JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the defendants under Section

96 of Civil Procedure Code, challenging the order, dated 23.12.2020 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in O.S.No.2/2018, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs is decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a Trust has been established in the year 1944 in the name of ‘Hatthu Janagala Garadi’. The plaintiffs who are the beneficiaries under the Trust have filed a Misc. Petition No.164/2015 under Section 92 of CPC seeking leave of the Court to file a suit for settling the scheme and for re-constitution of the Trust on the ground that there is a mis-management of the Trust property. After obtaining the leave, they have filed the present suit in O.S.No.2/2018. After service of summons, defendants appeared through their counsel and filed a detailed written statement contending that the suit in the present form is not maintainable in the eye of law and they have not impleaded necessary parties and sought for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that, defendants indulged in illegal activities including dismantling the suit property, i.e., Garadi and converting the same into shop premises and misusing the funds of Garadi for their own use? (2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that, defendants failed to render and maintain proper accounts in respect of suit property, i.e., Garadi?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek for framing a scheme for proper management of Garadi by appointing Trustees?

(4) Whether the defendants are liable to be restrained from converting suit Garadi premises into commercial premises?

(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought for?

(6) What order or decree?

4. To prove the case, plaintiff No.3 Thimmappa has been examined as PW1 and got marked documents as Exs. P1 to P11 and he has been cross-examined by the defendants. Inspite of giving opportunity, the defendants neither examined any witness nor produced any documents. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court answered issue Nos. 1 to 5 in the affirmative and decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court.

5. Sri Prasanna V.R., the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants has raised the following contentions:

(i) Firstly, the defendants were not mis-managing the Trust and properties of the Trust and they have not dismantled the Garadi situated in Trust property. The commercial complex has been constructed without dismantling the Garadi. The trial court has not given opportunity to the defendants to defend their case.

(ii) Secondly, since there was no proper communication between the defendants and their counsel, inspite of the trial court granting several opportunities, the defendants were unable to adduce the evidence and produce the necessary documents. They have also filed an application before this Court and produced additional documents. If this Court gives one more opportunity, they will establish their case. Hence, sought for allowing the appeal.

6. Per contra, Sri Krishnamurthy G.Hasyagar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs has raised the following contentions:

(i) Firstly, there is a specific allegation against the defendants that they are trying to dismantle the existing Garadi and to construct a commercial complex. They have also produced corporation records to show that commercial complex has been constructed in the property which belongs to the Garadi.

(ii) Secondly, the defendants have mis-managed the properties of the Garadi and also mis-managing the income of the Garadi and they have not furnished the accounts. Therefore, in the interest of Garadi, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for settlement of scheme and re-

constitution of t