IN THE HIGH COURT DE KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREI T '»I.
DATED THIS THE 2"' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2039 I
PRESENT
THE HON'8LE MR. JUSTICE? N. :KU:M'A7R.:'A" " A V
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CR :<U§V1ARAS\A:--;xIéI${ "
REGULAR FIRST APPEA'VLE»INj_c;E_.1o67T' 20%
REGULAR FIRSTAPPEAL:.NO.~1,_0§E. 2% 092
In RF!-\1067[2_0O2 A A' '
BETWEEN:
1 LATE SIDDiALIA¥'E:A'b'4'M._A.
WIDOW OF 'DO'DD,APPASWA'M'f _
NO.3Sv;3'6/E1--,ID.7Tj;" CR'c:ISS,"--., '
GAYATH RINAG'A.vR,._ 'I « _ ' -
SINCEDEAD E3Y_
SHANKARA;_ «-
2 SR1, ~S.HAN}<ARA -
S/O.gLAT'E DOD DARPASWAMY,
54_Y.EARS'n .. _____ ..
. RESIDING AT«No.3536/1, 7"' CROSS,
_ CAYAT'H4RIr¢A:3A'R,,
" .Es'AN:3A'I.oRE 2:: APPELLANTS
" (E_Y SRI."I«<. N..;HA.RIDASAN NAMBIAR, ADVOCATE)
III._;':S_;;N.D"*: I _
é SIDDALINGAIAH SETTY S/O SHETTIAPPA,
SINCE DIED BY L.Rs
SMT. GDWRAMMA, wzoow OF LATE
SIDDALINGAIAH SETH', MAJOR,
V.
2
( 2) SRI. KESHAVAPRASAD
S/O LATE SIDDALIGAIAH SETTY
MAJOR,
(3) SRI. RAVIKUMAR
S/O LATE SIDDALIGAIAH SETTY
MAJOR
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.277, 10?" CROSS, .
MILK COLONY, BANGALORE 55. --
SHANTHANANDASWAMY
S/O NOT KNOWN, _
VEDANATA SREE RAMARPANAvAR'A..ASHRAMA,_
SAMPANGIRAM NAGAR,
(BEHIND S.R.NAGAR POLICE STA1'ION)=.._
BANGALORE 27. ' ' '
THE PRESIDENT
SIOOARAMANA"YO~GA~_V ' _ --
ASHRAMA SE,vAi_T;»ROS"T, . ,_ *
GAYAT,HRI,N_AG,AR,"--I:;,_ ' A '
BANGALORE,*T3_ _ _
C/O SI'DDALING'A3AH'$.E'ITY,"~.. * --
SINCE DIED. '
SRI. M R EH'ARATHVAN IS/O~~«MAOHAvAN
MAVJ-QR, I"
(REA T"aa:I,d he has no L.RS. véde Order dated 25.11.2005)
I $??.;'I.I MA:D":EA'L')BI- RAO
S/O'vAs\IA'NTf:IA',:=SET,
( R'-«.5 .. vdea_ci}'
SMT. "REMPAMMA W/O CHANNAMALLAIAH,
,, 'M'I3.£I,_OR,
FNARASINGA RAO S/O RUKMAJI RAO MAN E,
SINCE DIED BY LR
I " "SURESH BABU C.N. S/O LATE NARASINGA RAO MANE,
MAJOR, SHOP IN 3536/1 'C', 7" CROSS,
GAYATH RINAGAR, BANGALORE 21.
\a/,..
8 BASAMMA W/O BHADRAIAH,
MAJOR,
SINCE VACATED
9 NAGARAJ S/O MUNIYAPPA
MAJOR, 4
10 SHANTHAIAH S/O SIDDAPPAA
MAJOR,
RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7, 9 & 10 ARE
IN PORTIONS FORMING PART OF 3536/'I.'_C' _
7*" CROSS, GAYATHRINAGAR, _.EANGALORET--21..,_
~ ._ ; 'I~..,"AR»ES.PONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSE1'.'FOR_-»._
SUNDARSWAMY RAM DAS AN DV.A'?x£A.i\}'D, F'..D*VOCATVE'S7
FOR R1(2) & R3; '
R6, R7, R9 & R10 ARE SERVED ;.
NOTICE TO R1(1)i;'R1_t'_'3)}""R3S &'-R.jI.D"I.S__ Fé_E'LD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER .
DATED 5.8.2005; -NGTIIQE TO R5(A}..IS"DIS9ENSED WITH VIDE
ORDER DATEDF'1T7..3A.'2OO6§§.; 'I '
In RFA Mg,1 Q ggl /zgpgg'
BETWEEN; _v %' V A
"1' __ S.I1DDALING'AI:I-I-I-AI'
r ' WIDOW OF DQDDAPASWAMY
.NO;353S/'1,"*c;"8?H CROSS
GATATH RI.NAc3AR
EANGALORE 2:1, SINCE DIED BY L.R
S H---AN +<A~RA. .
SR1. SHAN+ALINGA..svH ETTFY
2"" '€~TA--GE,., w,_c".1.ROAO,
.B'A-Q13; ,GALO'*R,E.
V."-H. XIRABAGAR
MAJOR
ARESIDING AT NO.9'5~A, 24*" CROSS
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 10.
SRINIVAS THIWARI
MAJOR
" "No. 128/22, I FLOOR, R.T. STREET
BANGALORE 53.
8 VISWANATH
MAJOR, NO. 12, 28*" CROSS
2"" MAIN, 7*" BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALROE 82.
