Writ Appeal No. 1404 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9919-DB WA No. 1404 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1404 OF 2023 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN: KERAGODU EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.), KERAGODU VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR K S, S/O LATE SHIVALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, KERAGODU VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. (BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT VINODA, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O H C RAMAKRISHNA, R/A HULIVANA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571146. 2. SRI DANINATTI NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, …APPELLANT Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9919-DB WA No. 1404 of 2023 S/O SIDDEGOWDARA MUDDEGOWDA, R/A HULIVANA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 3. SMT B H SHYLAJA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O K L YOGESH, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446.
Legal Reasoning
4. SRI K Y PRASHANTH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O K L YOGESH, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 5. SRI H C RAMAKRISHNA, S/O CHAMANURU BOKKAIAH, AGED 63 YEARS, R/A HULIVANA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 6. SRI H C PUTTALINGAIAH, S/O KARADIGOWDA, AGED 58 YEARS, R/A HULIVANA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 7. SMT JAYAMMA, W/O L PUTTASWAMEGOWDA, AGED 78 YEARS, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9919-DB WA No. 1404 of 2023 8. SMT P RADHA, W/O N RAMALINGEGOWDA, AGED 51 YEARS, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 9. SMT H L LAKSHMAMMA, W/O L SHANKAREGOWDA, AGED 46 YEARS, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 10. SRI K S LAKSHMI, S/O KARADIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 11. SMT P SUJATHA, W/O L PUTTASWAMYGOWDA, AGED 49 YEARS, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 12. SMT J L SUNEETHA, W/O P SURESHGOWDA, AGED 49 YEARS, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 13. SMT K L SOWMYA, D/O L SHANKAREGOWDA, AGED 41 YEARS, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9919-DB WA No. 1404 of 2023 14. SMT H K SHYLAJA, W/O K SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED 61 YEARS, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 15. SRI KANTHARAJU, S/O CHAMANURU BOKKAIAH, AGED 51 YEARS, R/A HULIVANA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 16. SMT K T PREMALATHA, W/O K C SHIVARAMU, AGED 55 YEARS, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 17. SMT P S MYTHRI, W/O H S LINGEGOWDA, AGED 51 YEARS, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 18. SMT SUKANYA, D/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA, AGED 62 YEARS, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 19. SMT JAYAMMA, D/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA, AGED 81 YEARS, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9919-DB WA No. 1404 of 2023 R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 20. SMT THAYAMMA, W/O K L PANCHEGOWDA, AGED 79 YEARS, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 21. SRI LOKESH, S/O LATE MADEGOWDA, AGED 46 YEARS, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 22. SRI H P SIDDEGOWDA, S/O DHANINATTI BHYREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 23. SRI J J ANANDA, S/O JAVAREGOWDA, AGED 56 YEARS, R/A THANGALAGERE, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 24. SMT GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/A HULIVANA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 25. SRI H K SHANKAREGOWDA, S/O KADEGOWDA, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9919-DB WA No. 1404 of 2023 AGED 61 YEARS, R/A HALLEGERE VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 26. SRI SADANAND, S/O NAGARAJU, AGED 43 YEARS, R/A HULIVANA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571446. 27. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401. 28. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401. (BY SRI. K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K V NARASIMHAN.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R5, R1 TO R4 AND R6 TO R26; SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R27 AND R28) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/09/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.23465/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 26, ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9919-DB WA No. 1404 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.23465/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by respondents No.1 to 26 by holding in paragraph No.6 as under: “6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The findings of the Enquiry Officer/Assistant Registrar of Societies at Annexure-Q is hereby quashed and set aside. Annexure-P dated 24.07.2020 an order which directed an enquiry under Section 25 was also unnecessary, since a competent civil court had already decided the issue and legality of the resolution dated 15.11.2003 passed by the Managing Committee/General Body of the 1st respondent-Society. Therefore, unless and until the petitioners are removed or divested of their membership in accordance with law, they cannot be kept away from the election process.” 