The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14768 RSA No. 2124 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2124 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI KATTEMANE NAINA DESCENDENTS ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1960 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 117 1-A MAIN ROAD, KASTHURI NAGAR BANGALORE 43 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY / ACTING SECETARY VIDE RESOLUTION DATED 25-06-2011 (BY SRI. MANMOHAN P N., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. S N BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS 2. SRI. H N NAGARAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 3. SRI H.S. SHESHAGIRI RAO. AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT C/O SRI KATTEHOUSE (KATTEMANE) SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY SANNIDHI OPP. SILVER JUBILEE CLOCK TOWER TOWNER ROAD TOWNHALL SQUARE - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14768 RSA No. 2124 of 2023 GANDHI SQUARE ROAD MYSORE 565001. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
There is no dispute about the suit filed in 1933, and execution of the settlement deed dated 13.03.1936, was executed between wife of Sri. Namkal Venkata Rao also called as Sri. Naina, namely Kamala Bai, and one Sheshagiri Rao. Under the settlement deed dated 13.03.1936, only 6 persons were nominated as trustees. The trial Court re-produced the contents of the settlement deed in para 25 of the judgment. The perusal of the contents of the settlement deed dated 13.03.1936 discloses that Smt. Kamala Bai and Sri. M. Sheshagiri Rao, created the trust and they have acted upon, it is accepted by all devotees, including the members of the plaintiff’s Association. The plaintiff’s Association has not established any legal right to enter the premises to participate in all functions. The trial Court, considering the entire evidence, has rightly observed in para 32 of the Judgment, that devotees or as descendants of Sri.Naina, they have every right to enter the premises to participate in all functions, they can even question the illegality in managing trust property or mismanagement by the trustees, and the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:14768 RSA No. 2124 of 2023 validity of the appointment of trustees, but as an association, they cannot claim the right to discharge duties and obligations. The trial Court has reserved liberty for the devotees to enter into premises, etc., and the devotees, instead of approaching the defendants, filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, held that according to the plaintiff in 1936, the Trust formed by the wife of Sri. Namkal Venkata Rao and Sri. Sheshagiri Rao came into existence, and as per the trust deed, the defendants are managing the temple. 8. I have perused the impugned judgments; the Courts below have considered the entire evidence on record, and rightly passed impugned judgments and decrees. The Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts against the plaintiff’s Association. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:14768 RSA No. 2124 of 2023 9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Arguments
(BY SRI. VENKATESH P DALWAI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.08.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.195/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.06.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.481/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2023 passed in R.A.No.195/2021 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru and the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2020 passed in O.S.No.481/2012 by the learned Principal I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14768 RSA No. 2124 of 2023 appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration that the acts of the defendants in resisting the entry of the members of the plaintiff Association are highly illegal and unlawful, and a consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants obstructing the members of the plaintiff Association to enter into the plaintiff’s suit schedule property, to discharge their part of their duties and obligations. Further, a relief of declaration that defendant No.1 to defendant No.5 have no right over the plaint schedule properties, a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining defendant Nos.1 to defendant No.5 from obstructing the members of plaintiff Association in gaining entry to suit property and a declaration that the plaintiff association is entitled to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14768 RSA No. 2124 of 2023 manage and administer the affairs of Sannidhi regarding Kattemane property. 3.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is an association registered under the Karnataka Society Registration Act, 1960. The defendants are some persons belonging to the Madhwa Sect who were permitted, and entrusted to look after the welfare of the Sannidhi. It is contended that the members of the plaintiff’s Association are the descendants of one Sri. Naina (N.Venkata Rao), a great spiritual soul who attained Gamaka i.e, the spiritual peak. The said Sri. Naina (N.Venkata Rao) held the post of Assistant Commissioner during the British regime in India; after transformation in mind and spirit, he came to Mysuru and met his Guru. Sri. Naina had immense and staunch devotion towards Lord Venugopalaswamy. Sri. Naina installed and consecrated the sacred idol of Sri. Venugopala Krishna in Kattemane which is described as a suit schedule property. Sri. Naina founded the spiritual place of worship for the deity named Sri. Kattemane - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14768 RSA No. 2124 of 2023 venugopala swamy Sannidhi. The implied object of the said deity was to lead and guide spiritual activities based on Sri. Madhawa’s philosophy. A portrait of Sri. Naina was also placed beside the sanctorum of Sri. Venugopala Swamy idol. 3.2. After the demise of Sri. Naina, some people who were envious towards the name and fame of Sri. Naina instituted a suit in O.S.No.31/1963 before the learned Munisiff court, Mysore, against the wife, Smt. Kamala Bai and two sons of Naina. The said suit was ended in a compromise, and a settlement deed dated 16.05.1936 was entered into between the parties, wherein Smt. Kamala Bai and her two sons were conferred with the absolute right to dwell in the significant portion of Kattemane and Smt.Kamala Bai was also confirmed with major powers in managing the place of worship. The interest of the family of Sri. Naina came to be protected in the said compromise/settlement deed and the family of Sri. Naina was accorded a prominent place in the Sannidhi. