The High Court · 2025

...Respondents / Plaintiffs l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(CCCAMP. NO: 619 OF 2016 Petition under Section -l 5'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operalion of the Judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.333 of 2OO7 on the file of the Xlll Addrtional Chief Judge (Fast Tract Court)' City Civil Court at Hyderabad, dated 9 6.20'6, pending disposal ofthe appeal Counsel for the Appellants Counsel for the Respondent No 2 The Court made the following Order : : : Sri J Venkatram Narsimha Reddy Sri M Govind Reddy 1 4 r;l -. .. !r-'a. f, HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEIVIAPAKA C.C.C.A. No.227 OF 2016 ORDER: Aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment in O.S. No. 333 of 2OO7 d.ated. 09.06.2016 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts at Hyderabad, unsuccessful defendants preferred this Appeal.

3. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. The undisputed facts of the case are : H'indi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad Trust - 1"t defendant.is constituted pursuant to a Resolution passed by Hindi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad. It consists of a Committee of Trustees headed by its Chairman and four Member Trustees. Trust Deed was registered uide Documeot bearing No. 3206 of 7966 ald Trustees have no power to sell or alienate in any way the properties of the Sabha. Plaintiffs are members of Sacha-lan Samithi - a Central Executive Committee.

4. The case of plaintiffs is that defendants decided to constmct a hve-storied building by demolishing the existing one and by using funds of Hindi Prachara Sabha to a tune of Rs. 50 lacs, spent less than Rs. 15 lacs and misappropriated about Rs. 35 lakhs. They obtained loan of Rs. 5 Crores from Union Bank for this purpose, spent not less than Rs. 2 Crores and I J* 2 misappropriated the balance. When asked, defendants failed to produce accounts for verihcation and they finatly, decided to put to sale part of the Trust building for a sum of Rs. 9 Crores, which was opposed by plaintiffs when paper publication. was given. If Trrst briilding is sold at a low price, heavy loss would be caused to llindi Prachara Sabha. Hence, the suit for perpetual injunction.

5. On the other hand, while rebutting the allegation of misappropriation, defendants state that after a series tf Resolutions, onJy bank loan was obtained. tl" Central Executive Committee passed Resolution for new constructions. Since plaintiffs have personal interest to purchase the Sabha buildings, this Suit was instituted.

6. Before the Trial Court, plaintiffs fiIed I.A. No. 553 of 2072 on 03.08.2012 to delete the prayer. portion of perpetual injunction. 7 . On behalf of plaintiffs, pW- 1 was examined and Exs. A-1 to A-12 were marked. On behalf of defendants, DW_l was examined and Exs. B-l to B-28 were marked. On behalf of the Court, Ex.C-1 Caveat petition No. 453 of 2OOZ was marked. 8. The suit was institute d on 23.06.2012, whereas the essence of the suit was withdrawn on 03.Og.2012. What made plaintiffs to take back- step in less than two months, periocl, is i i 3 " unexplained. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the main prayer seeking which the suit is instituted, is eclipsed. Smelling something fishy, the Court below has evaluated the evidence axd the documents. Eventually, the lower court herd as under: 22. Thb pleadings and cross_examination shows that there is no proper maintenance of the accounts and Trust. The members particulars were given to the both parties, both parties also not argued the matter before the cour t *n'"' shows the negligence towards the trust property. Hence it ," ,.r ":l intere s te d pers ons i. e.,., J' ;I;:":';:X J:::;:r"T :;,: :": the public charities it is I sareguard the trusr 0."r"1""1"':":::"J;:',::"T;T;il' maintenance in the lcadership and headed by the Advocate General and the officers of the State c i'e'' District collector with a direction to verify,n. o".orr'ottt'ment -o enquiry the matter and take action if any misappropriation ,r*" td irregularities were happened and to malntain properly.,, - 9 The Court below by judgment dated 09.O6.2016 decreed the suit in part and the Trustees were directed to handover Trust property to Telangana Advocate General ald District Collector with total accounts and resolutions within three months. Else, the Court held, Government is at liberty to hand over the property and to maintain the same. Aggrieved, as stated, defendants preferred the extant Appeat. Their contentions are: (i) Court below ought to have dismissed the suit when the defendants are having right to deal with the property of the Trust as per the Resorutions, (ii) court berow erred in l 1 4 allowing the suit in part without framing an issue in that regard; (iii) Resolutions passed by the Central Committee are not under challenge and hence, the consequential acts by the defendants cannot be questioned; (iv) Burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish the need for rendition of accounts however, the Court shifted it on defendants, (v) Trial Court travelled beyond the relief sought in the suit ald made observations, which are not warranted, etcetera.

