- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13879 MFA No. 1878 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1878 OF 2021 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT VASANTHI GOPAL S SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS RAJAGOPALA.A S/O LATE ABBAYYAPPA, AGEDA BOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO.20,1ST FLOOR, MUNISWAMAPPA LANE, BEHIND DHRAMASWAMY TEMPLE, THIGALARAPET, BENGALURU – 02. 2. SMT. SHAILAJA.B.R W/O P N KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/3,II CROSS, PVN LANE, THIGALARAPET, BENGALURU – 02. 3. SMT. REKHA B.R. W/O T.V.KIRANKUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.20 II FLOOR, MUNISWAMAPPA LANE, BEHIND DHARMARAYAWAMY TEMPLE, THIGALARAPET, BENGALURU - 02. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HEGDE SHRIPAD GANGADHAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13879 MFA No. 1878 of 2021 AND: 1. KRISHNALAL M.C S/O SRI CHELARAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2. MANOHAR SINGH, S/O RANJIT SINGH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 3. RAMESH S S/O SOHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 4. MANOJ KUMAR BAFNA, S/O THAKATHRA BAFNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 5. K.NITHAYANANDA S/O KRISHNASA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, (THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE AL CARRYING BUSINESS AT NO.63, P R LANE, 3RD CROSS, S.P. ROAD, BENGALURU - 02) ARJUNDAS R GWALANI S/O LATE SR. RAMDAS GWALANI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/ATNO.4, V BLOCK, RANKA PARK LALBHAG ROAD, BENGALURU – 27. (REPORTED TO BE DEAD) 6. LALCHAND T NAGAPAL S/O TOTA RAM NAGAPAL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.8/11, MICHAEL HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, SHANTHINGAR, BENGALURU – 27 7. SATHIS KUMAR TUKERL.B S/O SRI BALARAM SOBHARAJ TUKREL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13879 MFA No. 1878 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.1/2 4TH CROSS SHANKARAPURAM, BENGALURU – 04 8. SHAMSUNDAR CHAWLA S/O KRISHNADAS CHAWLA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS PRESIDENT PUJ SINDHI PANCHAYATH NO.20 2ND CROSS, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 09. 9. VISHWANATHA SEVA BHANDAR TRUST NEW NO.119, 120, 102 AND 103 SITUATED AT 3RD CROSS SADARA PATHRAPPA ROAD BENGALURU. REP. BY THE TRUSTEES RESPONDEN NOS.6-9 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SREEDHAR N G, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO C/R3 AND C/R5 ON IA NO.1 (CP 3023/21) & R4; V/O DATED 16.01.2025, NOTICE TO R6 TO R8 D/W; SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R9) THIS MFA HAS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.3829/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 34 RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13879 MFA No. 1878 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT Defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3) have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 24.02.2021 passed on I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, thereby, allowing the application and granting an order of temporary injunction against defendant Nos.5(1) and 5(3) in O.S.No.3829/2020. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference the rank of parties is referred to as per their rankings before the trial court. 3. The plaintiffs have filed a scheme suit under Section 92 of CPC praying various reliefs. In the said suit defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3) have filed written statement. It is stated that plaintiffs are the tenants of Trust in which defendant Nos.1 to 4 are Trustees, who have sold the Trust property in favour of defendant No.5 and defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3) are the legal heirs of defendant No.5. Defendant No.6 is the Trust. Admittedly the plaintiffs are tenants under the said Trust property. The plaintiffs have - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13879 MFA No. 1878 of 2021 filed a suit under Section 92 of CPC claiming they are interested in protecting Trust property and also challenged the alienation made by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5 in regard to some of the Trust properties. 4. When this being the fact, defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3) have initiated eviction proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, against the plaintiffs herein and the said petitions were ended in a compromise and it was decreed that the tenants who were in possession have agreed to vacate the premises and also payment of rent and balance, if any. It is stated that against two tenants there is a compromise decree and remaining tenants have contested and an eviction order is passed in S.C.Nos.1968 and 1969/2016 and also in HRC Nos.99 & 100/2016. 5. The learned counsel for appellants/defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3) submitted that in a scheme suit application filed for individual relief cannot be entertained. The plaintiffs being tenants of Trust property have suffered eviction order in HRC proceedings and in small cause suit - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13879 MFA No. 1878 of 2021 as above stated and when they have suffered eviction decree, then for protecting their occupancy as tenants over the said property the plaintiffs have filed application for grant of injunction as the trial court has wrongly entertained the said applications and restrained defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3) by an order of temporary injunction, is not correct. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal. 6. In support of his arguments, he places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in VIDYODAYA TRUST v. MOHAN PRASAD R AND OTHERS1. Further submitted that in the impugned order observation made by the trial court that without due process of law the plaintiffs cannot be dispossessed, is not correct since the defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3) have already initiated the eviction proceedings and decree was passed evicting the plaintiffs, therefore due process of law is followed. Hence, prays to allow the appeal by contending that impugned order is not correct. 1 (2008) 4 SCC 115 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13879 MFA No. 1878 of 2021 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents submitted that in the scheme suit filed by the plaintiffs an application is filed to protect the properties of Trust. It is argued that the Trust is created for the benefit of Society that out of corpus acquired by the Trust 40% of the corpus fund is utilised for religious performance/activities of the temple and remaining 60% would be utilised for the benefit of persons for education, marriage, personal expenses, etc. When this being the object and purpose of Trust, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 being Trustees have illegally alienated the Trust property in favour of defendant No.5 and that is challenged in the scheme suit to protect the Trust property. Hence, plaintiffs being tenants have filed an application not to interfere with the plaintiffs’ possession by the defendants. The very purpose of filing an application is to protect properties of the Trust. 8. Further submitted that plaintiffs never admitted that defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3) are the owners of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13879 MFA No. 1878 of 2021 properties, but they are tenants under the Trust and not under defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3). Therefore, considering this the trial court has rightly granted an order of temporary injunction, which needs no interference. