Karnataka High Court
Shree Kalikamba Vinayaka Devasthana vs Prabhakar Acharya on 14 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40568
RSA No. 408 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.408 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SHREE KALIKAMBA VINAYAKA DEVASTHANA
CAR STREET, MANGALORE - 575 001
REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE NO.2
MR. SUNDAR ACHARYA
S/O LATE GOPALA ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
SHREE KALIKAMBA VINAYAKA DEVASTHANA
REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE NO.2
MR. SUNDAR ACHARYA
Digitally signed S/O LATE GOPALA ACHARYA
by DEVIKA M
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. MR. RUDHRAYYA ACHARYA
S/O VENKATRAYA ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT BABBUKATTE
PERMANNUR POST
MANGALORE TALUK - 575 001.
4. MR. P VASANTH KUMAR
S/O P ANANDA ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT VRINDAVAN, KODIKAL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40568
RSA No. 408 of 2022
HC-KAR
ASHOK NAGAR POST
MANGALORE TALUK - 575 001
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRABHAKAR ACHARYA
S/O LATE BABYRAY ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
R/AT SHIVA PRABHA
VIDYANAGAR KEENYA
MANGALURU TALUK - 575 001
2. SRI S HARISHCHANRDA ACHARYA
S/O LATE B L SHIVARAM ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT SHRIHARI, KODICAL CROSS
ASHOKNAGAR POST
MANGALORE - 575 006
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2021
PASSED IN R.A. NO.184/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DK,
MANGALURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40568
RSA No. 408 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding
of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The factual
matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in
O.S.No.518/2014 that Managing Committee has amended
the by-law of first defendant temple on 08.09.2013 without
following the proper procedure and as such the same is
against the public policy. The plaintiffs further contended
that the Managing Committee without holding an enquiry
and without assigning proper reasons has expelled them
from the membership on 18.03.2014 and also contended
that the Managing Committee has tarnished their names by
giving paper publications and putting banners. Hence, the
plaintiffs sought for the relief of declaration and also the
permanent injunction. In response of the suit summons, the
defendants appeared and filed written statement contending
that the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of
NC: 2025:KHC:40568
HC-KAR
necessary parties and the relief of declaration sought by the
plaintiffs is barred by limitation.
3. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings of
the parties, allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The
Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs granting
the relief of declaration declaring that alleged Special
General Body Meeting held on 08.09.2003 is not conducted
by following the due procedures laid down under the by-law
dated 20.01.2008 of the first dependent temple and any
such resolution passed on the strength of the said meeting
dated 08.09.2013 is null and void and further declared that
clause No.XI of the amended by-law dated 08.09.2013
passed by the Managing Committee of the first defendant
temple is also against the public policy and it is not binding
on the plaintiffs and further declared that the order dated
18.03.2014 passed by the second defendant expelling the
plaintiffs from the membership of the first defendant temple
on the strength of clause No.XI of the amended by-law dated
08.09.2013 is void and further granted the relief of
NC: 2025:KHC:40568
HC-KAR
permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.2 to 4 from
publishing any articles in any newspaper or putting up any
kind of cut outs or banners of the plaintiffs in the public place
or tending to tarnish the fair name of the plaintiffs in any
public place. The Trial Court passed the said judgment in
coming to the conclusion that no General Body Meeting
notice was issued to all while amending the earlier by-law
dated 20.01.2008 and procedure is not followed while
amending the same in 2013.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, an appeal
was filed in R.A.No.184/2019 by the defendants and the
same is also dismissed considering the admissions
particularly on the part of DW1 with regard to the following
of the procedure and concurrent finding is given by the First
Appellate Court that no procedure was followed and
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved
by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present
second appeal is filed before this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:40568
HC-KAR
5. The main contention of the learned counsel who
appears on behalf of the appellants before this Court is that
the finding given by Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court is erroneous. The counsel would vehemently contend
that both the Courts have not considered the material on
record in a proper perspective and the judgment of the Trial
Court and Appellate Court amounts to perversity and both
the Courts have erred in considering that the amendment of
prayer in paragraph No.5(f) is barred by limitation. The
judgments of both the Courts suffers from non-consideration
of evidence and material placed on record. Hence this Court
has to admit the appeal and frame the substantive questions
of law.
6. Per contra, counsel appearing to the respondents
would vehemently contend that the specific relief is sought
before the Trial Court with regard to the amendment of by-
law is concerned contending that no procedure was followed
while amending the by-law and the same was appreciated by
the Trial Court while considering the material on record. In
paragraph 28 of the Judgment, categorical finding is given by
NC: 2025:KHC:40568
HC-KAR
the Trial Court holding that nothing is placed on record for
having given notice to either Mokthesara or the members of
the first dependent temple and they have not conducted any
Special General Body Meeting by following the procedure of
the by-law of the year 2008. The said fact is also appreciated
by the First Appellate Court while considering the material on
record and reassessing both oral and documentary evidence.
Hence, both the Courts have not committed any error.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
the respondents and also considered both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record. The records
discloses that the relief was sought for declaration and
permanent injunction before the Trial Court making specific
pleading that in 2013, when old by-law of 2008 was
amended, procedure was not followed. Having considered
the first Issue is concerned that is the fundamental issue
between the parties, in paragraph 28 of the judgment, The
Trial Court taken note of Ex.P17 that is by-law of 2008, it is
clearly discloses in Rule 13 that the Managing Committee has
to give the notices to all the members of the first dependent
NC: 2025:KHC:40568
HC-KAR
temple and it is mentioned in the said document i.e., by-law
that the procedure has to be followed. There is no rule to
expel the members of the first defendant temple. But it is
included in 2013 by-law which is amended on 08.09.2013
without following the procedure. The Trial Court also taken
note of admission on the part of DW1 in the cross-
examination and in the reasoning given by the Trial Court
taken note of the fact that amendment was made in the year
2013 as against the by-law of the year 2008. The defendants
have to call the Special General Body Meeting on the basis of
2008 by-law after giving a notice and the same was not
followed. When such being the case, in view of the
amendment of 2013, further expelling of the members of
first defendant, a provision is made. Trial Court comes to the
conclusion that the said amendment is against the by-law of
2008 and the same is considered by the First Appellate Court
while re-appreciating the material available on record. When
the amendment is not in consonance with the by-law of 2008
and procedure is not followed while amending the same,
consequential relief sought by the plaintiffs was also
NC: 2025:KHC:40568
HC-KAR
declared. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
during the course of his arguments also would submit that
they have not placed any document for having given notice.
But only contention is taken that discussion was made with
all the Mokthesaras and the notices were issued to the
Mokthesaras and in turn they have to issue notice to the
members. But nothing is placed on record for having issued
the notice to all the members of the first defendant temple.
8. The First Appellate Court also while reconsidering
the material and record comes to the conclusion that Trial
Court has not committed any error in coming to the
conclusion that the subsequent amendment was made in
terms of the by-law of 2008. When such being the case, I do
not find any error on the part of the Trial court in granting
the relief and confirming the same by the First Appellate
Court when the appellants failed to place on record any
notice issued to the members of the temple and also calling
of Special General Body meeting even for amendment of by-
law. Under such circumstances, there is no merit in the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40568
HC-KAR
appeal to admit the same and to frame the substantive
question of law.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The Second appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any,
does not survive for consideration and the same stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
