J U D G M E N T

Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent No.1.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the order of rejection of I.A.No.1 filed before the Trial Court, wherein sought for the relief of grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or anybody claiming through them from interfering in exercising the plaintiff’s powers and functions and participating in the meetings of the defendant No.1-trust as Abhimani trustee referring to the resolution dated 24.12.2022 passed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and communication/circular dated 21.02.2023 issued by the defendant No.3, pending disposal of the suit.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the defendant No.1 is a trust registered on 16.05.1975 and one N. Ananthchar was his father; the trust is running several institutions including Engineering, Primary and Higher Secondary Schools and Colleges; in order to cater to the needs of the Trust, land to an extent of 40 acres was granted by the Government in favour of the Trust at Kanakapura Road; during 1963, 25 acres of land was granted at an upset price and the said amount was remitted by his father N. Ananthachar, who is the founder of the trust; he is one of the trustees of the Abhimani Permanent Trust with effect from 1980 and it is provided in the trust deed itself; on account of certain controversies arose between himself and the Trust as well as the members of the Abhimani members in the trust, the defendant No.1-trust have attempted to oust him out of the trust, against which he has filed a suit in O.S.No.2602/2006 and an order of injunction for maintaining status-quo is passed in the said suit; in Miscellaneous No.218/2010, by referring to Rule 18(a)(i) of the Laws of the Trust, it was ordered to treat the members of the trust on par with the trustees and it was clarified that the members have got every right to claim participation in the management of the trust and that has become final; not being able to tolerate several misdeeds, irregularities and maladministration misdeeds that are being going on in the trust, a suit is filed with an application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Miscellaneous No.1232/2022 on the file of the Principal City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in which the objections are yet to be filed. Unfortunately, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 misconstrued themselves that filing of the said suit by him is a misconduct and passed a resolution to oust him from the activities for the trust; the said resolution is illegal and arbitrary, also it can be construed as an act of ultravires, void in all respects and runs contrary to his interest; in order to protect his interest, it is necessary to restrain the defendants from interfering in exercising the plaintiff’s powers and functions and participating in the meetings of the defendant No.1 trust as Abhimani trustee referring to the resolution dated 24.12.2022 passed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and communication/circular dated 21.02.2023, which was issued by the defendant No.3, pending disposal of the suit and sought for an order of temporary injunction.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement and adopted the written statement as objections to I.A.No.1 and contended that the suit itself is not in a proper form for want of necessary leave of the Principal Judge and barred by law. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; the relief claimed in the suit cannot be granted for the reason that the reliefs sought therein are hit by the principles of acquiescence; since the plaintiff had actively participated in all the proceedings/meetings and resolutions were passed in his presence unanimously, now the plaintiff cannot turn around and say that he had no knowledge of the same, more so, the resolution dated 2