10. This Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecutton.by order dated I9.1O.2O22. I.A.No. 2 of 2023 was taken out to restore the Appeal to file. The said Application wa's ordered on

03.or.2024.

11. Heard Sri J. Venkatram Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for appellants as well as Sri M. Govind Reddy, learned Bar at Law on beha-lf of respondents.

12. Dun.ng pendency of Appeal, the Tahsildar, Nampally filed report datecl 19.01.2024. According to this report- " After the Trial Court's judgment, the Advocate General addressed a letter dt. 2a.7O.2016 to the District Collector, Hyderabad, informing that the {)ity Civil Court, Hyderabad, had decreed the suit OS No. 333 of 2OO7 on 0!).06.2016 directing he Trustees to handover the Trust property to the District Collectorate and AG's ofhce, for the purpose of taking over and managing the same. Consequently, on 06.06.201T the District RegistraJ, Cooperative Department, was instructed to take over possession of the properties of Hindu Prachara Sabha, Hyderabad. However, he failed to do so. 5 Later, W.P. No. 28723 of 2023 was filed by one S. Narsima Reddy, a Trustee o[ Hindi Prachar Sabha, to direct the District Co]lector, Hyderabad, to take steps in taking over of the Trust property, including taking custody of all accounts, resolutions In IA No. I of 2023 in W.p. No. 28723 of 2023 an interim order was passed "The Respondent No_ 2 (the District collector, Hyderabad) is directed to file a report before this court on the action being taken on the letter dL.2\.rc.2ol6 addressed by the lear.ned Advocate General, for implementation of the judgment and decree dt_ 09-06.2016 passed in OS No. 333/2OO7 by the next date of hearing i.e., 27.72.2023." To comply urith the Court orders, the R.D.O., Hyderabad, was entrusted to take over the Trust property along with resolutions and accounts. As a result, the RDO implemented the same by taking over the Trust property o^ 23.t2.2O23 and the District Collector, Hyderabad, has hled action taken report before the Honble Court in W.p. No. 2g723/2023, on 26.12.2023. Aggrieved by the orders in Wp No. 2g723/2023, the Hindi Prachar Sabha, represented by its General SecretarJr liled W.A. No. 1202 of 2023. This Court by its order dated 29_12.2023 allowed the W.A. setting aside the impugned order dt. O1.11.2023 in Wp No. 2a223 of 2023. The Hindi Prachar Sabha Iiled arother Wp No g2 of 2024 with a prayer to unseal the Educational Institution and the Administrative ofrrce of the Society On O9.O1.2O24 the General SecretarJr of the Hindi prachar Sabha has submitted a representation enclosing an order of the High Court in IA No. I of 2024 in Wp No. a2 of 2024 to unseal the Educationa.l Institutions ald Ofhce of the Hindi prachara Sabha. Aggrieved by the action of not unsealing the proper$, petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 79 of 2024 in Wp No. g2 of 2024 oD 1l-O7.2024 complaining that the District Collector, Hyderabad, has disobeyed the orders of this Court in the IA. The RDO has released and unsea-led the Educational Institution of Hindi prachara Sabha, Hyderabad, on 72.O1.2024. Yet again, Writ Petition No. 1425 of 2024 is hled by Telangana Hindi Prachara Sabha, Hyderabad, seeking a direction to declare the action of the District Collector, Hyderabad, dated 23.t2-2O23 ie. sealing the 6 premises of the Society and its Educational Institution, as illegal' arbitrary etc. The writ petition is Pending."