9 DINESH I-IEGDE
MAJOR, SECRETARY
RASTROTHANA PARISHATH __ '
KESHAVA SHILPA, I<EMREGOwDA'NAGAR .
BANGALORE. '
10 RAMA PRIYA S/O RAJESIII-YEN_GAR, ,
MAJOR ~ t_
NO 8, I 'A' MAIN ROAD, SHIVANAGAR
BANGALORE ID. V '
RESRONDENTS
(BY SR1. NAGANAaN'D,]S.E'N"IO_R:
FOR SUNDARSWAM.Y"PA;'MDAS A.NDJANAND,g
ADVOCATES FOR Rstzo R-:28; *
R1 to R3 -- D.ECEASED,; -
R4 - SERVED) * ' '
THESE TW.Q R.FA S._fiIRE"FILED UNDER SECTION 95 READ WITH
ORDER 4I;R'uL#E 3. OF-.C?C AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
;;',2.'@2 P-ASSED. 1N,O.S.N'O';'7O83/80 C/W O.S. NO.2033/95 ON THE
FILE'OE..TR--E_"I,sT?*:"'ADDITIONL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALO_RE,"'v ."D.ECR,EE'ING THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.7083/8D AND
"~v"DISMISsI,NG THE_"S.--uTIT IN O.S. NO.2o33/€95.
.T¥j'ES.E=-RILPPEALS COMING' ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, N.
'~--..'Ku'MAR_. ;j1., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
I/,
JUDGMENT
These two appeais arise out of the common
Decree passed in two suits dismissing O.S. No.’_2′<'Z!._.:33v,/95
decreeing O.S. E\lo.7083/80. Thereforemt'hes.eatw-:oare '
taken up for consideration together ah.d:"dAispostedAtof'
common order.
(2) For the purpose’.__of co’nve:riieE*iec.e, the” parties are
referred to as they are rererireee)rrerrre.s;lereosa/so, the old
Suit number being:.O’S,’:-No.2A7Z3[,i9?y9′;:’fjg.__’ it
(3) in o.s. ho.2o33/95 is
the entire subject matter of the suit in
(3.5. No.7:C83/8l€l4″is._:Va’onlyiiportion of the property which is in the
o~t:rthe..defeVnvdahts in the said suit.
the piaihtiff is that the entire property
1″Voriginaiiylhefhntjézdl to one Chickmariappa s/o Doddamariappa.
“*”l.–1’i.iéi’e_VV’gifted theisaid property in the year 1932 to late Sri Sadu
“‘*rADodd.a’p«pan$wamy who was a disciple of Sri Sivaputraswami of
with a condition that it shouid not be alienated to
h/..
anybody. It was a religious trust created in favour of Sri
Sivaputraswami as guru of Sri Doddappaswami who was a
Sariyasi being unmarried. Whiie Doddappaswami was alive, he
was running an Ashrama called Sri Siddaramana Yogas__rira’m’a. on
behalf of Sri Sivaputraswami. Sri Doddappaswamyvjjdied’
7.8.3950. Thereafter Sri Sivaputraswaimy
management of the Ashrama arid for its smoothly;managlemerit~,
formed a Sangha tailed Sri Sidd’a.ramana”-Yogashrarna’ lsevaii
Sangha, of which he was The”sa’lcl Sangha
was managing the Ashrama effieilefitiyl sin_e.e’*i.£§.inizeption. As Sri
Sivaputraswami tlhevflfound it inconvenient to
manage it vxftijfiroulgh So, for its smooth
administration alufterahisi iifewftivme, he created a religious trust
talliedySriisiiddaramanlalYogashrama Seva Trust by a registered
Trust illeed appointing himself as one of the
1″trustees–.andv_,oth’e~rAlfour persons by name M. Muniveerappa, R.P.
“”l.–Ti.’i4i”i.re’rnAath, Siéiiddaiingappa, G.i(. Ramakrishna as trustees. The
the President of Sri Siddaramaria Yogashrama Seva
represented by his Power of Attorney Holder
:li«-.,flSiddaiingappa. _ The defendants 1 and 2 were engaged by the
l/
President of the Sangha to look after the property on monthly
salary of Rs.25/~ and Rs.15/– respectively and were allowed to
stay in a small portion of the Ashrama. Incide.nt_all_:y~.V_15′
defendant is the mother and the 2″” defendant is
were working strictly under the supervision of t’l’le’»’P.residentV and
the then Secretary of the Sangha till
started asserting title hostile to trie’p_l.aint§iif.’V:
against the interest of the Ashrama.:’l’:l’1e’yfiled.hayigyligceivvfcomplaint
on 26.6.1978 against the $ecVr’etAa’ry o’f:Vl’t”rieg’vv§a’n.gha and also filed
0.8. No.2158/1978 on their-‘fihlef of-_«the’.i..Vl_ Vg:lVliJ’n.siff, Bangalore,
claiming they rendered themselves
liable to Ashrama premises as their
possession, lthatsiof trespassers. Therefore the
tfiepsuiitiwiifory possession against the defendants
directiiiig”to’i-vacate the suit premises and to put the
“plaintiff po.sses’sion of the same.
