Karnataka High Court
Judges : Ahmed Ali Khan,E.S.Venkataramiah
GADIGEYYA VEERAYYA KALMATH - Appellant
Versus
SRI VISHNU DEV - Respondent
First Appeal 84 Of 1969
Decided On : 07/19/1972
Advocates Appeared :
K.S.SATHYA MURTHY, V.H.RON
Deity - Public Trust - Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - [Sri Vishnu dev of Sri Mahavishnu Devasthan at Sirsi] - [Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950] - [Summary: The court discussed the validity of a permanent lease created in favor of defendants, the violation of lease conditions, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The court held that the permanent lease was not binding on the deity as it was not established to be for legal necessity or the benefit of the deity. The court also found that the defendants had violated the lease conditions and that the suit was maintainable under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The appeals were dismissed with costs.]
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed by the deity represented by its manager to set aside a permanent lease of lands. The court found that the permanent lease was not binding on the deity, the defendants had violated the lease conditions, and the suit was maintainable under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the permanent lease was not supported by legal necessity or the benefit of the deity, the defendants had violated the lease conditions, and the suit was maintainable under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
Issues: Validity of permanent lease, Violation of lease conditions, Jurisdiction of the Civil Court
Ratio Decidendi: The permanent lease must be supported by legal necessity or the benefit of the deity. Violation of lease conditions can lead to the forfeiture of the tenancy. The suit was maintainable under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs.
( 2 ) SHRI Mahavishnu Devasthan in which plaintiff 1 is installed wag declared as public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and it is entered at Serial no. A 646 (KWA) in the register of public trusts maintained under the Act.
( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-Lands bearing R. S. No. 44 measuring 3 acres 15 guntas and R. S. No. 288 measuring 2 acres 19 guntas situate in Sirsi Kasaba within the Municipal limits of Sirsi Town belong to the deity plaintiff 1. One Seshagiri Balakrishna Rao Sonde (hereinafter referred to as Seshagiri Sonde)acting as the moktesar or manager of plaintiff 1 save the said land on permanent lease to defendants 1 and 2 in consideration of an annual payment of Rs. 22-50 under a permanent lease deed dated July 4. 1928 and that defendants 1 and 2 executed a deed dated July 4, 1928 in favour of the deity represented by one Govind Narayanrao Islur who was acting on behalf of Seshagiri sonde. Pursuant to the said lease, defendants 1 and 2 were put in possession of the lands, Under the lease it was not permissible for the lessor i. e. the deity to vary the rate of rent agreed upon and even that rent was very much inadequate in view of the potential value of the lands in question. The lands were capable of being converted into building sites in view of their situation within the municipal limits of a growing town like Sirsi. There was no legal necessity justifying the creation of the said permanent lease. It was also pleaded that even according to one of the terms of the said lease, the lessees were not entitled to alienate the lands in favour of other parties and that it was stipulated that if there was a breach of the said condition, the lessor could exercise the right of re-entry on the lands in question. In spite of such a condition being there, defendants 1 and 2 having transferred the lands in favour of other parties had violated the said condition. After the said lease came into existence, defendants 1 and 2 divided the lands between themselves and that defendant 1 transferred the lands which came into his possession in favour of third party from whom defendant 3 purchased the same. Defendant 2 had transferred the land in his possession in favour of defendants 4 to 31. Defendant 32 is the Charity Commissioner appointed under the Act. who was impleaded in accordance with law,
( 4 ) SESHAGIRI Sonde who was the manager of the deity plaintiff 1 and who had created the permanent lease in favour of defendants 1 and 2, died on December 27, 1951. On his death, one venkataraman Sham Bhat became the manager. In the year 1960. Venkataraman Sham Bhat resigned from the said office and thereafter plaintiff 2 K. V. Govindarao became the manager. Immediately after his appointment. K. V. Govindarao took necessary action to repudiate the permanent lease executed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on the ground that the same had been created without any legal necessity or benefit of the deity by issuing notices to defendants 1 and 2. It was also stated in the said notices that defendants 1 and 2 had violated the terms of the said lease even granting that the lease was binding on plaintiff 1. The lessees were therefore called upon to deliver possession of the suit lands in favour of the plaintiffs. When the demand made in the said notices was not complied with, the plaintiffs instituted the above suit, on December 23, 1963 within 12 years from the date of the death of the transferor, namely Seshagiri Sonde.
( 5 ) DEF
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.