- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19134 RSA No. 1150 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1150 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. P. DODDASIDDAIAH S/O LATE PUTTANNA AGED AOBUT 78 YEARS R/O KOLATHALU VILLAGE KORATAGERE TLAUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129. 2. R. RAJANNA S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O SIDDANABETTA KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION MADHUGIRI TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19134 RSA No. 1150 of 2022 3. THE TAHSILDAR KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129. 4. MUZARAI TAHSILDAR TUMAKURU DISTRICT D C OFFICE TUMAKURU-572 101. 5. G.D. VEERAMALLAIAH S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS GOWJUGALLU VILLAGE KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129. 6. PAARU PATTEDAR SRI SIDDESWARASWAMY TEMPLE SIDDARABETTA, NEGALALA POST KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.02.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.34/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2019 PASSED ON IA IN O.S.NO.113/2019 ON TH FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KORATAGERE ALLOWING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19134 RSA No. 1150 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2022 for condonation of delay of 33 days in filing the appeal. Before issuing notice on delay, this Court has considered the matter regarding the findings of the Trial Court, since the Trial Court has entertained an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, when the appeal was filed by the defendants to reject the plaint as barred by law under Section 68 of Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Acts, having no jurisdiction to try the subject matter of above suit. 2. In support of this application, it is stated in the affidavit accompanying the application that plaintiffs are running Dasoha Samithi under the name of Siddeshwara Swamiji of Siddarabetta voluntarily from 1988, which is not permissible under the law. It is stated that under Section 69(b) of Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable endowments Act (‘the Act’ for short), such Samithi or development institution are not permissible without registration by the competent authority. The Seva Samithi which is alleged by the plaintiffs is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19134 RSA No. 1150 of 2022 said to have been registered in S.O.C.No.132/1988-89 dated 31.08.1988 which is in fact not tenable under law. There is a rule that Sangha, Samithi or Trust shall not be registered which are coming under the notified institutions as per the Act. It is stated in the plaint that plaintiff Samithi has kept Rs.30,00,000/- in fixed deposit which is also not permissible under Section 69(c) of the Act. It is also stated that audit will be held in Samithi, but the veracity of such statement will have to be verified. Further plaintiffs have not disclosed for what purpose the property was leased to them from the Zilla Panchayath. If the Zilla Panchayath has leased the property in favour of Samithi for Dasoha purpose, that is not proper under law. The alleged constructions made by the plaintiffs Samithi in the suit schedule property out of the income all are illegal constructions and they will have to be taken possession in favour of Government. Before conducting any function etc, the Samithi has not taken any prior permission. Further, plaintiffs stated that in the plaint that the Hundi maintained by Samithi and the Hundi of Temple are two different properties and by the Hundi maintained by Samithi, no harm or injury will be caused to the temple, but as per the Act, no organization, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19134 RSA No. 1150 of 2022 individual or Seva Samithi can collect fund or donation of any purpose in the name of notified institutions or declared institutions, unless it is sanctioned by the prescribed authority. Therefore, any amount collected by the Samithi is illegal. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 3. Having filed the said application, objections are also filed contending that the very grounds which have been urged in the application cannot be considered. It is contended that defendants have conducted illegal activities in the temple and they have colluded to take over the income of the Samithi, so that income of the temple will be increased. Therefore, the application filed by them is not maintainable. It is also contended that Section 68 is not applicable to the relief's claimed under Section 26 of Specific Relief Act and contend that the very application is filed with an intention to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. 4. The Trial Court having considered the averments made in the plaint as well as the grounds which are urged in the application, formulated the point whether the plaint is barred by law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19134 RSA No. 1150 of 2022 5. The Trial Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the applications and also the law, extracted Section 68 and so also Section 69-B of the Act regarding bar of jurisdiction as well as collecting of such amount by formulating any Committee and also taken note of Section 69-B that no individual, organization, seva samithi or development committee registered or not shall be entitled to collect seva fund or donation for any purpose in the name of notified institutions or declared institutions, unless it is sanctioned by the prescribed authority. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that dispute raised by the plaintiffs directly goes to collection of funds for the purpose of Dasoha which is purely the subject matter under the Act. Without deciding the same, point of permanent injunction cannot be considered. It is further held that if the question do not fall under those category, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred was not accepted and also taking note of Section 69-B of the Act held that inquiry under Section 69-B will have to be conducted by the officer appointed under the Act and he has to decide or deal with such question. The plaintiffs also - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19134 RSA No. 1150 of 2022 relied upon the judgment of this Court in M.F.A.NO.7470/2018 in DR. M. SUNIL HEGDE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS and the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case, since there is a clear bar under Sections 68 and 69-B of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.34/2020. The First Appellate Court also having considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo as well as the contention of the parties, formulated the point whether the suit is barred under Section 68 of Karnataka Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and whether the judgment of the Trial Court requires interference at the hands of this Court. Having reassessed the material on record, including the grounds urged and also Sections 68 and 69-B of the Act, reconsidered the material on record and taken note of the pleadings of the very plaintiffs that Committee have maintained separate 3 hundies at Dasoha premises to collect funds for the Dasoha and it has maintained proper accounts. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19134 RSA No. 1150 of 2022 When once the plaint averments itself reveal that the Committee is collecting funds and kept 3 separate hundies for collection of the funds, it is clear that this suit is barred by provisions of Section 68 of the Act and further taken note of Section 69-B of the Act that the Committee or Samithi shall not be entitled to collect seva fund or donation for any purpose in the name of notified institutions. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants also not disputes the fact that this institution is notified institution. When there is no dispute with regard to the said fact even for formation of any Committee and the very contention that they have formed Committee and collecting funds for Dasoha and the same is not permissible under law. The Trial Court while dealing with application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC comes to definite conclusion that the dispute raised by the plaintiffs directly goes to collection of funds which is purely a subject matter of the Act. Having taken note of Sections 68 and 69-B of the Act, there is a clear bar that no individual, organization, seva samithi or development committee registered or not shall be entitled to collect seva fund or donation for any purpose in the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19134 RSA No. 1150 of 2022 name of notified institutions or declared institutions unless it is sanctioned by the prescribed authority. When the proviso is very clear and the appellants are individual persons, who have filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents/State and when such relief is sought and suit itself is not maintainable, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The First Appellate Court also having considered proviso to Sections 68 and 69-B of the Act, rightly comes to the conclusion that the very contention of learned counsel for the appellants that this Court has to frame substantial question of law that both the Courts committed an error in rejecting the plaint only looking into the affidavit filed in support of the application and not based on the plaint averments cannot be accepted and while dealing with the application, it is settled law that Court has to look into the plaint averments and both the Courts have taken note of very averments of plaint. When such reasoning is given by the Trial Court considering the plaint averments and the First Appellate Court also taken note of the same while answering point No.1, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and the contention of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19134 RSA No. 1150 of 2022 the learned counsel for the appellants that only considered the averments of the application cannot be accepted. Hence, no grounds are made out to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. 8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29