(5)-…yAl’vt’er service of summons, the defendants entered
it’v-4″_~._ap.pea:a’nce. They contended that they are not residing in the
‘ Siddaramana Yogashrama Seva Trust. They are residing in the
K/.
property bearing S.No.39, New No.1, Street i\lo.11S, III Division,
Yeshavantapura hobli, now called as Gayathrinagar, in their
capacity as owners and there is no Siddaramana Yogashrama
Seva Trust in the said premises. They admitted
property originally belonged to Chikkamariappagwwfhog
same to Sadhu Doddappaswamy as per
dated 4.8.1932. It is also true that Sadhuy :Doddapp”.aswamywas’irI
a disciple of Sri Shivaputraswamy’e».,VVof Hubli..V_””£ioweyeVr, they
contended it is false that there. waislaniytlr_e.livgious trustxcreated in
favour of Sri Shivaputraswamyfldigit; Sri Sadhu
DoddaDDaswVamy.i’ coritenlded it is false that Sadhu
Doddappaswamy being unmarried. Sadhu
DoddaPi3a.swamlr””i5.Vthe” rlu-shaind of the 1″ defendant and the
fatiheryofsthe…’?.”””*defenVda’n”tand therefore it is false to allege that
the’ marry and was a bachelor. They also
vrdehied the a_l.leg_ation that late Doddappaswamy was running an
“–«l’.j’iAshi*am undefthe name and style of ‘Siddaramana Yogashrama’
of Sri Shivaputtaswamy in the schedule property.
“a.’%”iIhIey_;~§dmitted that Doddappaswamy died on 7.8.1950. They
Vlliiflderlied the ailegation that after his death, Sri Shivaputraswamy
g/..
10
of Hubli took over the management of the aforesaid property
and that for the management of the said property, he formed an
Ashrama or Sangha calied ‘Sri Siddaramana YogashrarnVaj«.iSV’eyua
Sangha’ and that he was its iife
Shivaputraswamy ofiiubii has got no__ri.gh_t,A ‘
respect of the above property, as such he
any Sangha or Trust. They aiso ‘denied
was being managed by’ anyAy_…i:VSaing’ha ihformedf by Sri
Shivaputraswamy. Further it is false that
the said Shivaputraswagmycreatied_”a,:ireiig-iogiisif trust cailed ‘Sri
SiddaramanVa”YVogas.fh.,raArfia’ a registered deed of
Trust datedo himself as a trustee
aiongwithj.otherialfotir’perso-nsI:VThey denied the aiiegation that
they.w¢’re?’en’gag’ed ‘th’e”l3resident of the Sangha to look after
the’V’abti3/eh a morithiy salary of 125.25/— to the 13′
Evfl””dvefendarit to the 2″” defendant. They are not
un’d.er the supervision of the President and the then
the Sangha till June 1978 as alieged. They
fizntentl that they never recognised the title of the piaintiff at
time, since there was no Ashram beionging to the plaintiff
t
i/’
ii
or Sri Shivaputraswamy of Hubli. There is no question of their
acting against the interest of any Ashram. They did lodge a
complaint to the Police against one Sri Siddalingappa;~»:’f”g:’7fhey
have also filed a suit o.s. No.2158/1978 which is–r’jr:e~nuhibeéegdi
as O.S.5422/80 against the said Siddaii’n’g-a.ppa_:’4inciivyi’du’a’l if
capacity.
(6) The defendants specifi»cal’l’y..ypleaded’ –.th”at”‘~–the”‘above”V
property was gifted to Sri Sadhu,r-Dodg_d-appaswami, husband of
the first defendant and ‘%fa’ther§’1″pf::’2t’i7’V”_».:d’e«fendant by fate
Chikkamriyappa under the ;:’dié§q:i%i[:orIgif:oatezdf’ 4.8.1932. The
said donorhhas’in”the-~::SaE’d”–.gi’ft’deed intended that the said
property must°*b_e residence and to perform the
religious.’ activities. “‘~«.Blfterg.the death of Sadhu Doddappaswamy,
the first _Vdefencia:n”tv __being his wife succeeded to the property
valongwith.i’he’r’lcif:.ildg:=.’and continued to perform the said activities
with theu44″hel’p.gVo.f’fSri Siddalingappa who is none other than her
.1 ijrotheréll This is on account of the fact that the 2″”
was then oriiy a child when Sadhu Doddappaswami
.”””v..VAAe’xpi’red and she had no other cioser reiatives than
V.
13
reiation to the aforesaid property, since they are not aware of
the contents of any of the documents that might havexbeen
obtained, even if any documents do exist. Even if he
said document, it will not bind the defendants
has been obtained by the said SiddalVi.n»g»appa V’
influence, misrepresentations and fraud’; iis–on..accou’nti:’o:f
the fact that she had reposedVful’l~…_confi’dence saidr
person being her own brother and,..,gVl:S0.in._vievir”of..the’§ fact that
for several years the second””dlefend_a’nt ou’t.of Bangalore for
his education and ottie:__pur:p’o’sesV; ffliie.,_sa’id;.§i’ddalingappa may
have taken documents against the interest
of the defeindants out the valuable suit
property. 5 . Si,nce’43u_n”e–1i97A.8, the religious activities in the suit
pierfoirrned by the defendants and the said
Sidadraiiqngapp:a’–«.:,haVdV”r~never performed any of the activities in the
“siaid prQpert’y~ no+ he is in possession of the property.
“iii.–1’i5i’herefore submit they are the absolute owners of the
described in the schedule to the piaint and the plaintiff
no legal right to seek their ejectment from the same.
defendants submit that the suit as brought is not
V,
14
maintainable either in law or on facts and it should be dismissed.
