IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30"' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 20
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAu.jR~SI):1:3YA O V; A
REGULAR SECOND ARPEAL}.No;;A £2948'DE.20b9R[RARRERB
BETWEEN:
B13. Dayananda,
S/0 Panchaksharaiah, .
Aged about 50 years, ' ~
The Secretary, R R -.
Sri. SiddeshwaraYuVakaV--SaEgha, ' R' '
Be-lagumba Viliiage, -
Kasavba '
Aresiker-3:LmR573'-103," _ 4' V . . Appellant
(B.j{'Sh1ti. KR". NV2:1Vg'eI1cRl:ra, Advocate)
'' B S. Kurléviifagiah
S'/"0 Sh_iVan1ia,
Major,
" AA Belagvumba village,
V.Ka'S_:1ba Hobli,
2 AA'-Arsikere Taluk,
VB V __?Aresikerem573 103. ...Respondent
(By Shri. A.V. Gangadharappa, Advocate)
3
This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section
100 of Code of Civil Procedure, i908, against the
judgment and decree dated 30.06.2009 passed Hing
R.A.No.25/2007 on the file of the Civil. Judge (Sr.D_n)_i
Additional CJM, Arsikere, dismissing the appeaiganld
confirming the judgment and decree dated 0?’.02.2p00i7
passed in O.S.No.287/1998 on the file of th.e,._L’~ourt:’o.f
Additional Civil Judge (}r.Dn) & JMFC-,Arsikere.:”~ A
This Regular Second on «.
Admission this day, the Court7de1ivered- the follo:ivi.ng:,
The appellant trial court
claiming as the Yuvaka
Sangha ‘the-“l_Karnataka Societies
R€giSlf1’~?1til0ln referred to as ‘ the Act’
for ppbrevityi/ll.” Vpltwhas ithelallegation of the plaintiff that he
v ,, l’V’VEtsl:.diil’y alp.p_ointedlllasthe Secretary by a resolution of the
Ico_rfipeté;1;t:l_Copmnuttee of the Sangha and was discharging
his’ The defendant, who was a politically
2 i’iri1fluential person had crated certain documents and set
a rival claim that he indeed was the Secretary of the
Sangha in the place of thglaintiff. In such circumstance,
the present suit was filed by the appellant. It was even
during the pendency of the suit, a further resolution was
said to have been passed by the committee reaffi1’ming ”
appointment of the appellant as the it
Sangha, in the face of which, the ldefendiaiitllhaddresistegi:lup f
the suit and had set up a rival V p p
2. On the rival ,the had
framed several issues the plaintiff to
prove that he the and that he
was running of the said
Sangha * and was interference by the
defendanthe Vtriva1iC.ouift~’iilhas found that the plaintiff had
V’ ._ producelthevery basic document, under which he
he was the Secretary of the Sangha,
wh_ic.h___wa.sfregistered under the Act. In the absence of
silch basic document to establish that the Sangha, of
he was the Secretary was registered under the Act,
‘the trial court has felt that it was not necessary to delve
3
deeper into the matter as there was no material evidence
forthcoming to support the basic premise on which the’
plaintiff sought to rest his case. Accordingly,
court has dismissed the suit. The same i
carried in appeal unsuccessfully, the appellant.’ ~is”‘be’1″ore_
this court in second appeal.
3. The substantial questions_of_plaw.’framed in the
memorandum of appeal” .a.s7.fol§!,owisi4;’: AA 9′ ”
1. Whether.__ both” liavfie the right in
__.su.it ,offj vthe:Wplaintiff’ without
u’nde;sta19iding:t’hat authorisation is entirely given
to resolution ?
both the courts have right without
V c-ancelliation’ of licence or authorisation given to
“-.Iplainti-ff/appellant how wrongly concluded to
A the suit?
i , Whether the both the courts have right that
V without proof of documents of defendant by
authorised person are appreciated by the courts
for reversing the contention of the appellant ‘?
5
4. The learned counsel for the appellant is unable to
justify the circumstance that the plaintiff had f’ai1edij
the basic document, namely, a document to was
the Secretary of the Sangha duly Zregisteire-dd’under-.the iiln i’
that View of the matter, there is no substantial’t1t1e~s1;iQn.}oflavt/r
that would arise for cQ_nsideratiion”‘as the suit” 0f,_the,:ipIaintiff’ has
been dismissed on a hiaihn’ Accordingly, the
appeal is t’ejec<I'e;d;:-.