IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE Sm DAY OF FEBRLEARY EON)
BE£FORE:
THE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTECE. ANAND BYRA§:{‘EIT)T1’):TY__T”. ‘.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL1§u;.1753 T’ T
BETWEEN:
E. M.Venk21ta1’aya Pmbhm
Son of Ra1Im1i<I'isI1m-1 P2'iibi']LI.
Aged 45 years, I . _
Residing at Ay()hdya_Qé1";.hi "
Ganapathi Tempie ' Me1ng21i<m-:-57A5 om. T APPELLANT ( By SEa1'i_S.'S}"S vocates) AND:
_ . . .1 . .%’vf. V aia’;1d:.-in-1’jai “P1′;1_b_I1:»:,
A ‘E§:_)n RTa~:112:k1″ishnz1 Plnbhu,
‘ ,.T”A.gcd455:’_y<fiii;*e;,
'- . '«.T1'»/I;i11:ag'–i.1jg T''1?:aIs{et3.
" A V'i{hoba'R;1i{ma11ai Ternpie.
V .T.Rc52i<;ij
Mzmgé1I()re–575 001 D.K.
T u _M’;11′<")ii Smendrzl Kélllliilh,
Sim oi"E')@vz11'e1yu Kalxmath.
Aged (36 years.
5
I\~’1;u’0l E (__’.on’1puu ml .
Can’ Sm-3cE._
Ma11ga1!01’c~575 ()0! UK.
3. Mamli Gzmesh K2’m’u11h.
Son of Muroli R&1E”]1&1kE”i.\’hE1Ll.
Kamztth. Aged 40 years. .
Residing at Marcia” Compound.
Cur Street. T.
MaI1gL:i0:’e–57S ()0! {).K. ”
4. K.Mohzm V.Nayak._
Son of K.ViItz,-11 N’.1y”=…ial.{;.’«–
Aged 58 years. “A
K1’ishr1uK:”ipa, ‘
V.’I”.R0z1Li._ fl _.
%\/Iz1ng;1l()1jtf.;v57;’3’L “().{} 2., D. K. _
5. U.VEshitv:ui’th£::.;Nmy:-11¢; ”
S0 11″ {5:f’ f{c)..5¥gan ii N :1 .
Agra 58 3-‘ea-:17:-,.”‘~-..
?.'”Ic’1–‘s>;–I{c>a1*;i. ‘ ”
U]3pe:’V’§3.¢:id,()i;,_ _
M-ang2,1l()1’é-57f3′(.3(.)I . D.K. … RESP()NDENTS
(B’y’.Sh1~i.P.’33.V”i5;.}wvz111atl1. Acivucaite i”(:>:’ Rr;:3p()1’1denI No.1.
‘Sl1’1’é….i\/3 .x\/:_;;;ya ‘K-.1jVf.s”!@.:’1a1 Bfm. Advoczztc for Rcrspondcznl: No.4 & 5)
TE’1:”s;_fT<1-cgL1!:.u'Second .Appc;1l is {'ile.& L:m'ic:r Sc*czi():'z.I()(._) of
'(Mac :01' Ciiiii} Pr0o;:eLiLm:. I908 ;1gai:'1s1' the .¥u<"fg.;:'z'1.l i7fI994}
an the “film-3 of the P:’esidi11g ()ffie;e1’. Fast Tmck Coun. Mzmgalom,
dismissing the appeal and co11f’irming the Jwgmerlt and
3
4. Having heard the counsel at lengtli, and the decision
cited at the bar in Haremfra 1’\/czrlt B:’zczItc1c’.’l2c1r;,-=c1 vs. Ka!z’mn__z_ Das,
AIR 1972 SC’ 246. it is seen that the Trust in quemon »\s–a$’–.f}”;–rV’t’E’1e
benefit of the Gowda Saiaswatht-1 Br-ahinin co1r111’1lt1’11it5;_”whiClh* i’
would imply that it for the benel’it”oi’ “a .tiuett1a.ti:rig’._ (if;
persoiis and no fixetl groiip oi’ perj.~;ons t;:_)Lii;l_ be iLle_mil’iet’~l ;’e.si’tl1e’*
beneficiaries, in which event, it ea’rn1t.it. be saitl_tlr-at.lthelffrust was
a private Trust. This is ;a”~v.faet_”itl1atA ::i;j’pra1’ent without any
elaborate evidence in this i”eg_a’i’clt (lt”:’l”€vEl}lL’l.~l:lji’1_.Ifl.§ having raised a
plea that there ‘b;,gflt1iitlei’. Se_{:t.i_OiilEl’2~*a1i::E the Trial Court
having i’£’;11’tieC§. its l”1’0_ I-he lT1z1lE1iLllI1ilblll[_Vj’ and having
answered thedsstze iii’tlie.Alrr1ega:.ive on the i’i_>oting that the suit was
not in ;s.l(~.)E}_1plltlllGC’ *vvitli’ Section 92 and therei’oa’e, was not
‘V’m.ai:itaL§i*tal}l.e? c_ani10tHbe’—-aa’i’d to be irregular or illegal. There is no
“rquesqtieii of laiw._£l*rat arises for Consideratioii. The _§utlgrne.nt and
affirmed by the first appellate wait, the
finding<)i"'v_v'l'z1£:t}=iS the.refoa"e a eoiieurrent fiiuling and does not
warrazit i~nte;rferent:e by this court. The appellant however is not
6