They denied the existence of the trust called ‘Siddaramana
Yoganashrama Seva Trust’ in the suit schedule property§:’f”–«5i’i”..ey
aiso denied that Siddalingappa is duly authorised
prosecute the suit. Therefore they sought ‘for; isal the
suit.
(7) In the suit filed by the”d_e’fendan’ts: making-l
the plaintiff in the suit as a_ partyAy3Td:’defe.ndan’t;’t.h_eY..ihave also
added one Siddalingaiah” iiflsetty p15′ defendant,
Shantanadaswamy of * \{edanl:a” pp’a’n’ava ra Ash ra ma,
Sampangiraima’nagara’ffas »i.V42:’*”1s._:V”defendant and tenants in the
portions of theVV”p.ro;2erties’as defendants 4 to 10. In the piaint,
they hevef vreiterated–i.vy_hai’t they have stated in the written
statenje*n.t. ..A’sth_é”vdefendants are denying their title to the suit
vpropei*ty”-.either.”y:-jbyrlfiling suits in various Courts or by their
assertionsh it became necessary for them to seek for a
,1.-w..Vd’er;liaration. N0n the date of the suit, they were seeking for a
that the piaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner in
“””v.._p”ossession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property
iv/.,
15
aiongwith plaintiff No.1 who had a life estate therein exercising
their rights personaiiy and through the respective tenants in
respect of the suit schedule property and aiso soug:’ht:'”‘–for
Permanent Injunction.
(8) Defendants 1 and 3 filed a common wrifttpeniffi,state_me’ntéif
denying the ciaim of the piaintiffs in the«.said
the aiiegations made by them inVth:e~v..piain.t in suit by
way of defence. The other.defendants did not”‘fiie. any written
statement.
(9) trial Court framed the
foiiowing issues in
IssL{~_{:_§_in ofs.:\ip;7o8:§g1§8o:
1vJ”i!iihEiéthea=.aSri. iiofdidappaswamy was a Sanyasi and
f
‘2…”‘Nhetiier the suit property was gifted to
Vfbodvdappaswamy on behaif of a reiigious Trust?
3._ W.h’e’t’her after the death of Doddappaswamy,
V. _»_ri_1anagement of the suit property was taken over
i/
by Shivaputraswamy of Hubii?
9.
16
Whether after the death of Shivaputraswamy,
suit property was being
Siddaramana Yogashrama Seva Trust?
Whether the defendants were_ em’plo’yed.””‘on’–_ ‘4
monthly salaries to look afterltheisugift j
Whether the 15’ defendant is 4the”.widovv:;agnd 2″”‘=,”
defendant is the son of [“Jod’dappa.sw__amy?’.:
Whether the suit has beyerf-p_rop_erly.”vailiggggvvfiand
proper court fee hasfheefti _
Whether Sri. Siddall-nga’ppa’v h.advAA.’;v.azi;I_’thority to
verify and sign_the:”plair’rt? g 3 ~
To what. I§’1e’lie:f:tf;ieVplalrrttiff is ientitiédll?
10.What ot§iei:_r_”‘¢~,A_vr decreléi’ 4′ °
Issues ‘ l
1.
DoesV«isuirvivi–ng’~ prove that deceased
;1$”_plainti_ff’7is the legally wedded wife of
5f’DQAd.gdavp.pa Swarny and that he is the son born
‘~ . yogurt’ ‘orthat. wedlock?
;”..gVL§o’e:s’_~v_vh__e’V~l.fu’rther prove by virtue of the gift deed
“-._datved.Vli~”.i3.1932 executed by Chikkamu niyappa in
favour of Doddappaswamy, Doddappaswamy had
it ‘ll”4..acquired exclusive ownership over the suit
“schedule property and on his death he succeeded
to the suit schedule property?
ma nage<;1…_' 4' "
E7
3. Does he further prove that he is in actual
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property as on the date of suit? he
4. Whether the suit is barred by limitationr’_»VaS4:’;~Z”
contended by defendants 1 and 3 ?
Is plaintiff No.2 entitled for th_e,relief sioucg5i:ire£a’i’v?pl
6. What decree of Order?
10) By an order, both the sui.t_s=.were.”ciubbtedvfa’nid’V”corrimon” 3
evidence was recorded. The plainti.ff’–in’~-.order’to. substantiate
their claim examined one as PW–1,
Keshava Prasad as F.’i(V+.2, ‘i–§:a:nja’i~V:iK_ri_siin:ai'”as PW-3 and S.C.
Prabhakar also produced 58 documents
which are marked They also got marked
three other docu’m.e’n’ts.r”as”‘ E$cZ1 to Ex.Z3. On behalf of the
l’dVefendan-ts,’5Sid’tiia_lingamrria and Shankara were examined as
also produced 38 documents which are
‘Vrnarked’–as to D38. The trial Court in the course of the
“*’i.–Ti.3’u.d:grment found the issues in both the suits are not properly
therefore while defivering the Judgment, it has
r:ecast:the issues. The issues so recast are as under:
i/,..
18
1. Whether the property was gifted or donated to
Doddappaswarny in his individual capacity or for
and on behalf of Sishya Parampare? ‘ ”
2. If it is in his individual capacity, then_..w.ho’f~~’.iyjsn–..ff
entitled to succeed to the said property.?__”_fi_v V .
