SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 68250

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
Society – Appellant
Versus
Meditation Center – Respondent
APPEAL SUIT No. 2595 OF 2003



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Y. Srinivasa Murthy
For the Respondents: D.V. Seetharama Murthy

A civil suit for declaration regarding trust property is not maintainable when a specific remedy under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 exists; additionally, disciples lack the locus standi to maintain a title suit in the absence of evidence establishing the formal existence of a trust and its properties.

Headnote:(A) Indian Trusts Act, 1882 - Section 34 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 92 - Suit for declaration and eviction - Maintainability of suit by disciples - Public Charitable Trust - Private Charitable Trust - Gift deed vs Trust deed - The court held that where a suit pertains to a Trust, the governing provisions must be strictly followed, and the remedy under the Trusts Act, 1882, is via an application to the Principal Court of Original Jurisdiction, not a civil suit.

(B) Suit for declaration - Burden of proof - The court observed that in a suit for declaration, the burden of proof is heavily upon the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs lack documentary evidence and file a suit based primarily on oral testimony without proving their locus standi or the existence of the trust as claimed, the suit is misconceived and unsustainable.

Facts of the case:
The suit was filed by disciples of a Yoga practitioner, claiming the existence of a public charitable trust. The appellants, being members of a registered society managing a Shirdi Sai Baba Mandir on the disputed property, contested the suit, arguing that the trust was non-existent and that the society was rightfully in possession. The trial court decreed the suit, which was challenged on appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court failed to properly evaluate evidence and exceeded its jurisdiction by granting relief without documentary proof of the trust's existence. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted back for fresh consideration on maintainability and evidentiary sufficiency.

Issues: The main issues were the locus standi of disciples to file a suit against a trust, the maintainability of a civil suit versus a petition under the Trusts Act, and the validity of a challenge against a registered society's management in such a suit.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit for declaration concerning a trust's property is not maintainable if it bypasses the specific remedial provisions under the Trusts Act, 1882. Furthermore, unless the existence of a trust is proven by a registered instrument, disciples cannot maintain a title suit against the managers of the property.

Result: The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts and contentions in a suit concerning trust management and property rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)

J U D G M E N T :

Heard Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of appellants and Sri D.V. Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Respondents 7 to 11.

2. Appellants are defendants 3 to 10 in O.S.No. 22 of 2000 on the file of the III Additional District Judge’s Court, Warangal. The suit was filed seeking the relief of declaration, eviction/restoration of possession, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction in favour of defendant No. 1 - Trust for which defendant No. 2 is the sole Trustee and against Defendant No. 3 - Society and Defendants No. 4 to 10. The suit was decreed on 05.09.2003 against which the appellants are before this Court.

3. The parties are arrayed as they are shown in the suit, for easy reference.

4. The case of plaintiffs – respondents, in brief, is that they are disciples of defendant No. 2 who is a Yogi who is disseminating the knowledge and practice of Yoga, Meditation and treating and healing the people with Yogic Therapy and medicines and since his child hood, he evinced unusual and extraordinary interest and used to attend on Sadhus and Sanyasis to acquire spiritual knowledge from them and that he accompanied them and spent several months in Rishikesh when he was 12-year-old and acquired knowledge of yoga, training himself with yogic practices and Yogic healing of the sick and suffering; he acquired this knowledge from famous Yogi Kali Kambal who had a big Ashram at Himalayan foothills and learnt healing properties of various plants, leaves, herbs, etcetera available at Himalayan foothills and later, returned to Hanamkonda and established a center for teaching Yoga at Wardhannapet Village, Warangal District in 1984 under the name and style of Mathaatheetha Sai Meditation Center. It is a Public Charitable Trust and that in appreciation of his services giving Yoga meditation with well-known tantric mode of Kundalini, land owners namely Goli Bakki Reddy and Goli Narsimha Reddy had donated, adjacent two pieces of land each admeasuring Ac.1.00 gts. at Wardhannpet in October, 1984 enabling defendant No. 2 specifically to make use of the same for his services; Goli Narsimha Reddy executed gift settlement deed on 21.04.1988 and registered the same and gift made by his brother Goli Bakki Reddy in October, 1984 is yet to be formalized and said total land of Ac.2.00 gts donated in favour of defendant No. 2 is on behalf of Public Charitable Trust. The said Charitable Trust at Wardhanpet was put on an even keel and is being carried on regularly and defendant No. 2 started another center near Bhadrakali Temple in Warangal. He also started another center in the Housing Board Colony at Hanamakonda 11 years thereafter at the request of residents of said colony.

4.1. It is also the case of plaintiffs, defendants 4 to 10 are among those who joined in the above Yoga Center and very early seemed to have realized the efficacy and potentialities of Yoga Center and earned the confidence of Trust and Defendant No. 2 and began advising him stating it is better to systemize the center's activities and organize disciples and ensure discipline in the conduct of activities and affairs of the center. In that connection, defendant No. 2 being illiterate allowed defendants 4 to 10 being highly-educated and well-placed, to do whatever they wish and signed several papers blank and typed ones, since, they said that in case of need without having to return to Warangal, they would use the papers at Hyderabad in connection with registration of center and later defendant No. 4 to 10 managed to get registered a Society i.e. 3rd defendant.

4.2. It is also the case of the plaintiffs, because of the of services of defendant No. 2, one Nallela Rama Swamy and his sister-in-law Smt. Lachamma had endowed to the Yogashram Ac.0.12 gts. of land in Survey No. 757 on the way to and in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top