IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.480 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. THE PYRAMID SPIRITUAL TRUST (INDIA), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PYRAMID VALLEY, KEBBEDODDI VILLAGE, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 112, REPRESENTED BY SAI KRUPA SAGAR, MANAGING TRUSTEE.
2. SUBHASH PATRI, S/O LATE SRI VENKATA RAMANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT 2-2-1109/2, BEHIND KISHORE NURSING HOME, HYDERABAD - 560 038.
3. SHREANS DAGA, S/O PRAMOD KUMAR DAGA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.63, FREE PRESS HOUSE, 6TH FLOOR, FREE PRESS GENERAL MARG, MUMBAI - 400 021.
4. P.CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.30, RAINBOW DRIVE LAYOUT (RBD), SARJAPUR ROAD, NEW WIPRO CORPORATE OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 034.
5. KAUSHIK DAGA, S/O PRASHVA KUMAR DAGA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT FREE PRESS HOUSE, 6TH FLOOR, FREE PRESS GENERAL MARG, MUMBAI - 400 021.
6. S.K. RAJAN, S/O LATE SUBRAMANYAN, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.D-1403, MANTRI TRANQUAL, GUBBALALAGATE, DODDAKALASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 062.
7. SAI KRUPA SAGAR, S/O M.V. RAMANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.233, LAKESHORE HOMES, KASAVANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 078.
8. H.N.SRINIVASA, S/O H.N.NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT HNS BUILDING, NEAR FOOD WORLD, WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD, NARAYANAPPA GARDEN, BENGALURU - 560 066.
9. B. SHIVARAMAPPA, S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.R1, OWNERS COURT, KASAVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR AMRITH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 037.
10. SMT. SWARNAMALA PATRI, W/O SUBHASH PATRI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2-2-1109/2, BEHIND KISHORE NURSING HOME, HYDERABAD – 560 038.
11. SMT.FALGUNI SHREANS DAGA @ PINKY DAGA, W/O SHREANS DAGA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.63, FREE PRESS HOUSE, 6TH FLOOR, FREE PRESS GENERAL MARG, MUMBAI – 400 021.
12. SMT. BHARATHI PREM, W/O PREM KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3999, LAKSHMI NARAYANA COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, OPPOSITE SALIGRAMA PARTY HALL, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, HOSKEREHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 085.
13. VIJAYA SILK HOUSE PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 7/23, GRANTS BUILDING, ARTHUR BUNDER ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400 005. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ABHA GUPTA.
14. M/S AVENTIS BIOFEEDS PVT. LTD., NOW CALLED AS IMMIX TRADE PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 101, 1ST FLOOR, ASHOK TOWER, TOWER “C”, S.S. RAO ROAD, PAREL, MUMBAI - 400 012.
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY NARAYAN.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.MANMOHAN P. N., ADVOCATE) AND 1. ILURI VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O YERRIKALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT 7-347-27-16, ROAD NO.4, SIMHAPURI COLONY, KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.C-3403, BRIGADE MEADOWS, KANAKPURA ROAD, UDAYAPURA POST, BANGALORE 560 082.
2. SMT. RITA RAKINI, W/O SATISH CHANDAN MAHAJAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4, MUTYALAMMA ‘A’ STREET, BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ILURI VENKATESWARA REDDY.
3. K. MURALI MOHAN KUMAR RAJU, S/O K.V. KRISHNAM RAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.695, KUVEMPU MARGA, KAVERI NAGARA, NEAR MICROWAVE STATION, MANDYA.
4. P.S.R.K. PRASAD, S/O LATE SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT PYRAMID - VALLEY INTERNATIONAL, KEBBADODDI VILLAGE, HAROHALLI VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA ROAD, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. PIN CODE – 562 112.
5. ANJU SARAF, W/O AJAY SARAF, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT REGENCY GRANDURE, FLAT NO.B2, 2ND FLOOR, 100 FT. ROAD, 10TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, INDIRANAGAR, OPP. WATER TANK, BANGALORE.
6. K.BHEEMESH REDDY, S/O K.VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.F1-LEEWAY MANOR, 1ST CROSS, NRUPATANYA NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, JP NAGAR, PUTTENAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 078.
7. PAUL VIJAY KUMAR, S/O LATE SRI.AROGYAM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.87/682, DHYANA PRIYA BUILDING, MADHAVA NAGAR, KURNOOL 518 002, AP.
……RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2019 PASSED IN MISC. NO.55/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 92 OF CPC AND ETC.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 17.09.2019 passed in Miscellaneous No.55/2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagara, by which leave to prosecute the suit is granted under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code.