3. Whether the Court-fee paid is.__suffic.ient?_1 f V
4. Whether the suit fiied7b’y.._v.Sm’t;-._§iddaiVi’n’gai*nnf;a_.”§
and Shankara in OS.NoV.’f’2Q’33/95 ahiafirredi by
(11) On appreciation and~~d’o’t§_’pV.r.nentary evidence
on record, the trialf”f.:o’urt”-.heid”;the was donated to
Doddappaswamy of ‘sishya parampara’ and not
in his individuai.._chapaVcity’ancftherefore on his death, it did not
;i.eyoivegd1n’vvthe defeindvants as contended by them. It also
rec_ord;ed._a ..fVii1.ding”vthat Doddappaswamy was a sadhu sanyasi
and wastnot’vniarrifehdifand therefore the defendants have failed to
proye th4at..the”1$5t defendant is the legally wedded wife of the
.1 -rsaidi..Ejo’dduappaswamy and the 2″” defendant was born out of the
V.”-if-._afores’aifd”wedlock and therefore they have no manner of right,
‘fut’-.._AtitlVemor interest in the schedule property. After the death of
19
Doddappaswamy, a Sangha was constituted by his Geri; Sri
Shivaputraswarni and the property was managed
Sangha till 1978. Thereafter he formed a ‘i’r_Li.Vs__t’:’a.s f’_Ex.P«’5..
dated 25.11.1978 and therefore the its”?
Defendants 1 and 2 were appointed andthey were..paid siaia’ry.”g
In 1978 they asserted titie in thea..gei–,es td’»r.h4ye:iporta§on of the
property in their occupatizj}j…_tdand’Afnsté%–{ed.fl’c.!.ain’iing” title to the
same by filing a suit. V of the property
and therefore is possession
from the dismissed the suit for
deciarationZtfofmtitieit5fitieAd;’§,4by’Tithe defendants, decreed the suit of
the piaintiffvvvfforf portion of the property in the
occupation. Of the “de’fenCiants.”‘ .1
.A by the said Judgment and Decree of the
triai cot”.-t, tVheV”.dtefe.n’dants have preferred this appeai.
(13) Sr_i’3~Haridasan Nambiar and Sri D.R. Sundaresh, the
4:~–‘.V.V’ieatrn’edpcounsei appearing for the appeiiants assaiiing the
. ‘V:.”hin*i.p:t_ig_ried Judgment and Decree contended under Ex.P1 – the
deed dated 4.8.1932 the scheduie property was given to
1/..
20
Doddappaswamy to be enjoyed by him exclusively. his
death, appellants being the wife and son have inheri~ted_jxth_e:’.j’sa’id
property. They were living with him till his deat:h~.,V
death, they continued to be in poss;:essio’nfi,o’f,,
schedule property. T_herefore_:t_he trial’VCourtf–cornrnitl;ed~
serious error in holding deed
Doddappaswamy did not become that the
defendants are not the wifeo§~.léi:e’ilioddappaswamy.
i\lextly it was corl’ten.;ded held as a trust
property, the .’.fio’&V’rnanner of right, title or
interest over plaintiff – trust was
created by one who had no manner of right,
title or interestia”o~.r_:eAr’itheffproperty and the recital in the trust
iglieeti. the “p..rope’rtymbelonging to a society is the property in
respectaof4V%ti=2_el.~trust is created and the schedule property
Vwas never the ‘property of any society at all. Therefore seen
any anole, the plaintiff is not the owner of the property.
if”–V.xT’he”xpl’a.in.l§iff has not sought deciaration inspite of denial of his
“f%ti’tie_,,prior to the filing of the suit and therefore is not entitled to
relief of possession. On the contrary, it is the defendants
it/.
21
who are the owners of the property, who are entitled to
declaration sought for and protection of their possession.
(14) Per contra, Sri S.S. Naganand, learned senio_r’oo*uansel
appearing for the plaintiff contended though the’::”deé_::c:;Cdathéd
4.8.1932 is described as a gift dee–d;’»–the the
document make it very clear that e$_{_e’cutantAaA’
document created a trust Vconferrinhg l’e.ga’l_ V”‘~–!5i’g’i*rts’ on”
Doddappawamy and beneficiary in;_.eres_t.o’n_his ‘si’sh-yaw:/arga’. It
was given for charitable purp’o’s_e- the said gift deed
did not create an exclusive’titlleiiiinajfafirourd” u’Doddappaswarny.
As such the defeVn”dafnts right to inherit the said
property. lvloreovverx’thle.’.’e*,r’i::dence on record do not establish
that the..1§ff”udefenda’nt..ls___t_he wife and 2″” defendant is the son of
they said-. _VDo_dd«appa-swamy, to whom the schedule property was
given~.in,ytru’stVu.”_u.nd;e’r. Ex.P1. It was also contended as the
proapertyuisaaaitarust property and the sole trustee havingdied, the
of”-Daaodvdappaswamy came down to Bangalore from Hubli,
V”»’V.”l_too’i<tpossession of the trust property and for proper
naanagement of the property and conduct of the religious
22
ceremonies which were being carried on by his ‘shishya varga’,
formed a society and subsequently he created the plaintiff-trust
to manage and perform the religious functions. Thoughfneither
the society nor the trust has the legal right to the_.A4*p–ro’p:ei’tjyy
course of events suggest the trust… .p4rop_érty”
possession by ‘sishya varga’ and ‘mah’ajai5ias”; as.s’et:”yo:,i’t:V’li”njtihe
gift deed and they have been’l.u”s-i..ng thr-::_ for-L’
charitable purposes as n’i_entioned.fl’i’n_”‘an.dVy,.*}vhen the
defendants occupied a portion”–c_oi5–.i}th.’eVii.’:l_property with their
permission and then_tur_ned:”hoisti:l:eVas.sVe_rting~,th’eir title, the trust
owes a duHtym”to*’ t_rust”V property and eject the
defendants and ‘recover for them. In that view of the
matter, ti_=.e.r suitflifiled for ejectnwent is maintainable and the trial
1Co’Lii’i–‘t yw”a–s’ju.stifi’ed in granting a decree for ejectment.
thje””aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the
points that ai”ri’se:”for our consideration in these two appeais are
_. ._qrlq§r.: ~ (4 ;
23
(i) Whether under the registered gift deed
dated 4.8.1932 as per Ex.P1 the executant
gave the schedule property tokg
Doddappaswamy in trust or exclusively’:fC:t”gf__.
himself?
