso to Sections 68
and 69-B of the Act, rightly comes to the conclusion that the
very contention of learned counsel for the appellants that this
Court has to frame substantial question of law that both the
Courts committed an error in rejecting the plaint only looking
into the affidavit filed in support of the application and not
based on the plaint averments cannot be accepted and while
dealing with the application, it is settled law that Court has to
look into the plaint averments and both the Courts have taken
note of very averments of plaint. When such reasoning is given
by the Trial Court considering the plaint averments and the
First Appellate Court also taken note of the same while
answering point No.1, I do not find any error committed by the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and the contention of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19134
HC-KAR
the learned counsel for the appellants that only considered the
averments of the application cannot be accepted. Hence, no
grounds are made out to admit the appeal and frame any
substantial question of law.
8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
