Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1747 RFA No. 100005 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100005 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN:
BASHIBAN EDUCATION SOCIETY, A TRUST REGISTERED UNDER BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT AND KARNATAKA SOCIETIES ACT, BASHIBAN COMPOUND, OPP. TO BASHIBAN HIGH SCHOOL, BHENDI BAZAR, BELAGAVI-590001, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI. SAYYED MUNEERPASHA S.INAMDAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST. …APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PALLAVI S.PACHHAPURE, ADV. FOR SRI SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI. MOHAMMAD IQBAL JAINUDDIN SHABASHKHAN, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 2248/B, BHOI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. SRI. GULAM RASOOL ABDULKAREEM BAGWALE, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 2240, BHOI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. SRI. ABDULWAHEED ABDUL KARIM BAGALKOTI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 3706, BHOI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 4. SRI. NAZEER AHMED ABDUL QADAR QAZI, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: EWS 75, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1747 RFA No. 100005 of 2017
5. SRI. MAJID HUSSAIN ABDUL KARIM BAGALKOTI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 3686, DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 6. SRI. NAZIR AHMED MOHAMMAD HANIF YADAWAD, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 4362, CHAWAT GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 7. SRI. IMTIAZ PASHA AGA, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 3696/C, DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 8. SRI. JAMEEL AHMED ABDUL QADAR QAZI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 3717, DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 9. THE BASHIBAN EDUCATION SOCIETY, BASHIBAN COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590001, A TRUST REGISTERED UNDER B.P.T. ACT. 10. SRI. SYEDSHAH HUSSAINPASHA UMARPASHA BASHIBAN INAMDAR PRESIDENT, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 11. SRI. MOHAMMADGOUS ABDULKHADAR HANCHINMANI, VICE-PRESIDENT, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 12. SRI. INAM NAZIRAHMED BAGEWADI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 13. SRI. SAYYED NASIRPASHA INAMDAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 14. SRI. MOHAMMAD IQBAL MEHBOOBSAB DONI,
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1747 RFA No. 100005 of 2017
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 15. SRI. MOHAMMAD SAFI LIGADI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 16. SRI. KHURSHID HASAN NANDGADI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 17. SRI. MOHAMMADGOUS GAFARSAB PEERJADE, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 18. SRI. JAVEED MOHAMMAD ISAQ SAYED, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
19. SRI. ZAMEERUDDIN A.HANCHINMANI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 20. SRI. MOHAMMADRAFIQUE IBRAHIMSAB KHANAPURI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 21. SRI. SARFARZ HASAN AGA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: H.NO.3768, DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R2 AND R7 AND C/R8;
SRI R.M. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R12 TO R15 AND R17 TO R19;
SRI VITTHAL S.TELI, ADV. FOR R13 AND R19;
R1 AND R4 –ABATED V/O DATED 16.08.2023;
R3 AND R6-ABATED V/O DATED 04.09.2023;
NOTICE TO R9, R10, R11, R16 AND R20 ARE SERVED;
(V/O DATED 06.11.2024, NO NEED TO SUBSTITUTE LR’S OF DECEASED R5, R8, R12, R17 AND R21)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.10.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. - 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1747 RFA No. 100005 of 2017
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
This Regular First Appeal is filed by the defendant No.14 challenging the order dated 18.10.2016 passed in O.S No.4/2008 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’). 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs claiming to be the members of defendant No.1-Trust, have filed a suit for the relief of seeking mandatory injunction by directing the members of the management committee of defendant No.1-Trust, to submit audited statement of accounts for the period ending 2007-2008 by convening the General Body Meeting and to elect new management committee for a period of three years.
It is the pleading of the plaintiffs that they are the members of defendant No.1-Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The mode of succession to the administration of the
- 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1747 RFA No. 100005 of 2017
Trust is by way of election. It is the only simple claim of the plaintiffs that to convene General Body Meeting and to conduct elections. But defendants No.2 to 13 being managing committee members of defendant No.1-Trust, have not convened General Body Meeting and have not furnished audited statement of accounts for the period ending 2007-2008. Therefore, filed a suit for mandatory injunction. 4. The defendant No.1-Trust and defendants No.2 to 13 claiming to be the managing committee members have filed written statement by denying all the averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.14 later got impleaded in the suit claiming to be rival society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Defendant No.14 has filed written statement contending that the plaintiffs are not the members of Defendant No.1-Trust. Defendant No.14 denied that the defendants No.2 to 13 were elected as office bearers of defendant No.1-Trust in the election held on 26.04.1998. Defendant No.14 has taken contention in the written statement that the suit is not maintainable as it is hit by principles of res-judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’), in view of the
- 6 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1747 RFA No. 100005 of 2017
judgment and decree passed in O.S No.62/2006. Therefore, prays this Court to dismiss the suit.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issue:
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are the members of defendant No.1-Trust?