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14768 RSA No. 2124 of 2023 On the other hand, M.Sheshagiri was only conferred a right to dwell in a small room in Kattemane. The said conferment was on the account of the invincible fact that Sri. Naina was the founder of Sri. Kattemane Venugopala Swamy Sannidhi and Smt. Kamala Bai would be assisted by certain persons who were also involved in the management of the place of worship. Accordingly, Smt. Kamala Bai played a dominant and steering role in the management of the Sannidhi and remained the central figure for 3 decades and stayed in Kattemane (suit schedule property) along with her children. The members of the plaintiff’s Association consists of family members of Sri. Naina, and as such, they have the right to enter the suit schedule premise, and also to manage the place of worship. 3.3. It is contended that the members of the plaintiff’s Association made monetary contributions. The members of the plaintiff’s Association exercised their discretion regarding the welfare and the management of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14768 RSA No. 2124 of 2023 the spiritual place. The members of the plaintiff Association informed the defendants that they would start participating in Sannidhi’s management and affairs. The defendants denied the plaintiff's authority. Plaintiff’s Association on 17.10.2007, went to suit property to offer prayer but the defendants resisted them from gaining an entry. Hence, a suit was filed in 2007. 3.4. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1266/2007. In the said suit, the defendants therein filed an application for rejection of the plaint. The trial Court rejected the said application. The defendants challenged the order on rejection of the plaint in CRP.No.182/2009. The High Court directed the trial court to reconsider the maintainability based on the authority to sue. After consideration, the trial court held that the suit was maintainable, the defendants challenged the said order. The High court vide order dated 08.07.2010, in CRP 170/2010, set aside the order of the trial court and observed that Section 15 of the Karnataka Society - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14768 RSA No. 2124 of 2023 Registration Act has not been complied with, and further granted liberty to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit. The plaintiff’s Association passed a resolution on 25.06.2011. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a present suit. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.5. The defendants filed a written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that Sannidhi belongs to the Trust named Lord Sri. Venugopala Swamy Trust ( private Endowment) . It is contended that the plaintiff Association is not associated with the Trust. In 1879, the said property was donated by one Subramanyamma by way of a gift to Lord Venugopala Krishna and in 1884, the daughter of Subramanyamma i.e, Smt. Lakshmi gifted her share. On 08.09.1879, the donee had made arrangements i.e., 14 devotees to take care of the idol of Lord Sri. Venugopal Krishna, and Sri.Naina was one among those devotees. Once a private endowment is created, the descendants of any person cannot claim supremacy over the alleged Trust property. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14768 RSA No. 2124 of 2023 It is contended that, only after death of Naina, his wife and children are claiming right over trust property. In 1933-34, the settlement deed entered into between Smt. Kamala and M.Sheshagiri Rao discussed the Trust and its duties. Hence, the Trust was created through the settlement deed and the defendants are the trustees of the trust. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.6. The trial court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues and additional issues. 3.7. The plaintiff, to prove their case, authorised signatory of the plaintiff Association, was examined as PW.1, and marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16. In rebuttal, defendant No.4 was examined as DW.1 and marked 13 documents as Exs.D1 to D13. The trial Court, on assessing verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 29.06.2020. The plaintiff’s Association, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.481/2012, preferred an appeal in - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14768 RSA No. 2124 of 2023 R.A.No.195/2021 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore. 3.8. The first Appellate Court on re-assessing verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 23.08.2023 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.481/2012. The plaintiff Association, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Manmohan P.N., learned counsel for the plaintiff. 5. He submits that the Courts below have committed an error in relying on Ex.D1. He submits that there is no pleadings regarding the Ex.D1. Any amount of evidence without pleading is of no consequence. He submits that, admittedly, the suit in O.S.No.31/1933 resulted in a compromise, and thereafter, the deed of settlement was executed outside the Court, and the deed of settlement had two authors. One Smt. Kamala Bai and - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14768 RSA No. 2124 of 2023 Sheshgiri Rao had the right to arrive at a compromise stipulating the scheme. He submits that Ex.D1 did not recognize the role of any authors of the Trust under the 1936 document, i.e., Ex.P8 (settlement deed). The trial Court committed an error in relying upon Ex.D1, to hold that Ex.D1 established, that the supplemental deed of Trust was made, which contain byelaws for conducting meetings, etc. He also submits that DW.1 has admitted in the cross-examination that there is no trust. The said aspect was not properly appreciated by the Courts below. He submits that the defendants have no right to stop the members of the Association from entering the Kattemane premises. The defendants are not performing their duties properly, and any general body of devotees did not audit the account. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:14768 RSA No. 2124 of 2023 7.
Decision
ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE sks