High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt. Gopamma W/O Late Police … vs Sri Srinivasa Temple on 8 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gopamma W/O Late Police … vs Sri Srinivasa Temple on 8 December, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 08*" DAY OF DECEMBER 2010
BEFORE ' e

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND  

REGULAR SECOND APPEAfi;'ND;. 14:23    M' x

I. Smt. Gopamma
W/0 Late Police Lingaiah,
Since deceased by her L.R.-,-------- ,  
Second Appellant'   ' ..  a T. 
Smt. Pramila. ' V

2. S'VTnt.TVP1'a1§:.é1a   .
W/o 'Sri, N'a:»;?»~ra3,eeD D    D'  
Ageg157yea_mL,~-..'~.   

3.  'Sri, N21 ga-mj: " 
"   years; ..... .. V

 __.A'p;t_3e'il2iI1t_:s N02 '<3; 3 are residing
At 1'3.§30r"?*4'D_»;.33~'19', Rama Mandira Road,

'I'iAl'z-I.,4I_i=>il~'

This appeal is filed under se(i§'tion1'_"l{}i() of' 

Procedure, 1908 against the jud_gment--and decrees °G6.lii?:..20lUg

passed in R.A.No.265/2006 (Old._No,209/l999)_Von_tl'2e""file"of the"
IV Additional District Judge, Mysore', dismiss.in'g'the 'appeal and
confirming the judgment and de;:ree"date-d O7.09.'l--.999i passed in
O.S.No.l972/1.989 on the..fille off' the ,lV.__A_d'ditional I Civil Judge
(}r.D1'1), Mysore. i V      C' 2

This  admission this day, the Court
delivered the\fol'iowiing: »   i

  

 » vlfil"'€?1f(l.tVl1iCy.l't3£.}iIl''l}€'Cl counsel for the appellant.

2; T'he.ia'ppell.ant was the defendant before the trial

  the" 'appellant before the lower appellate Court. The

 at A. A   present second appeal is filed against concurrent findings.

%



5
affirmed the fiiidings of the trial Court. It is this, which is sought
to be questioned in the present second appeal.
4. The appeal memorandum is filed f1'ai'ni.n--gi"*.,the
following substantial questions of 1aw:--

(i)Is the appellate Court:'n'o't"in. eri1jo1'_;inAi'not  
noticing the fact that the i"pres.ein'tii rnayiagilng  
trustee who had institljtetithe salt    
standi to file the suit antl=that.Vvthe smclitrustee
has not been iaippointied   competent

body/committee as mianagiinig  

 A i (_ ii)A.re't.he VCo_LiirtsiiL1elow were not in error in
not ~!.1_oti.cing_ the  that the appointment of the
V present mapnaging trustee was not in accordance

ta/ithi'the terms of the Trust Deed.

 the appellate Court not in error in
~~Via;ffiI'ming the findings of the court below,
inasmuch the suit of the respondent itself was

not maintainable in Vl€W of the fact that the

3

6

same was instituted by a person who had no

iocus standi to present and prosecute the suit.

(iv)Inasmueh as the appointment of

alleged managing trustee is directed oppos§e’d’tog ._ _.__ ii

the terms and wishes of the author of .the’trus:t:,”~ in

are the Courts below ar:’:iiiino’t’«in,error”i.inV

upholding the resoplutionkppp

appointment of Venkatappa as*-

Trustee.

(v)Without iand”~.._deterr_Iiining the

issue whether theV_a’ll.egedi Trustee is

6n.tit1ié’id-“.t0.;lF!Stitute.,._tl:ejsuit, the Courts below

iihavepp pass the impugned

_ V jud;gm_e1it,’.which”‘i’s contrary to law and liable

; lo be setii’a’si-d.e.«’

7’_~_…(vifinasmuch as there is no relation of

t.__”1’an..dlord and tenant, lessor and lessee, are the

i-tilourts below are not in error in awarding

damages in respect of the suit schedule

6

property.

7

(vii)§n the absence of any congent and

clinching evidence with regard to rents paid in

respect of the neighboring properties, are thefitg

Courts below are not in error in

Rs.65()O as damages for using the suit sche’dule::
property from 0l.0l.l9u87 t.o..()l._._O.?,.ll’938″.”–:’_’:p.

(viii) Are the Courts belie-ow lnot”irr’err0_1′ ”

in holding that the suit’i’s_maintvainablei’idespvétem

the fact that the alleged being stranger
to the family ofigthe auithori ef._the”–trust and ta/as
not competent to i~nstiti’ute5’the.._:suii;.Vfigainst the

appell.arrts.’:- _

“(ix)ln.asaTiuc.h”-gasthe present Managing

Trustee of itherespondent is not at all related to

Velnkatarnanaiah founder trustee nor

appointed as per the terms of trust deed, and

it ° ‘ the appellants are related to

..__’Verikatarainainaiah, are the Courts below were

a riot in error in holding that the possession of

the appellants is unauthorised and illegal.

is

5. In the facts and ci.rc:umst.ances, the above questions,

sought to be framed as substantial questions of law, d0*’_fi0f”‘afi3¢

for consideration.

6. Accordingly, ihe appeal ifizfejéifitefl. V ‘ ‘ V

*a1b/–. A% ‘