Adv Sm' appellant No.1,
RSA 203012007
as Tim man count or xAmlA'I'l#M»-- r. A'
cmcurr sane}: gr V
mm» -rms um 1913 my oi: jg
mmmtv V V 3 , _
um Hownm 1'
1. The United. " _
Church;-it »
Associati9ni:_(E3omBay+ A *
'
Trust unfie1f.thcQB0mbay
Public Trust Psiit, 'by 636491' '
ItsT111stce,'_ "
Age;-:59
, Di Godbi Street, V
" Mission Hospital,
2.' ._ .'\{eét=afzagc1itia Somanagouda Patil,
% ..A8C'5'.4 .'F~"?fii8,
'practicing Advocate,
Missiagon Caompound Gadag,
' .. , Bet'ageri-582102. Amrmuurrs
S1-i.B.E.Pt% Adv for appellant No.2)
.
1. Shantavir S.Hu1iya1,
Age:Major, C}<:=c::ScIvice
RSA 203fl:'209'?
Gadag, in ().S.No.538]1990 and has dismjsscd _
the appellants herein.
2. The appellants herein iIlStit1:14″£*j:d ‘, .fl1c ~.
permanent injunction against the ‘V
with the administratien ssasif that Cam:-cfh knswn
as Unitcd Basel Missioxa fiifist Association
(Bombay-Ksmatslsg ‘V Bctagcri.
sr.i.s.’r.sssns :’:£1:1c__’ Hi-t petitioner-‘i’x’ust
contended’ ” s-sssss of the Church and
rcprcscnsccl ” with second plaintifi”
Veeranagou(Via_4 ‘P:-nil They asscrtcti that they
..v..yvcre pmpcrtkes of the Trust and were
‘same but the defendants»-respondents herein
_ ‘ interest in the sad’ Trust were threatening
V .to ‘V the day to day administlation and
M ” of the Trust.
The defendants eentacnded that plaintifi’.-3 had no manner
V D» “.uoi” right over the property and were not in possession of the suit
Church at the Ccmmunity and that it was the fimt
fir’
RSA 20303007
-is
defendant who was the ptcstebytor in-charge
appointed as such by the Bishop of Dhaxwad. They
that it was the first defendant who was .
the suit properties. They aiso ‘A ” V
suit seekmg’ the relief of ‘E33?’ mfi i’i::1-s::«
concerned persons as attitttvvibr bare
injunction was that the
judgment and 1987 and
0.S.No.885/ Munsifi} Mangakmc,
had the and therefore the
present Sliit ” It A;
4. trial ‘cimmi the suit holding that :11: p1aintifl’-
“”” M cut and possession of the suit
appcilatse court – has reversed the
judginmit passed finding that plaintzifl” No.1»
” is not a trustee of the plaintifi-Trust To arrive
conclusion, the lower appellate court has phcod
H on Ex.D.5 which is an order passed by the Charity
‘»..Di?on1I:3j.ssioner, Belgaum, in Appeal No.17/I989 and an/1939
whereunder applicaiion fibd by Sri.G.’I’.Banna and otbscts
RSA 29393007
5
asserting that they were thé trustees came to be
reserving liberty to them to approach the District
pending case hearing Miscellaneous No.
appointment of lit and proper pCI’SOZ1§5′ V
the management of the Trust and its ._
to impicad themselves as paI’t1es’ – . ” L»
passed in appeal No.17/:89 ang1%…f§§§;;_39,%A and
others pmfcrrcd 33/ 1990 and
3911990 before th¢%%:11m gA§é; which also
came to be takfifi ifi aPP”-“31
and has lower appellate court
has held by the Charity Commissioner
and ti): oxderépassed. % ‘ ‘by learned’ Addl. District Judge in
Miscclkgflfians and 39/90 were binding cm
Bax in}; aj” A. bebw has aiso made a reference to
tile were also afihcted by the order passed
by Judge, Bijapur in Miscellaneous Appeal
33] and 3911990 med M.F.A.No.282I2002 and
which also came to be with liberty to the
s to seek neccssaxy rciicf before the Civil Court where
RSA 203&320G’?
necessary oxficrs and no OIIICTS could be passed in the 4′
suit instituted.
7. In the light of the above, I do not find «. ” ll
appeal. However, while declining tol
judgment and decree passed by the;–‘lqvver
macie clear that the parties are at
orders with regard to the a;np§mt me Court
Receiver appointed in shall
pass appropriate observations
made by it in and keeping in
mind the larger issue 1994. The
appeal stands sfizb the above observations.
Sd/-
fudge