Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 1272
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.
Andrews Education Society - Appellant
Versus
Allan Mohan Gnanakan - Respondent
R.S.A. No. 2831 of 2007 C/W R.S.A Nos. 2832/2007 & 2833/2007
Decided On : 01-12-2022
K.L.Patil, Advocate, Shreevatsa S.Hegde, Advocate, A.A.Kalebudde, Advocate
An agent cannot assert independent ownership or seek relief against the principal, and the possession of an agent is the possession of the principal for all purposes.
Headnote:
Society - Educational Society - Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Ex.D-4, Ex.D-9, Ex.D-10, Ex.D-11, Ex.D-12, Ex.D-13, W.P.No.8886/1984 - The plaintiff, an Educational Society, filed suits seeking injunction and declaration against the defendants. The trial Court partly decreed the injunction suit, but dismissed the declaration suit. The Appellate Court reversed the trial Court's decision, holding that the plaintiff had no right to seek relief against the defendants. The plaintiff's claim that the school building was constructed by its founder was refuted by evidence showing that the property belonged to the Bombay Diocesan Trust Association (BDTA) and that the school was run under the control of BDTA. The Appellate Court found that the plaintiff's father had acted as an agent of BDTA and that the plaintiff had no independent right over the property. The Appellate Court held that the trial Court erred in granting injunction and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The plaintiff's application to produce additional evidence was rejected. The appeals were dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an Educational Society, filed suits seeking injunction and declaration against the defendants, alleging interference with the school's affairs and claiming ownership of the property. The trial Court partly decreed the injunction suit, but dismissed the declaration suit. The Appellate Court reversed the trial Court's decision, holding that the plaintiff had no right to seek relief against the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The Appellate Court found that the plaintiff had no right to seek relief against the defendants, as evidence showed that the property belonged to the Bombay Diocesan Trust Association (BDTA) and that the school was run under the control of BDTA. The plaintiff's claim that the school building was constructed by its founder was refuted by evidence. The Appellate Court held that the trial Court erred in granting injunction and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.
Issues: The core dispute was whether the plaintiff-Society had an independent right over the property and the authority to seek relief against the defendants. The trial Court's decision to grant injunction and the subsequent reversal by the Appellate Court were the main issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff, as an agent of BDTA, could not assert independent ownership or seek relief against the principal. The possession of an agent is the possession of the principal for all purposes, and the plaintiff's claim that the school building was constructed by its founder was refuted by evidence showing that the property belonged to BDTA. The plaintiff's application to produce additional evidence was rejected.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the plaintiff's application to produce additional evidence was rejected.
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned three appeals arise out of common judgment rendered in O.S.No.267/1999 and O.S.No.436/1999. All these three captioned appeals are filed by the plaintiff. RSA.No.2831/2007 arises out of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.267/1999 and R.A.No.3/2004. RSA.No.2832/2007 is filed questioning the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.436/1999 and R.A.No.4/2004. RSA No.2833/2007 arises out of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.267/1999 and R.A.No.84/2005.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff is an Educational Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. One Shri O.S.Aiman claiming to be its Chairman has filed two suits. O.S.No.267/1999 is filed seeking permanent injunction against the sole defendant. O.S.No.436/1999 is also filed by the Chairman seeking declaration to declare the act of locking the office premises of the school building by the defendants on 30/8/1999 as illegal and further to declare the power of attorney dtd. 6/12/1997 executed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1 as illegal and consequential relief of mandatory injunction to remove the lock of the premises.
4. The facts leading to filing of both the suits are as under:
(a) The subject matter of the suit is immovable property bearing Sy.No.107 measuring 45 guntas situated in Gadag Road, Hubli. It is contended by the plaintiffs that plaintiff is duly registered Educational Society under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Registration Act, 1960. Under bye-laws, it is contended that its Chairman of plaintiff-Society is authorized to defend and file suit on behalf of the Society. It is further contended that plaintiff-Society is a minority Educational Society and it runs primary and secondary schools in the suit property and has a strength of around 1300 students and 42 teaching faculties and staff members.
(b) The grievance of the plaintiff-Society is that defendants are highhandedly interfering with the educational affairs. It is specifically contended that defendant in O.S.No.267/1999 on 5/6/1999 entered into the premises at 7.00 a.m. and threatened the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit property and therefore, the present bare suit for injunction is filed in O.S.No.267/1999. The second suit in O.S.No.436/1999 is filed seeking relief of declaration and injunction. It is alleged in the plaint in O.S.No.436/1999 that defendant Nos.4 to 13 trespassed into the suit premises on 30/8/1999 at about 1.30 p.m. and illegally attempted to dispossess the plaintiff on the strength of concocted power of attorney dtd. 6/12/1999 executed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1.
5. The defendants, on receipt of summons, have tendered appearance in both the suits. In both the suits, defendant No.1 has filed written statement. The defendant No.1 has contended that plaintiff-Society which is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act does not possess any immovable property. The suit property belongs to Bombay Diocesan Trust Association (herein after referred to as 'BDTA'). The defendant No.1 has contended that plaintiff-Society is acting as an agent. Therefore, defendant No.1 contended that under authorization conferred by the BDTA, the defendant No.1 is entitled to manage the trust properties. The defendant No.1 on the contrary alleged that plaintiff-Society under the garb of running educational Society has indulged in illegally collecting heavy donations while admitting the students. The defendant No.1 further contended that the school building is in fact constructed by BDTA under the supervision of PW.1's father. Therefore, the present suit filed by the Society is one without authorization and hence, specifically contended that the suit itself is not maintainable.
6. Based on the rival contentions, the plaintiffs and defendants let in oral and documentary evidence. In fact common evi
