Back
2015 Supreme(Kar) 344
High Court of Karnataka
ANAND BYRAREDDY, J.
Shamsundar L. Asrani & Others - Petitioners
Versus
Shankha Brita Das & Others - Respondents
Regular First Appeal No. 423 of 2009
Decided On : 09-04-2015
For the Appellants:Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate for M.P. Srikanth, Mohan Bhat, C. Ananthram, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R9, Srinivasa Raghavan for M/s. Indus Law, R11 & R15, V. Ramesh Babu for M/s. Chalapathy, R1, R3 & R12, T.V. Vijay Raghavan, Maruthi Prasad, R10, C.M. Poonacha for M/s. Lex Plexus, R16, M.S. Jitendra, M.S. Partha Sarathi, R17, M.N. Desai, R2, M.R. Vijaya Raghavan, R6, V. Vishwanath, R8, A. Sanath Kumar, Advocates.
Headnote:
Suit for declaration that plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 10 constituted the governing body of the sixth plaintiff; for a declaration that defendants 11 to 17 have no right to manage or control the sixth plaintiff; for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 11 to 17 to make over to the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 10 all assets, effects, affairs, books of account, records and the like of the sixth plaintiff and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants 11 to 17 from interfering with the management and control of the sixth plaintiff by the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 10. Suit dismissed. Appeal by plaintiffs. Held, dismissing the appeal, that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they along with defendants 1 to 10 constituted the governing body of the sixth plaintiff. The evidence adduced by the defendants 11 to 17 had established that a general body meeting was held on 1.7.1984 and a fresh governing body of 17 members had been constituted. The admissions made by defendant no. 11 in the several civil suits filed by him, as to ISKCON, Bangalore being a branch of ISKCON, Mumbai, were explained by him in his written statement. Even if that explanation was to be rejected, the question would be whether in fact and in law there was a registered body managing the affairs of ISKCON, Bangalore. That there was a Society registered as ISKCON, Bangalore, was not in dispute. The controversy was whether the Society continued to function and could legitimately lay claim to the movable and immovable assets of ISKCON, Bangalore on that basis. In this regard the only Issue, of the several Issues framed by the trial court, the burden of proving which was placed on defendants no. 11 to 17, was Issue no. 3 , namely : "3. Whether the defendants 11 to 17 prove that in the general body meeting held on 1.7.1984, a governing body was elected?" In answering the above Issue in the affirmative, the reasoning and findings of the trial court were correct.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed that the cause of action for the suit arose on 19.1.2003, when they learnt of the suit in O.S.No.7934/2001 filed on behalf of the sixth plaintiff. The plaintiffs sought for the following declaratory and injunctory reliefs, namely, i) to declare that plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 1 to 10 constituted the governing body of the sixth plaintiff; ii) to declare that defendants 11 to 17 have no right to manage or control the sixth plaintiff; iii) for a mandatory injunction to direct the defendants 11 to 17 to make over to the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 10 all assets, records and all such material pertaining to the sixth plaintiff; iv) to restrain by way of permanent injunction, defendants 11 to 17 from interfering in the management and control of the sixth plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The plaintiffs had failed to prove that they along with defendants 1 to 10 constituted the governing body of the sixth plaintiff. The evidence adduced by the defendants 11 to 17 had established that a general body meeting was held on 1.7.1984 and a fresh governing body of 17 members had been constituted. The admissions made by defendant no. 11 in the several civil suits filed by him, as to ISKCON, Bangalore being a branch of ISKCON, Mumbai, were explained by him in his written statement. Even if that explanation was to be rejected, the question would be whether in fact and in law there was a registered body managing the affairs of ISKCON, Bangalore. That there was a Society registered as ISKCON, Bangalore, was not in dispute. The controversy was whether the Society continued to function and could legitimately lay claim to the movable and immovable assets of ISKCON, Bangalore on that basis. In this regard the only Issue, of the several Issues framed by the trial court, the burden of proving which was placed on defendants no. 11 to 17, was Issue no. 3 , namely : "3. Whether the defendants 11 to 17 prove that in the general body meeting held on 1.7.1984, a governing body was elected?" In answering the above Issue in the affirmative, the reasoning and findings of the trial court were correct.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 1st to 5th plaintiff and 1st to 10th defendant constitute the general body of the 6th plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 11th to 17th defendants have no right to manage or control the 6th plaintiff? 3. Whether the defendants 11 to 17 prove that in the general body meeting held on 1.7.1984, a governing body was elected? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declarations sought for? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to mandatory injunction sought for? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction sought for? 7. To what order or decree?