(ii) Whether the 15′ defendantiiiés’
said Doddappaswamy “2J”‘
is their son, who hajve–._succte’eded
property and are ezntiitied to “zzointinule in
possession in”‘a.V_por_tido’n”o-f:4the~property
(iii) Whethertheipiavihnitiff h«’a.vs’Ja right to
V thxé”d’efe’ndants'”‘from the scheduie
prope’r’tg}:-3:” ~
A
» (V:i5)V ‘ahswer to the point No.1 revoives around the
interpr-e’ta.t’¥oVn’étog:..be”piaced on Ex.P1. Ex.F>1 is styled as a gift
VV*,_deed. .I.t”‘*V_is””:dated 4.8.1932. It is executed by one
.1.i,:C’hikE§amariavpiipa S/o Doddamariappa in favour of Sri Sadu
idiv.”g:_Doidda~ppaswamy, who is a discépie of Sri Shivaputraswamé of
It states Sri Sadhu Doddappaswamy is residing at
if
24
Bangalore in the Ashrams belonging to others and teaching
morals and rendering service to God. The said Chickmariappa is
visiting the said Sadhu Doddapaswarriy for quite somietim~eg””a_’nd
he is hearing his discourses. As Sadhu Doddappasuiiarny’:.ihas.””i1o”.4_
Ashram of his own and no place wherehe can g_ivev4dis.cours_es,’-as ‘ ;
ordained by sadguru, he transferred
is worth about Rs.400/~ for the:’pugrpose:__ an
Ashram by way of gift,” It’:i-~fu:rthe’r.._.recites… Sadhu
Doddappaswamy with the raise funds,
establish an Ashram_and_ ca -iigio enjoy_irig said property for
ever through _p’inloweveVrVV’Sri Doddappaswamy or his
disciples haveuno to alienate the property in any
manner. _ Similalriyitheexecufant also do not have any such right
of’al-ienatiiiont. “in futurefif Sri Doddappaswamy or his disciples
areV’una_bleri the charitable functions in the Ashram and
comes to.-.a:l’:’stand–still, then public are entitled to make
~-l«l’.j’jVapp’ropriate arrangement for carrying on the objects of the Trust.
1’*–V.VéThe”npossession of the schedule property was handed over to Sri
“5VlD–odd_appaswamy on execution of the said document. In fact it is
recited that in a portion of the property gifted, he should be
V I/A
permitted to bury his father on his death where he wili construct
a tomb.
(17) The Indian Trust Act, 1882 defines what a
According to the said definition, a ‘trust’ is an obiigation:’an”n,e§{edi–.’
to the ownership of property, and ar_i.sing_4ou_tcoi:fi_d’ei’ic§”.
reposed in and accepted by the owner}-or:deciare~d_”a.nd
by him, for the benefit of anothefr,_:or__of a’notne_r ownerf
The person who reposes or:__deciare.sVithe”confidence, isiicalied the
“author of the trust”; the”pers’o_nf}.yihoteiccepts confidence is
cailed the “trustee”;4_th__e person :for.’wh0_seVV-benefit the confidence
is accepted is calied the subject–matter of the
trust is called AV’trust–p’rope,rtyf:..’or “trust– money”; the “beneficial
‘iii’-tereStv’5»brvv”‘interest”».of___the beneficiary is his right against the
tr’uste§«.,as the trust–property; and the instrument, if
any,’whichVu7t:he’,:=.trust is deciared is caiied the “instrument of
trust”. terms of sectioh–6 of the Act, a trust is created
Aftheauthor of the trust indicates with reasonable certainty
f”-4’j~._igyf.-anyfiyords or acts (a) an intention on his part to create
a trust, (b) the purpose of the trust, (c) the beneficiary,
R/.
26
and (d) the trust–property, and transfers the trust–property”to the
trustee. Though the Indian Trust Act, 1882 ..a
private trust and trustees and has no application
the Apex Court has held the principles]gove’rnira_g
are applicable to a public trust; _alsor’—Af=7i;herefC:reV”
concepts such as what is a trust, a a trust
property, who is a beneficiary’-are a publictrust.
(18) in the backgrou,nd,:’_o–f of law, when
we look at is of the trust is a
Chickmariappan __i-ité_”c:’reate’d._:a:~.t_rustwitti the purpose of providing
his property, for .cVh’afi-tab,l’e”‘-purposes, for giving discourses by
Sadhu Doddap’pa_swarny.,V’f_Sa’d..uéDoddappaswamy is the trustee.
The ben.e:ticiVa’r’ies ate’«–h.i,s___disciples. The said trust is created by a
re’gViste’re.d transferring the trust property to the
vtrustee,.”–.l”fhei–“.jbe’n’evficiaries are sishyas and public at large.