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Upon considering these rival submissions admittedly the plaintiffs are tenants under the Trust. Later on, defendant Nos.1 to 4 have sold the Trust property in favour of only defendant No.5 and now defendant No.5 has died and his legal heirs are defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3). Therefore, defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3) are claiming that they are owners of Trust property. Though plaintiffs have filed the scheme suit under Section 92 of CPC with an intention, object and purpose to protect the Trust property and making various reliefs in the suit, but the very purpose of filing the application by plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is protection of their occupancy as tenants. After initiation of scheme suit the defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3) herein have initiated eviction proceedings - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13879 MFA No. 1878 of 2021 and small cause suit in the proceedings above stated for eviction and the plaintiffs herein being respondents therein have suffered eviction decree. Two of the tenants have entered compromise agreeing to vacate the premises and in respect of two tenants, the suit was contested and decree was passed. As such, totally the plaintiffs have suffered eviction decree at the hands of Small Causes Court in the above said eviction proceedings and in small cause case. When this being the fact, the plaintiffs have filed an application seeking temporary injunction against defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3). Significantly it is noted that if at all the plaintiffs are interested in Trust property then they could file an application for restraining demolition of the suit property, but the very filing of applications for grant of temporary injunction is to protect their occupation on the suit property being tenants. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VIDYODAYA TRUST’s case supra, wherein at paragraph 19 it has observed as follows: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13879 MFA No. 1878 of 2021 “19. In the suit against public trusts, if on analysis of the averments contained in the plaint it transpires that the primary object behind the suit was the vindication of individual or personal rights of some persons an action under the provision does not lie. As noted in Swami Paramatmanand case [R.M. Narayana Chettiar v. N. Lakshmanan Chettiar, (1991) 1 SCC 48] a suit under Section 92 CPC is a suit of special nature, which presupposes the existence of a public trust of religious or charitable character. When the plaintiffs do not sue to vindicate the right of the public but seek a declaration of their individual or personal rights or the individual or personal rights of any other persons or persons in whom they are interested, Section 92 has no application.” 10. Further the question is, when HRC proceedings and small cause suits were filed for eviction of plaintiffs from the suit premises and plaintiffs have suffered eviction decree, then by filing an application of scheme suit for protection of their tenancy is amounting to sitting over the eviction decree and in this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NEELIMA SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF UTTAR - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13879 MFA No. 1878 of 2021 PRADESH2, wherein at paragraphs 34 and 35 it has held as follows: “34. In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 103], while dealing with an identical issue this Court held that reconsideration of the judgment of this Court which has attained finality is not normally permissible. The decision upon a question of law rendered by this Court was conclusive and would bind the Court in subsequent cases. The Court cannot sit in appeal against its own judgment. 35. In Union of India v. Major S.P. Sharma and Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 351], a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held as under: 7. (2014) 6 SCC 351: (AIR Online 2014 SC 72) “A decision rendered by a competent court cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings for the reason that if it is permitted to do so there would be “confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning”.” 11. Therefore, the observation made by the trial court in its impugned order that plaintiffs cannot be dispossessed by defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3) without due process of law, is not correct observation by the trial court 2 AIR 2021 SC 3884 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13879 MFA No. 1878 of 2021 while passing an order or temporary injunction. Here defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3) have already initiated process of law by filing eviction petition as above stated and decrees were passed against the plaintiffs and also some of the tenants have entered into compromise agreeing to vacate the premises and also consented for payment of balance rent arrears. When this being the factual scenario, observation of trial court that defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3) cannot evict the plaintiffs without due process of law is not correct, since defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3) have initiated the due process of law as above discussed. 12. There may be dispute regarding whether the plaintiffs are tenants under defendant No.6 - Trust or under defendants Nos.5(1) to 5(3), that is the contentious issue to be decided by the trial court in the scheme suit, but in the order passed in S.C.Nos.1168-1169/2016 it was held that there was relationship of owner and tenants between defendant Nos.5(1) to 5(3) and plaintiffs herein, which judgment has attained finality. If the plaintiffs are - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13879 MFA No. 1878 of 2021 aggrieved by this finding in the said order of Small Cause Court then plaintiffs could have preferred an appeal, but did not prefer an appeal, thus, said judgment attained finality. Therefore, this is one of the circumstances against the plaintiffs that plaintiffs are interested to protect their tenancy over the suit property, even the plaintiffs not only being tenants over the suit property can protect the interest of Trust, but also without being tenants can protect the suit property in the scheme suit. But, the plaintiffs have suffered eviction decree at the hands of trial court in the said HRC proceedings and small cause case. Therefore, once again filing an application for temporary injunction and grant of order of temporary injunction is sitting over the eviction decree passed in the above said circumstances, which is not permissible as per dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra. As such, the trial court has committed an error in allowing the application and granting order of temporary injunction as virtually it is amounting to sitting over as appellate jurisdiction against the eviction decree passed by the Small Causes Court. As such, in this regard, - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13879 MFA No. 1878 of 2021 impugned order passed by the trial court requires interference. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 13. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 24.02.2021 passed on I.A.No.1 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.3829/2020, is hereby set aside. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47