The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:156 CRP No. 433 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 433 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. MR SYED SHABBIR S/O LATE SYED AMEER AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2. MR SYED ZUBAIR S/O LATE SYED SHABBIR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NIZAM BUILIDINGS 5TH CROSS, RAHAMATHNAGAR BENGALURU - 32 3. MR SYED AHMED S/O SYED AMEER AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 5TH MAIN 5TH CROSS OPPOSITE FARMAN MEDICAL RAHAMATH NAGAR BANGALORE – 32 4. MR SADIQ SHARIEFF S/O LATE ISMAIL SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 5. MR SYED SHERAZ S/O SYED MUNEER Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:156 CRP No. 433 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 6. DR SAJIDA BEGUM W/O TALIB AZIZ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.4 TO 6 R/AT C/O SYED SHABBIR NO.07 NIZAM BUILDING 5TH CROSS RAHAMATHNAGAR BANGALORE - 32
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. DANAPPA PRADHANAPPA PANIBHATE., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. FAROOQ WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND TRUST HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 14/4 5TH CROSS 5TH B MAIN REHAMATH NAGAR BENGALURU 32 REP BY ITS SECRETARY MOHAMMED TAHIR AHMED 2. MR SAYEED AHMED S/O LATE SHAIK MAHAMOD AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO 52 5TH CROSS REHAMATH NAGAR BANGALORE - 560032 3. DR AHMED SHARIFF S/O LATE HYDER SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/ATNO 541 18TH CROSS 1ST BLOCK R T NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560032 4. DR ATEEQ UR RAHMAN S/O MR ABDUL RAHMAN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:156 CRP No. 433 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO 75C KENCHAPPA GARDEN CROSS CHAMUNDI NAGAR R T NAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560032 5. MR KHALEEL ULLA KHAN S/O LATE GAFFAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/ATNO 4337 9TH CROSS K G B MAIN ROAD NEW KAVALBYRASANDRA BANGALORE - 560032 6. MR JABBAR SIDDIQ AHMED S/OLATE M S JABBAR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/ANO 310/A 1ST BLOCK 6TH CROSS R T NAGAR BANGALORE - 560032 7. MR SHAIK DASTAGIR S/O SHAIK ABDUL RAZACK AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT 15/1 2ND MAIN 3RD CROSS ] RAHAMANTH NAGAR BANGALORE - 560032 8. MR MOHAMMED TAZEER AHMED S/O MD IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/ATNO 09, 6TH CROSS KEMPAIAH BLOCK J C NAGAR, BANGALORE - 06 9. MR HOAMMED RAFEEQ @ AMANULLA S/O LATE MOHAMMED HASHIM AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO 30 2ND MAIN 2ND CROSS RAHAMATHNAGAR BANGALORE - 32 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:156 CRP No. 433 of 2022 10. MR SYED AYUB PASHA S/O LATE SYED MEER AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO 4, BANU GARDEN CBI ROAD, GANGANAGAR BANGALORE - 32 11. MR SYED EHTISHAMUDDIN AYAZ S/O ALTE SYED KHALEELULLA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO 30 10TH CROSS CBI MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGAR BANGALORE - 32 12. MR ABDUL HAFEEZ S/O ABDUL GHAFFAR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT 2ND CROSS NEXT TO JAMIYA MASJID RAHAMATHNAGAR, BANGALORE - 32 13. MR MOHAMMED ISMAIL S/O LATE MD KHALANDHAR AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/ATNO 16/1 5TH MAIN 5TH CROSS RAHAMATHNAGAR BANGALORE - 32 RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 7 & 9 TO 13 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR SPA HOLDER MR MOHAMMED TAZEER AHMED 14. MR MOHAMMED SARDAR S/O MOHAMMED REHAMAN SAB AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 15. MR JANAB SYED ABDUL JABBAR S/O SYED ABDUL JALEEL - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:156 CRP No. 433 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.14 & 15 AT C/O SYED SHABBIR NO.7, NIZAM BUILDING 5TH CROSS, RAHAMATHNAGAR BANGALORE - 32 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SYED AKMAL HASAN RAZVI., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R4, R5, R8 & R12 R3, R6, R9, R10, R11 & R13 SERVED-UNREPRESENTED V/O/D.15/07/2024, NOTICE TO R14 & R15 IS D/W) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2022 PASSED ON I.A.2(A) IN OS.NO.26672/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE REJECTING THE IA NO.2(A) FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioners who had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are aggrieved of the rejection of the application in I.A.No.2(A) at the hands of the learned XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.26672/2019. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:156 CRP No. 433 of 2022 2. Learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swami Paramatmanand Saraswati & Another Vs. Ramji Tripathi & Another (1974) 2 SCC 695, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if it is clear that the plaintiffs are not suing to vindicate the right of the public, but are seeking a declaration of their individual or personal rights or individual or personal rights of any other person or persons in whom they are interested, then the suit would be outside the scope of Section 92 of the CPC. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application while holding that in the present case, the plaintiffs are before the Court contending that the plaintiffs have been validly appointed as Trustees by plaintiff No.1 - Trust and as pleaded in paragraph-15 of the plaint, the defendants, with an intention to knock off the Trust property have managed to persuade the founder Chairman, Trustee to execute the Deed dated 03.02.2017 appointing the defendants as the Trustees of plaintiff No.1 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:156 CRP No. 433 of 2022 - Trust and therefore, plaintiffs are challenging the said Deed on the ground that it is illegal, null and void and on the other hand, the plaintiffs are contending that they are the validly appointed Trustees under the Deed dated 06.01.2018. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners-defendants, on the other hand, seeks to contend that on a consolidated reading of the plaint, it is clear that there is dispute between the parties who are in two factions claiming to be the legitimate Trustees of Farooq Welfare Association and Trust. 4. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that the prayer made in the suit clearly falls within the scope of Section 92 of CPC and therefore, unless leave of the Court is sought to institute a suit, the suit could not have been filed and therefore, it is hit by clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of CPC. 5. Having heard the learned Counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality can be found in the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:156 CRP No. 433 of 2022 impugned order. Going by the prayer made in the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiffs have not sought for any of the relief found in Section 92 of the CPC. As rightly held by the Trial Court, the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the Trust is managed by its Trustees in terms of Deed dated 06.01.2018. The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the Deed executed on 03.02.2017 and registered as document No.546-2016/17 in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru, is illegal and void and are seeking cancellation of the same. Therefore, no relief as contemplated in Section 92 of CPC is claimed in the suit. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the application.
Decision
6. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/- CT: JL