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiffs had failed to prove that they along with defendants 1 to 10 constituted the governing body of the sixth plaintiff. The evidence adduced by the defendants 11 to 17 had established that a general body meeting was held on 1.7.1984 and a fresh governing body of 17 members had been constituted. The admissions made by defendant no. 11 in the several civil suits filed by him, as to ISKCON, Bangalore being a branch of ISKCON, Mumbai, were explained by him in his written statement. Even if that explanation was to be rejected, the question would be whether in fact and in law there was a registered body managing the affairs of ISKCON, Bangalore. That there was a Society registered as ISKCON, Bangalore, was not in dispute. The controversy was whether the Society continued to function and could legitimately lay claim to the movable and immovable assets of ISKCON, Bangalore on that basis. In this regard the only Issue, of the several Issues framed by the trial court, the burden of proving which was placed on defendants no. 11 to 17, was Issue no. 3 , namely : "3. Whether the defendants 11 to 17 prove that in the general body meeting held on 1.7.1984, a governing body was elected?" In answering the above Issue in the affirmative, the reasoning and findings of the trial court were correct.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
1. This appeal was originally filed by plaintiff nos. 4 & 6. During the pendency of this appeal Defendant no.5, who had supported the case of the plaintiffs before the trial court, has transposed himself as appellant no.3, at his instance, by virtue of an order of this court, dated 8.12.2009.
2. The facts of the case as stated by the plaintiffs was that in the year 1965, Shri A.C. Bhakthi Vedanta Swami Prabhupada, (Hereinafter referred to as 'Shri Prabhupada', for brevity ) had travelled to the United States of America , when he was aged 70, and within a year he is said to have established the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISCKON) at New York. The object of ISKCON was to spread and propagate the Krishna Consciousness Movement (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Movement', for brevity). Within a few years, the Movement is said to have spread to many countries of the world.
It is stated that Shri Prabhupada established temples in Mumbai initially and later in other cities and towns in India, to initiate the Movement in India. In the year 1971, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, (ISKCON), Mumbai, was said to have been registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and as a Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BPT Act', for brevity). He is said to have been the first Chairman of the Governing Body Commission.
The first and the second plaintiffs claimed that they were ordained into the religious order by Shri Prabhupada and that he had given them their religious names. They were, as his disciples, missionaries entrusted with the task of spreading the Movement in India.
The first defendant was also said to be an initiate of Shri Prabhupada. It was acknowledged that he was one of the first missionaries to organize activities in furtherance of the Movement, in Bangalore. The first and second plaintiffs claim to have supported him in his endeavours. The activities were said to have been guided by the ISKCON Bureau or the Governing Council, an unregistered body established under the Chairmanship of Shri Prabupada at Mumbai and the Governing Body Commission, an over arching body, also unregistered, said to have been established by Shri Prabhupada, to supervise and manage the Movement, worldwide.
On the demise of Shri Prabhupada, in November 1977, it is said the activities continued in Bangalore. In May 1978, it is claimed, that the first defendant had persuaded the plaintiffs 1 & 2 to establish a Society for Krishna Consciousness at Bangalore. And that he had taken the initiative of preparing the draft Memorandum of Association and the Rules and Regulations to form a Society under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and is said to have persuaded one Bhaktha Dasa Brahmachari, one Bharati Devi, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 along with the second defendant himself, to subscribe to the Memorandum of Association as the founders and the same was said to have been registered before the Registrar of Societies in Karnataka. Thus, the Society under the name and style of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, with its registered office at 39, Crescent Road, Bangalore, had been established. The said Society was arraigned as Plaintiff no.6.
The first Managing Committee of the sixth plaintiff is said to have consisted of the following , Plaintiff nos. 1 to 5, Defendant nos. 1 to 10 and 7 others, who were not parties to the suit. The first Defendant was said to be the President and the second plaintiff the Vice-President, the first plaintiff - Secretary and the third defendant - the Treasurer and the remaining were said to be members of the Governing body.
It is stated that in their enthusiasm to establish the sixth plaintiff, they had not obtained prior permission of the ISKCON Bureau and the Governing Body Commission. The third plaintiff claims that he had no reason to believe that anything was amiss, on the assurances of the first defenda
