Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 815
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G.S. KAMAL, J
AMASIDDA S/O.SOMANNA WADER SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., 1(A) SIDDU S/O AMASIDDA WADER, 1(B) BILIYANI S/O AMASIDDA WADER, 1(C) INUMANDI S/O AMASIDDA WADER, 1(D) MALLIKARI S/O AMASIDDA WADER, 1(E) SOMANNA S/O AMASIDDA WADER, 2. LAGAMANNA S/O SOMANNA WADER – Appellant
Versus
SMT.YELLAWWA W/O MALLAPPA CHUNG, SMT.AMMAKKA W/O.MARUTI KURUBAR, SMT.SONAWWA W/O MALLAPPA KAJJIDONI, SMT.CHANDAWWA W/O MALLAPPA WADER, SHIDAGOUDA MALLAPPA WADER – Respondent
R.S.A.NO.616 OF 2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Sangram S Kulkarn, ADV.
For the Respondents: Sri Sanjay S.Katageri, ADV. FOR R1 TO R5
Without obtaining consent from the Charity Commissioner, the civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits related to public trust matters as per sections of the Bombay Public Trust Act.
Headnote:(A) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Sections 50, 51, and 80 - Jurisdiction of civil court - Suit filed by plaintiffs for declaration of trusteeship rights over temple properties - Compliance with provisions of the Act necessary for maintainability of suit - Failure to comply resulted in dismissal of suit - Judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court declared invalid due to lack of jurisdiction. (Paras 22, 24, 25)
(B) Jurisdiction - Bar on civil court's jurisdiction to adjudicate claims under public trust without Charity Commissioner's consent - Clear necessity for plaintiffs to obtain consent precedes any court proceedings on public trust matters. (Paras 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration as trustees of a temple and for injunction against defendants interfering with their rights. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on grounds of jurisdiction and failure to adhere to necessary provisions of the Act.
Findings of Court:
The courts below failed to adhere to statutory provisions barring them from adjudicating the suit, and thus, their findings lack validity.
Issues: The issue revolved around jurisdiction and the necessity of consent from the Charity Commissioner before proceeding with the suit regarding a public trust.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without the necessary consent under Section 51 of the Act, the suit cannot be maintained, and the jurisdictional bar under Section 80 applies directly.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeal regarding the lower court's decision (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims of plaintiffs about trusteeship and interference by defendants (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments on lack of jurisdiction and other legal issues (Para 15 , 16) |
| 4. jurisdiction issues concerning compliance with charity trust laws (Para 20 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. conclusion on court's decision and jurisdictional validity (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.01.2008 passed in R.A.No.31/1993 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Athani (hereinafter referred to as “the First Appellate Court” for short), in and by which the First Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs confirmed the judgment and decree dated 02.11.1993 passed in O.S.No.70/1979 on the file of Munsiff Court, Athani (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court” for short).
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The above suit in O.S.No.70/1979 is filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration to declare them having acquired trusteeship rights and having been registered as trustees of Lord Siddeswar Temple of Ainapur in place of defendant No.1 and they are only persons at the exclusion of defendant No.1, entitled to worship and receive the emolument of Lord Siddeshwar, Ainapur and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiffs.
4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the land bearing R.S.No.57/10 measuring 5 acres 27 guntas, R.S.No.58/9 measuring 4 guntas and R.S.No.247/4 measuring 32 guntas situated at Ainapur village are the inam lands belonging to Lord Siddeshwara Temple of Ainapur. That the said Siddeshwara Temple, Ainapur is a public Trust constituted under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short). That the predecessors of defendant No.1 were the wahiwatdars of the suit lands. Defendant No.1 and his predecessors being residence of Kempawada village had leased out the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs and their predecessors who were permanent residents of Ainapur village. That the plaintiffs were cultivating the suit land jointly with their father and during his life time, none else continued to cultivate the same and after his demise in the year 1972, the plaintiffs have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit lands.
5. The suit lands are vested with the plaintiffs and the defendants have been divested of any right of worship of Lord Siddeshwar. The plaintiffs and their predecessors are alone exclusively entitled as trustees offered to worship Lord Siddeshwar. The plaintiffs have been enjoying the trusteeship of the said trust ever since it was constituted in the year 1962.
6. That there are five divisions in the family of the plaintiffs and defendants namely; 1) Kere Baddi, 2) Danganavar Baddi, 3) Bhagubai Baddi, 4) Kelagade Baddi and 5) Kabbur Baddi. Out of which plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 belonged to Danganavar Baddi and defendant Nos.1 to 3 belonged to Kere Baddi. That the each division of the families are entitled to offer worship and the emolument on their respective turn. Accordingly each of the division would get one day in a week to perform their offering and also for the emolument. That defendant No.1-Mallappa and his father Somanna would get their turn once in 10 days. That defendant No.1 and his father Somanna had executed a relinquishment deed on 03.08.1966 relinquishing their rights to worship once in 10 days in favour of father of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, plaintiffs are entitled for two shares of worship, while defendants did not have any share of worship. Despite the above, the defendants have been interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs to worship Lord Siddeshwara constraining the plaintiffs to