13. In t-otalitjr of circumstances adverted to above, it can safely be held, there is no proper maintenance of accounts of Trust. The members' particulars were given to both the parties, who did not argue the matter before the Court which shows negligen<:e towards the Trust property. Hence, the Court below is right in holding that it is not safe to contimre the property with the non- interested persons i e' Trust Therefore, the Court belou' observed that as per Section q2 C P'C , ail the public charities, it is better to handover to the Government to safeguard the Trust property to overcome the loars ald property maintenance in the leadership of learned Advocate General and th.e officers of the State Government ie. District Collector with a direction to verify the Accounts and enquire the matter and 1:ake action, if any misappropriation and irregularities were happened and to maintain properly' It isr to be noticed that the order in IA No. 1 of 2023

14. in Writ Petition. No. 28723 of 2023 is seeking only an action taken report from the District Collector, Hyderabad. Therefore, allowing of Writ Appeal against the said order, does not have any bearing on the Trial Court order in handing over the 7 7 properties in question to the learned Advocate General and District Collector, Hyderabad

15. Nothing perverse or highhandedness is alleged, demonstrated and established to interfere with the trial Court,s judgment and decree dated O9.06.2016 in OS No. 333 of 2OO7. Hence, this Appeal is dismissed and judgment and decree in OS No. 333 of 2OO7 dated 09.O6.2Ot6 on the Iile of the XIII Additiona-l Chief Judge (Fast Track Court) City Civil Courts at Hyderabad is confirmed. No costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if aly, shall stand

16. closed //TRUE COPYi/ Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts at Hyderabad

2. f he District Collector, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the Advocate General, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CCs to the GP for Arbitration, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri J Venkatram Narsimha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri IVI Govind Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies VA/DL HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 ORDER + DECREE CCCA.No.227 of 2016 \ I .-,..::. I 'l I Frt; ,.c) (2 DRAFTS ) DISMISSING THE CCCA IN THE HIGH COURI'FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD $ l 4 s .i ' -J:-?- .i .. .r.,:.r. 1 FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO:,227 OF 2016 Betvieen: 'l Hindi Prachar sabha Hyderabad rrust, Rep, by its chairman Trustee sri Dhonde Rao Jadhav, since died, preientiy re[. Uy frrf. pirUf,r,-i.i] atn Appellant 2 Dhonde Rao Jadhav (Died), pending suit and suit proceeded further and 3. Chandra Dev BhagaJanth Rao Kaude, S/o. Bhagavanth Rao Kaude, aged 74 4. M. Prabhu, S/o. Basavanappa lVladnuree, aged 72 years, Occ lt/anaging cause title is according to decree years, Occ lvlember I rustee Trustee All are addressed ar sri Ram Hindi Bhavan, LN Gupta [\rrarg, Nampaly station Road, Hyderabad ...Ap,-pella nts / Defendants 1 2 J AND Y. Mahalaxmi Naidu, S/o. Chrnna Appanna, aged 86 years, Occ Retd. Principat R/o. H No 58-t5-i i0, Shdrithi Nag-i,-NAD koin"' no"a,'-'- Visakhapatnam P. Subbi Reddy S/o. Late p Narayana Reddy, aged Bg years, Occ Retd. Teacher, R/o H No 2 197 2. BalajiNagrr, Crioi-pi, Cuddab; oiitrici'- The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad R3_added as per Court Order made in CCCA No.22 7 of 2016 dated 25-11_ 2016 ...Respondents / Plaintiffs Appeal under Section g6 r/w order 41 Rure 1 of cpc against the Judgment and Decree dated 09-06-2016 made in o.S.No.333 of 2ooz on the file of the court of the Xlll Additional chief Judge (Fast Track court), city civil court at Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of srr J Venkatram Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri [\rl Govind Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. This Court doth Order and decree as follows:_ l That the Appear be and hereby is dismissed and judgment and decree in o.s.No.333 of :2007 dated 09-06-2016 on the fire of the Xilr Additionar chief Judge (Fast Track court) city civir courts at Hyderaba. is coniirmed; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal; Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII To, ilS rorf oFFICER

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil CoLrrts at Hyderabad 2. fwo CD Copies *tt l i i HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 DECREE CCCA.No.227 of 2016 DISMISSING THE CCCA ,/