Therefore itis a’ blic trust. The legal title to the property vests
tfheatrustee and the beneficial interest or ownership lies with
the slijslhlyas or the general public. Therefore a careful reading
. ‘ oftthle recitals in Ex.P1 makes it clear that the author of the trust
E;/.
28
case, on the happening of the event, in the latter, when the
happening of the event becomes impossibie. Therefore___it was
contended when the property is transferred in favour_.’ef:’-St_advhu
Doddappaswamy, on his death when his ‘sishya
not continue the purpose for which the,_trust'”is””§frvea’ted,.V th_e’V
interest in the property on his death \}ests_”iiri the iie-irsi1viof
Doddappaswamy and therefore became .absVoiu_t’e-…owners;-L’
The said argument wiii hold good ify_.E$§A;P.1=i..s topeconystrued as a
gift deed simpiicitor where””the_ exect-tant’:i..o’f–..the document is
gifting a property in fewour of If the
executant absoiute title to Sadhu
Doddappaswanjiy’- is oniy to transfer Iegai
interest conferring,,:V’bVei1eii’cia’I:V interest on the beneficiaries,
Transfer of Property Act have no
appiicati,_on.rr ”
(i) *~”ftidor in the 5*” Edn. of his book Tudor on
“..f’Charities summed up the principles cieducibie from
theteaises on the subject:
If the intention of the donor is merely to
benefit specific individuals, the gift is not
V .
29
charitable, even though the motive of the gift
may be to relieve their poverty or accomplish
some other purpose with reference to those
particular individuals which would be .
charitable if not so confined; on the other ‘
hand, if the donor’s object is to accomplishthe
abstract purpose of relieving pov’er’ty,~.,._ ”
advancing education or religion or «
purpose charitable within thegirieanirigg of the V
Statute of Elizabeth, with0ut1__giving to tarry’
particular individual the Vrightt__to:_clajIn_»_, the =
funds, the gift is charitable, _V A ”
(ii) In B.K.Mukherj_ea: The__igHin_du» law’ ‘Religious
and Charitable Trust,_”‘:g’–Tago1je L,a’-.v”«.Lectures the
distinction between a publiciiand charitable
trust has been setgoutiin terrns:
are of two kinds, public
and private, » Ina public-.,,endowment, the dedication
is for.-the uuse..,vor~benefit of the public at large or a
“‘«..g,pecitie;;Lgclagss. ‘when property is set apart for
th.e”ivorship«v,.of–.a family god, in which the public is
not interest-ed,,.’the endowment is a private one. It is
_ a q1iesti._on~.of fact whether a temple is a private or a
V”«.__V”public’oifi:e. The devotees. the supervision exercised
founder and his descendants, whether the
and profits are exclusively utilised for the
T ‘temple for a long period, as also public visiting the
temple for darshan and worship, appearance of the
E’/,.
30
temple, association of members of public with
management and earlier statements or admis.si_onf’o:f~tg
parties are relevant factors to be takein ”
consideration as to Whether a temple is
or a private one. 2 9 A 9 .
(iii) In order to ascertain Whether is
private, the following factors are”re1evvant:’ it
(1) If the beneficiaries’Aig_~é1’r6;s,../eascertlained
individuals. ‘ ‘ V ” Vi
(2) If the:Vgrant;’haVs’ iiirivlfavour of
iand _i1.ot”‘in—‘favour of a
(Vi”eViff__.V V. ~ -1’
he situated within the
xcamptzs the— residence of the donor.
(293’Therefore.._V_itV’is clear from the recitals in Ex.P1, the
deed never intended to give the scheduie
propiertfito”‘i5oddal’;jgj’aswamy for him to enjoy exclusiveiy and
pversonaily. he was giving discourses at different Ashrams in
and he had no Ashram of his own, the executant gave
land to him so that he couid raise funds from his disciples
“establish an Ashram and then continue the charitabie
31
purpose of giving discourses to his disciples and to the public at
large. It is in that context, it was stated he has no _right to
alienate the property nor the executant of the docu_me_’nt””has
retained any right over the property insofar 4_
concerned. It is also made clear t.hat-thef_pro:pe.–rtf,r.V”is4.’_jto
enjoyed by the disciples of Sadhu Dodldapipiaslwafmyi;
event of the discipies not beingllthjlere, re’iig__ioiusV»a’ct:i.v’i’ties”; being
stopped, then a direction ‘givenl-toVi.’t_h.e”*pyubiictto-taite over the
management and make the religious
functions to continueiinthegjsaid Ti*:;erefore the intention
is very clear. if in the document is very
clear. There ” was.,w_.’nof«intention to give this property to
Doddappaswamy”for’his personal use exclusively for himself so
that-.hgisV”i-ega.l’*he”irs woulvdminvherit the property after his death.