2. The petitioners herein are the respondents and respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the petitioners in Miscellaneous No.55/2019 filed under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave of the Court to prosecute the suit against the respondents. The parties to the proceedings would be referred to as they stand before the trial Court.
3. The Miscellaneous Petition under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by the petitioners seeking leave to prosecute the suit alleging the mismanagement of trust properties, misappropriation of trust funds and breach of Trust. The petition was accompanied with plaint. Petitioner No.1 claims to be associated with the Trust from its inception and petitioner No.2 claims that she is a Volunteer, who participates in the Trust activities. 1st respondent is the Trust and respondent Nos.2 to 7 are the Trustees. It is stated in the petition that respondent No.1 is a Public Charitable Trust and Tustees of respondent No.1 are meddling with the Trust properties and indulging in illegal activities. Respondent No.1 - Trust was created “by meditators, for the meditators, of the meditators” and with public as its beneficiaries. Petitioner No.1 claims that he is the Trustee and registered life member. The objective of the Trust according to the petitioners are as follows;
“Objective of the Trust shall mean any and/or all the objectives set out hereunder:
1) To construct a World-Class Anapana sati Meditation Centre.
2) To provide accommodation for meditators and visitors visiting the Meditation Centre.
3) To establish a World-Class Spiritual- Science Library.
4) To construct a Pyramid for promoting Pyramid Dhyana culture.
5) To provide a Holistic Centre and In- door Auditoriums for conferences, seminars, etc.
6) To guide people in Anapana sati Meditation, Pyramid Energy and spiritual science.
7) To develop Cosmic Consciousness amongst all.
8) To bring home the spiritual truths of Reincarnation, Law of Karma, Eternal Life, Astral Worlds, Akashic Records, Extra Sensory Powers, etc.
9) To spread the human messages of Compassion, Peace, Universal Friendship, Fearlessness, Free Thinking, etc., which are all beyond any particular religion, caste, creed or community.
10) To public and propagate Meditational Experiences & Spiritual Transformations extensively, so that the Golden New Age is established on a Global Scale in the shortest possible time.
11) To do all that is necessary and incidental for achieving the above mentioned purposes and/or objects stated in points (1) to (10) hereinabove.
It is to be noted that Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 require land to be acquired and necessary infrastructure to be built.”
4. The petitioners in their petition have alleged various types of mismanagement of the Trust by the present Trustees. Further, the petitioners have also alleged maladministration of the Trust by its Trustees and they have narrated some of the instances. The petitioners also allege financial irregularities and other illegal activities by the Trustees. Therefore, it is their case that they have sought for various relief’s including removal of the Trustees i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 7 and for appointment of new Trustees to manage the Trust.
5. Notice was issued on the Miscellaneous Petition and respondents appeared and filed their objection contending that the petition is motivated and malafide one. Petitioner No.1 was earlier trustee and he was removed from the Trust on 19.03.2018. With a malafide intention, petitioner No.1 colluded with petitioner No.2, filed the petition seeking permission to prosecute the suit. Petitioner No.2 was working as consultant and she was paid monthly honorarium. The petition seeking permission to prosecute the suit is filed with personal vengeance and nothing else. The petitioners suppressed material facts in as much as petitioner No.1 had demanded certain amount from the Trust and Trustees. Further it is stated that the petitioner No.1 admitted the fact of withdrawing money from the Trust, which he would repay. The 1st respondent Trust is a Public Trust which is carrying on several social activities and if the permission is granted to prosecute the suit, all the activities carried on by the Trust would come to stand still.
6. The trial Court considering the application and objection of the respondents, under impugned order granted permission to the petitioners to prosecute the suit.
Hence, aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1 – Trust and its Trustees are before this Court in this Revision Petition.
7. Heard Sri.Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners would submit that the Miscellaneous Petition filed seeking permission to prosecute the suit is motivated and malafide. Petitioner No.1 who claims to be Trustee was removed on 19.03.2018 and if the prayer sought in the plaint is looked into, he has sought prayer to nullify the resolutions from the year 2016, which would include the resolution removing him from Trusteeship. The petition is filed only with a personal vengeance. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that petitioner No.1 has misappropriated funds while he was managing the Trust between the year 2007 to 2009 and 2013 to 2016. Further, he submits that petitioner No.2 is not an interested person, but she claims that she was a volunteer to the activities of respondent No.1 – Trust. Learned Senior Counsel referring to Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code would submit that seeking leave to prosecute the suit shall be filed by two or more interested persons in the Trust. According to him, petitioner No.2 has no interest in the Trust. The 2nd petitioner was a professional consultant, who was paid remuneration for the services rendered by her. As such, the petition itself is not maintainable. Further learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vidyodaya Trust vs. Mohan Prasad R and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 115 and submitted that the present suit is not for vindicating public rights, but it is purely to settle private and personal dispute. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the case of the petitioners would not come within the purview of Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the trial Court has failed to consider all these aspects while passing the impugned order.
