Karnataka High Court
Shri. Viramal Dev Bastwad Mahal Trust vs Shri. Viramal Dev Trust Committee on 24 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16210
WP No. 103556 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 103556 OF 2024 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. VIRAMAL DEV BASTWAD MAHAL TRUST
TQ. RAIBAG,DIST. BELAGAVI,
BY ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE,
SHRI. MADAPPA S/O. SIDRAM VADEYAR,
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. PUJEARKI,
R/O. BASTWAD MAHAL,
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI,
AND ALSO RESIDING #WARD NO.3,
KANKANAWADI, TQ. CHIKODI,
AND DIST. BELAGAVI-581231.
2. SHRI. MALLIKARJUN
S/O. VITTHAL VADEYAR
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. PUJEARKI,
R/O. BASTWAD MAHAL,
TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI 591317.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S
HARIHAR AND:
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad SHRI. VIRAMAL DEV TRUST COMMITTEE
OF BASTWAD MAHAL, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SHRI. PUNDALIK S/O. SAVANT LATTE,
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. ALLEGEDLY CLAIMING
AS TRUSTEE/PRESIDENT
R/O. BASTWAD MAHAL,
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317.
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16210
WP No. 103556 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION, ORDER
DATED 11/12/2023 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
BELAGAVI IN MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.75/2023 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the
following prayer:
a. "Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other
writ or direction, order dated 11/12/2023 passed by
the VIII Addl. District Judge, Belagavi in
Miscellaneous Petition No.75/2023 vide Annexure-E,
in the interest of justice and equity.
b. Pass any such appropriate orders as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit, just and proper in the
circumstances of this case, in the ends of justice
and equity."
2. Heard Sri Santosh B. Rawoot, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
3. Though the respondents have been served long ago,
they have remained unrepresented.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
issue involved in the present petition stands answered by the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16210
HC-KAR
judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench, which has held as
follows:
1. "The petitioner is before this Court seeking
for the following reliefs:
a. "Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing
the order passed by the Xth Additional District
Judge, Belagavi in Misc.No.152/2022 dated
02.01.2023 vide Annexure-L herein by allowing
this Writ Petition and dismissing the Misc. No.
152/2022 filed by the respondent.
b. Issue such other relief's and pass such other
orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
light of the above facts and circumstances of the
case in the interest of justice."
2. A trust by name Shri Parswanath Swami
Basti, Yamakalmardi came to be registered under Bombay
Trust Act 1950 on 13.10.1956. Subsequently, an
application was made to the Assistant Charity
Commissioner for registration of the said trust, which was
so done on 24.8.1999 on the basis of a changed report.
3. The trust represented one Sri.Rajendra s/o
Dharmu Kotimani had filed a petition under Section 3 and
7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 (for
short "Act of 1920") in Misc.No.152/2022 before the X
Additional District Judge, Belagavi seeking approval of the
resolution passed by the trust as regards the managing
committee of the trust. The names of the said members
of the managing committee having been provided with
the change report, was accepted by the said Court and
the names of the Managing Committee has been provided
by a trust was approved to be legal and valid vide the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16210
HC-KAR
impugned order dated 2.1.2023, it is challenging the
same the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
aforesaid reliefs.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the District Court did not have powers
under Section 3 and 7 of the Act of 1920 for approving
the Managing Committee. The approval of the managing
committee is not an aspect covered under section 3 or 7
of the Act of 1920.
5. In this regard he relies upon the decision of
this Court in the case of Shri.Chandrahas S/o Ekanath
Dhumal & Another vs. Shri.Rohan Anil Salve &
Another in WP No.111276/2009 dated 17.12.2021
and in the case of Shri. Vanavasi Shri. Ram Mandir
Trust vs. Shri. Raghavendra Sondur & another dated
15.12.2021 in WP No.104185/2021 to contend that
this court has already come to a conclusion that there are
no powers under Section 3 and 7 of Act of 1920 for
approval of managing committee and as such he submits
that the impugned order is required to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for respondent would submit
that the earlier managing committee has continued and
said managing committee has been running the affairs of
the trust from the year 1999. A resolution has been
passed by the managing committee as regards which an
application was filed. If the order is set aside, then the
manner and methodology of running the trust would be
adversely affected and as such, the resolution having
been passed, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the
resolution, the aggrieved party have to approach the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16210
HC-KAR
jurisdictional Court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
7. Heard Sri.Naveen R.Melinamani., learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Shrikant T.
Patil., learned counsel appearing for respondents.
perused papers.
8. A short question that would arise for
consideration is whether the District Court under Section
3 and 7 of the Act of 1920 can approve the list of
managing committee and/or validate the list of managing
committee submitted by the trust.
9. The above aspect is no longer res integra this
Court has categorically dealt with the same in its order
dated 17.12.2021 in WP No.111276/2019 and order date
31.3.2022 in WP No.104185/2021 and has come to a
conclusion that the provision of Section 3 and 7 would
apply in the limited conspectus of aid and advice and/or
seeking for documents of the trust and nothing else.
10. If at all, a scheme of management is
required to be framed. The same would have to be so
done under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
11. In that view of the matter, I am of the
considered opinion that in the present case the
respondent-trust could not have approached the District
Court under Section 3 and 7 of the Act of 1920 for
approval of the managing committee.
12. The said Court did not have jurisdiction to do
so under Section 3 and 7 of the Act of 1920. Hence the
order itself is without jurisdiction. In that view of the
matter, I pass the following;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16210
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. A certiorari is issued. The order passed
by the X Additional District Judge,
Belagavi in Misc.No.152/2022 dated
2.1.2023 is hereby quashed.
iii. Since the resolution in question in the
present matter has been passed by
the Annual General Body in its
meeting held on 26.6.2022. If at all
any person is aggrieved by said
resolution, such person could always
approach the jurisdictional Court
under Section 92 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
iv. In view of the disposal of the main
matter, the pending IA does not
survive for consideration."
5. In light of the issue having been answered by the Co-
ordinate Bench, the petition deserves to be disposed of on the
same terms.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
AC
CT:ANB