(A2-1) :?he.liV’i5t defendant contends she married Sadu
if”‘T?”CioVd”daputtas.wamy in the year 1946 and the 2″” defendant was
born-..Vi’n».t.i*ie year 1948. In fact a Transfer Certificate issued in
1967 is produced which is marked as Ex.D1 to show
I/t
32
that the father’s name of the 2″” defendant is Sadu
Doddappaswamy. An entry in the School records in year
1967 showing 2″” defendant as the son
Doddappaswamy is no proof of the marriage
defendant and Sadhu Doddappaswamy-;Tn-«fact’_,’&eitc’e:Vpt’,_asse’rtinguif
that she married Sadhu Doddappaswamy
Wednesday, absolutely no particuia:,rs~~._are the”?
said marriage, their living .–«togethlerVV:.a:s lhusbalndiandii wife and
anybody recognizing them The trial Court
has carefulty app,re–cia–t_ed It had the
advantagegof ..the_i_demeVanour of the witnesses, in
particular, first’defe.rtdlant””and has come to the conclusion
that thejimarriaégefasetl’ up 5;, the 15′ defendant with Sadhu
‘i)_oddapV’p’asvir’amyA.is notmpéroved. We have also carefully gone
thro-tlghtVhe.,’ewntire~.o1raE evidence on record. We do not find any
1″V’i’llegality*.__Cornmitted by the trial Court in recording the said
–…_fi,”fi”nd’i’n,g as there is no oral or documentary evidence to prove the
n’1aérriVag.e..ueset up by the 15′ defendant. The 2″” defendant claims
befthe son through the 15′ defendant. In addition to the
iie.,.,U”‘i*’raVnsfer Certificate issued by the school authorities, he has also
33
produced Certificate from the office where he was workging,
where also he has been referred to as son of Doddappasi_i_vaimy’…y
When the evidence on record do not establis.h.,’V_”the’:rna’yrr:ag*e._f’~.._
between the 1″ defendant and late
these documents which have cgomae
years after the death of Doddappasyvaniyg byV”v»’h’i”chV’:timeooth 1″ V
and 2″” defendants have’occupi.ed:_aVl’:’r)Vo’Vrt’i~on ofvvthe schedule
property, do not establish is the son of
Doddappaswamy, in holding that the
2″” defendant also that he is the son of 15′
defendant andlvlthverefore we do not see any
justification “said finding of fact recorded by
the trial Court.
‘(22i)’ » trust has filed the suit for ejectment.
the plaint, they have referred to Ex.P1 and
after Doddappaswamy died on 7.8.1950, his Guru
Shiaoutraswamy of Hubli took over the management of Ashram,
smooth management formed a Sanga cailed Sri
ii/,.. .
Siddarama Yogashrama Seva Sanga, for which he was the Life
President. After Shiivaputraswami became oid, herj”fou–.nd–VVAit
inconvenient to manage it through Sangha.
administration after his life time, he ..created
called ‘Siddaramana Yogashrama Sex/la Trust’
trust deed dated 25.11.1978 appo«i_nti.ng fiye.’persons5.as”~tru:stees’~if
including him. The defendants 1_.-anfd-.2″»v_vere”engaged by the
President of the Sangha to on a monthly
salary of Rs.25/- and R31 were allowed to
stay in a smallof.:_t.h;e~.._Ashiiamg,» They were working
strictiy under of President and the then
Secretary of th”e_ Sa.n’gh-hafti-i.l:'””‘1978. Thereafter they started
assertinggzitlge hlostilerto thewlpiaintiff. They started acting
‘ag.ali’nstV’the ii-riterest of «Ashram. They filed a police complaint
on’VA26..6. the Secretary of the Sang ha and also filed
2158/1.__978n.:’~0An the fiie of the I Munsiff, fiangalore claiming
themselyes. Therefore they have rendered themseives
lia.b«le_”to..ui”be evicted from the Ashrama premises as their
1 oossession has become that of trespassers. Therefore a suit
ejectment was filed. In the plaint itself, it is clearly asserted
37
property did not vest with the piaintiff~trust and they are only
carrying on the activities of the Ashrama. But unless the titie in
the property vests with them, they are not the ownersgofy the
property in question. They cannot maintain
possession against a person who is in actual occu”p_ati»on. of the
property. When the titie is denied eve;nWhefor_e’*’fiIi-ngiisoi
it was obligatory on the partof the1p!.aintift_”.i_t.o” see’ic’fo’r’–..y
deciaration of titie. The title do notvésts withthes tom; and they V
are not the owners of the schedui«e”‘pro:p4erty.._andtherefore they
cannot maintain a suit for possession?3’Qatiigi’5’§’:.pe_iiidefendants.
(23) if the tru.ste:es.di’e.s:””wi~thout making any provision for
his succession, the pi-aintiff is in possession of the property
the trustfit is open to them to get a scheme
Civii Court, get thernseives appointed as
It:’ustees—._and.-thieyjiicarry on the trust activities and in the course .
“”i.–Ti.”o’f__V”dischargi_rig the duty as trustee initiate appropriate
p’roAceVed.inigs against the defendants who are trespassers on the
“property and recover possession. But the present suit filed for
:ii«-.:v'”ejectment against the defendants on the ground that they have
38
a right in the trust property on the face of it is not maintainable.
In that view of the matter, the trial Court was not justi–fied in
granting a decree for possession in favour of theV:V’pi’ai:nt.iff
directing ejectment of the defendants from the
schedule property which is the SUbjé(ft”’mgaiiteifréfvi._tfie~’.:’SUf’i’E«. ‘
Therefore the decree passed in OV.S.
set aside. Hence we pass the fo|ior.ry:i’t:.g order; ‘ it
1) RFA No.1066/2002 is afjfora/ed;’Ah.”‘–:_ Vvforflxejectment
passed by the trial Court isvhfrerebff’s’et_.asitfe;
2 ) RFA No.1067/2£)02fjs’distnissecit if ..
3) Parties tvcgbear their ‘
Sd/-.
W;
Iudgé’
Sd/-5
I11dg’§
” ” i,’3s9′.’_f