8. On hearing the learned Senior Counsel and on perusal of the materials on record, the only point which falls for consideration is;
Whether the trial Court is justified in allowing the petition filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The answer to the above point is in the Affirmative for the following reasons;
9. There is no dispute with regard to respondent No.1 – Trust being a Pubic Trust which is created for the laudable purpose and to achieve the objectives, which are stated above. The petitioner No.1 claims that he has been guiding and working for the Trust since its formation in 2003 and the respondents state that he was a Trustee earlier, who was removed on 19.03.2018. Petitioner No.2 claims that she is a volunteer who participates in the activities carried on by respondent No.1 – Trust. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows;
“92. Public charities.
(1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the [leave of the Court] may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree,-
(a) removing any trustee;
(b) appointing a new trustee;
(c) vesting any property in a trustee;
[(cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property];
(d) directing accounts and inquires;
(e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust;
(f) authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged;
(g) settling a scheme; or (h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.
(2) Save as provided by the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (20 of 1863) [or by any corresponding law in force in [the territories which, immediately before the 1st November, 1956, were comprised in Part B States], no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in sub- section (1) shall be instituted in respect of any such trust as is therein referred to except in conformity with provisions of that sub-section.
(3) The Court may alter the original purposes of an express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature and allow the property or income of such trust or any portion thereof to be applied cy pres in one or more the following circumstances, namely :-
(a) where the original purposes of the trust, in whole or in part,-
(i) have been, as far as may be, fulfilled; or (ii) cannot be carried out at all, or cannot be carried out according to the directions given in the instrument creating the trust or, where there is no such instrument, according to the spirit of the trust; or (b) where the original purposes of the trust provide a use for a part only of the property available by virtue of the trust; or (c) where the property available by virtue of the trust and other property applicable for similar purposes can be more effectively used in conjunction with, and to that end can suitably be made applicable to any other purpose, regard being had to the spirit of the trust and its applicability to common purposes; or (d) where the original purposes, in whole or in part, were laid down by reference to an area which then was, but has since ceased to be, a unit for such purposes; or (e) where the original purposes, in whole or in part, have, since they were laid down,-
(i) been adequately provided for by other means, or (ii) ceased, as being useless or harmful to the community, or (iii) ceased to be, in law, charitable, or (iv) ceased in any other way to provide a suitable and effective method of using the property available by virtue of the trust, regard being had to the spirit of the trust.”
10. A reading of the above provision would make it abundantly clear that two or more persons interested in a public trust could make an application seeking leave of the Court to institute a suit to obtain a decree in respect of the reliefs enumerated therein. In a petition under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code, the petition seeking permission shall be in respect of a Trust created for public purpose of a charitable or religious nature or administration of any such Trust. Such a petition shall be made by two or more persons having interest in the Trust for the reliefs that could be claimed under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the 1st respondent - Trust being a public Trust, created for achieving the objectives which are stated above. The materials and brochure made available along with memo dated 26.11.2019, would indicate some of the activities carried on by the Trust, which are purely public in nature. Secondly, the petition shall be by two or more persons who have interest in the Trust. The 1st petitioner claims that he is associated with the Trust from its inception and was a Trustee for some period, which is not in dispute. The 2nd petitioner claims that she participates in the activities of the Trust as volunteer and according to respondents, she was working as a consultant, which would make it clear that she is not a stranger and has interest in the activities of the Trust. At this stage, the Court normally need not examine as to whether they are removed Trustees or whether they are employees of the Trust, but it is necessary to examine as to whether petitioners have interest in the welfare and preservation of the Trust having regard to its activities. At this stage having regard to the petition averments it may not be appropriate to say that the petitioners are not interested persons. Ultimately, if it is shown after trial that the petition is filed only with personal vengeance and there is no public interest, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Finally the relief sought shall be within the ambit of Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code, which the Court could grant. The prayer sought by the petitioners among other prayers includes to frame a scheme to govern the 1st respondent Trust in order to properly manage the affairs of the Trust and to achieve the objectives of the 1st respondent Trust. Further, the petitioners have also sought prayers to remove the respondent Nos.2 to 7 from the 1st respondent – Trust and to appoint new Trustees apart from prayer to restrain the respondent Trustees from meddling with Trust properties. The prayer sought by the petitioners are within the purview of relief that could be claimed under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code. The petition contains numerous allegations of serious mismanagement of Trust properties, misappropriation of Trust funds and illegal activities on the premises. While considering the application under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code, the Court shall be satisfied from the petition averments that there are materials to grant leave to institute the suit and prosecute the same. At this stage neither the Court is required to hold a mini trial nor enquiry with regard to the relief sought in the petition. From the averments of the petition as well as from the objections, the Court has to find out the necessity for granting leave to prosecute the suit. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in the case of Swami Paramatmanand Saraswati and another vs. Ramji Tripathi and another reported in (1974) 2 SCC 695 at para Nos.10 and 11 has held as follows;