2. The case of respondents No.1 to 26 before the learned Single Judge was that, they have been inducted as members of the appellant-Society by virtue of resolution dated 15.11.2003 and in terms thereof, 35 persons including the respondents were enrolled as members of the appellant-Society. However, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9919-DB WA No. 1404 of 2023 later, the 35 newly inducted members including the respondents No.1 to 26 were sought to be kept out of the election process of the Society. Three of the said members filed original suit being OS No.317/2004 before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya seeking declaration that the communication dated 07.12.2004, issued by the Returning Officer to the President of the Society was illegal and void. They sought for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant and other respondents in the writ petition from conducting elections without allowing the three members i.e., the plaintiffs to participate in the process of elections. The said suit was decreed on 17.01.2013 declaring the communication dated 07.12.2004 issued by the Returning Officer as void, illegal and cannot be acted upon. So, the Returning Officer, the Managing Committee members of the Society and the Society were restrained from conducting any elections to the Society without permitting the three members to participate in such elections. It was also directed that their membership shall not be cancelled without following due process of law. The appellant had filed a regular appeal being RA No.35/2013, which came to be dismissed on 22.02.2017. A regular second - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9919-DB WA No. 1404 of 2023 appeal filed in RSA No.986/2017 before this Court was withdrawn by the appellant-Society by filing a memo dated 25.07.2018. In that sense, judgment decree dated 17.01.2013 has attained finality. The respondents No.1 to 26 had approached this Court, which resulted in the impugned order, the relevant paragraphs of which have already been reproduced above. 3. The case of the respondents No.1 to 26 was, the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2013 cannot be restricted to three members. The observations found mention in the judgment of the First Appellate Court wherein the resolution passed on 15.11.2003 was held to be legitimate order/resolution and the judgment, which upholds the Trial Court order, the benefit thereof need to be given. 4. The issue framed by the learned Single Judge of the Writ Court was, whether the benefit of the judgment passed by the Civil Court would enure to the benefit of respondents No.1 to 26 herein as their names also found mentioned in the resolution dated 15.11.2003. It is in that background the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9919-DB WA No. 1404 of 2023 learned Single Judge has allowed the petition in the manner, which we have reproduced above. 5. The submission of Sri. M.S.Bhagwat, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Society is that, a decree of declaration by a Civil Court is an order in personam and not in rem, as such, the benefit of decree dated 17.01.2013 could not have been given in favour of respondents No.1 to 26 by the learned Single Judge. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited -Vs.- Regency Mahavir Properties and Others [(2021) 4 SCC 786], more specifically paragraphs No.21 and 22, which have been read by Sri. Bhagwat. He seeks setting aside of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 26 justifies the judgment of the learned Single Judge by drawing our attention to the conclusion drawn by the First Appellate Court, more specifically at paragraph No.22, wherein it is held that the resolution confers right and interest upon the plaintiffs (3 members), who filed suit and 32 others as newly - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9919-DB WA No. 1404 of 2023 inducted members giving right to them to participate in the affairs of the Society. 7. When such a conclusion has attained finality, for the appellant to contend that the judgment of the Civil Court will not enure to the benefit of respondents No.1 to 26, is untenable. 8. We are of the view that the real issue which falls for consideration is whether the benefit of the judgment of the Civil Court in the suit filed by three members in its judgment dated 17.01.2013 shall enure in favour of respondents No.1 to 26. The benefit has been given by the learned Single Judge for the reason that respondents No.1 to 26 were part of the resolution dated 15.11.2003 along with the three members who filed the suit before the Civil Court. It is the appellant-Society herein which had forwarded the names to the Returning Officer and as such, they cannot contest the very same list which they have forwarded. That apart, the finding of the First Appellate Court of which a reference is made by us above also refers to three members plus (+) 32 members, which includes respondents No.1 to 26 herein and as such, the issue with regard to the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9919-DB WA No. 1404 of 2023 membership of the three persons having attained finality, the similar benefit must flow to the respondents No.1 to 26 herein who were part of the same resolution/list. The issue which actually arises for consideration of grant of benefit of the judgment of the Trial Court to respondents No.1 to 26, is not contested. If that be so, having seen the judgment on which reliance has been placed by Sri. Bhagwat, the same has no applicability to the facts of this case. 8. We do not see any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. 9. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending
Decision
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5