“10. A suit under Section 92 is a suit of a special nature which presupposes the existence of a Public Trust of a religious or charitable character. Such a suit can proceed only on the allegation that there was a breach of such trust or that the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of the trust and the plaintiff must pray for one or more of the reliefs that are mentioned in the section. It is, therefore, clear that if the allegation of breach of trust is not substantiated or that the plaintiff had not made out a case for any direction by the Court for proper administration of the trust, the very foundation of a suit under the section would fail; and, even if all the other ingredients of a suit under Section 92 are made out, if it is clear that the plaintiffs are not suing to vindicate the right of the public but are seeking a declaration of their individual or personal rights or the individual or personal rights of any other person or persons in whom they are interested, then the suit would be outside the scope of Section 92 (see N. Shanmukham Chetty v. V.M.Govinda Chetty, Tirumalai Devasthanams v. Udaiavar Krishnayya Shanbhaga, Sugra Bibi v. Hazi Kummu Mia and Mulla : Civil Procedure Code (13th edn.) Vol. 1, p. 400). A suit whose primary object or purpose is to remedy the infringement of an individual right or to vindicate a private right does not fall under the section. It is not every suit claiming the reliefs specified in the section that can be brought under the section but only the suits which, besides claiming any of the reliefs, are brought by individuals as representatives of the public for vindication of public rights, and in deciding whether a suit falls within Section 92 the Court must go beyond the reliefs and have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiffs are suing and to the purpose for which the suit was brought. This is the reason why trustees of public trust of a religious nature are precluded from suing under the section to vindicate their individual or personal rights. It is quite immaterial whether the trustees pray for declaration of their personal rights or deny the personal rights of one or more defendants. When the right to the office of a trustee is asserted or denied and relief asked for on that basis, the suit falls outside Section 92.
11. We see no reason why the same principle should not apply, if what the plaintiffs seek to vindicate here is the individual or personal right of Krishnabodhashram to be installed as Shankaracharya of the Math. Where two or more persons interested in a Trust bring a suit purporting to be under Section 92, the question whether the suit is to vindicate the personal or individual right of a third person or to assert the right of the public must be decided after taking into account the dominant purpose of the suit in the light of the allegations in the plaint. If, on the allegations in the plaint, it is clear that the purpose of the suit was to vindicate the individual right of Krishnabodhashram to be the Shankaracharya, there is no reason to hold that the suit was brought to uphold the right of the beneficiaries of the Trust, merely because the suit was filed by two or more members of the public after obtaining the sanction of the Advocate General and claiming one or more of the reliefs specified in the section. There is no reason to think that whenever a suit is brought by two or more persons under Section 92, the suit is to vindicate the right of the public. As we said, it is the object or the purpose of the suit and not the reliefs that should decide whether it is one for vindicating the right of the public or the individual right of the plaintiffs or third persons.”
11. A reading of the above decision would disclose that while deciding the petition under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code, the petition averments shall be looked into and the Court shall examine as to the petition is for vindicating pubic right or individual/private right. The learned District Judge on careful scrutiny of the petition averments and the objections filed on behalf of the respondents, with reference to the materials on record has come to the conclusion that it is a case for granting permission under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code to prosecute the suit against the 1st respondent – Trust and its Trustees. Further, it is of the opinion that relief sought by the petitioners relate to the welfare of the Trust, protection and preservation of Trust properties. A careful perusal of the order passed by the learned District Judge, would disclose the consideration made with reference prayer made by the petitioners and objection raised by the respondents. During the course of this order, I feel it is unnecessary to refer to the petition allegation and the objections raised by the respondents. It is found from the petition averments, the petitioners are vindicating the rights of the public and for protection and welfare of the Trust property. Mere granting of permission under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code would not mean that the petitioners are entitled for the relief as sought in the suit. Ultimately, on the basis of the evidence and materials on record, if the petitioners fail to substantiate their allegations and if the Court finds that the Suit is filed to vindicate the personal or individual right, then the suit is liable to be dismissed.
12. This is a revision petition under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code and the jurisdiction of this Court is very limited. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the impugned order. Thus, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NBM