2. Whether plaintiffs prove that defendants No.2 to 13 were elected as office bearers of defendant No.1- Trust in the election held on 26.04.1998?
3. Whether plaintiffs prove that defendant No.14 and others are attempting to interfere with the day-to- day administration of defendant No.1-Trust/Society with similar name of defendant No.1?
4. Whether defendant No.14 proves that the suit of plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form?
5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought?
6. What order or decree?
Additional Issue:
Whether defendant No.14 proves that the suit is hit by principle of res-judicata u/s 11 of CPC in view of
judgment & decree passed in earlier suit OS no.62/2006?
6. In order to prove the case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and got marked documentary evidence as
- 7 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1747 RFA No. 100005 of 2017
Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. Defendant No.4 was examined as DW.1 and got marked documentary evidence as Ex.D1 to Ex.D10.
7. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record has held that the plaintiffs are the members of defendant No.1-Trust and defendant No.14 has started to cause interference with defendant No.1-Trust. Therefore the Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the defendants No.1 to 13 to submit audited statement to the plaintiffs/other members of defendant No.1-Trust for the period ending 2007-2008 by convening General Body Meeting and to elect new management committee of defendant No.1-Trust.
8. Being aggrieved by it, defendant No.14 has preferred the present appeal by raising various grounds. The
learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.14 submitted that defendants No.2 to 13 caused interference with defendant No.14-Society. It is further submitted that the suit is not maintainable under Section 98 of the CPC. Therefore submitted that the decree passed by the Trial Court is illegal and prayed this Court to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by allowing the appeal. - 8 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1747 RFA No. 100005 of 2017
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the suit is filed only for the relief of seeking direction to submit audited statement of accounts of defendant No.1-Trust for the period of 2007-2008 by convening the General Body Meeting and to elect new management committee for a period of three years. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal filed by defendant No.14. Further submitted that if any dispute regarding rival claim between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.14, that can be established in some other forum as per law by questioning defendants No.2 to 13 are not the members of Society and Trust. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No.14, is devoid of merit. Thus, prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal. 10. Heard arguments from both learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 11. The points that arise for consideration of this appeal are as under:
- 9 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1747 RFA No. 100005 of 2017
i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant No.14 proves that by virtue of mandatory injunction granted by directing defendants No.1 to 13 to furnish audited accounts is coming in the way of interference with affairs of defendant No.14- Society? ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires any inference by this Court? 12. The plaintiffs, being claiming as members of defendant No.1-Trust, have filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking direction against defendants No.1 to 13 to furnish audited statement of accounts to plaintiffs and other members of defendant No.1-Trust for the period ending 2007- 2008 by convening General Body Meeting and to elect new management committee of defendant No.1-Trust. The defendant No.14 is claiming to be rival society to defendant No.1, has stated that the defendant No.1-Trust is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
It is the case of defendant No.14/appellant that defendants No.2 to 13 are not members of defendant No.1-Trust. On the basis of decree
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1747 RFA No. 100005 of 2017
passed by the Trial Court, defendants No.2 to 13 are causing interference with the affairs of defendant No.14-Society. But the judgment and decree is to the effect that in respect of defendant No.1-Trust. There may be rival claim of existence and registration of the institutions between defendants No.1 and 14, that who are the real Trust or Society, is to be decided before the Competent Authority. Whether defendant No.1-Trust is established prior to the registration of defendant No.14 as real Trust or whether defendant No.14 is the real Society managing affairs of institution, is the question to be considered before the Competent Authority as per law. But the apprehension expressed by defendant No.14 by virtue of
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendants No.2 to 13 are causing interference with the affairs of defendant No.14 is only illusory. Whatever may be the administration of defendant No.1 in this regard, but there are two rival claims between defendant Nos.1 and 14, whether they are one and the same or different entities. But that can be established before the Competent Authority as per law. Now defendant No.14 is contending that defendant No.14 is a real Society but not the defendant No.1-Trust.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1747 RFA No. 100005 of 2017
13. In this regard, whatever may be the grievance between defendants No.1 and 14 that can be worked out before the Competent Authority. But what the plaintiffs are claiming that, they are the members of defendant No.1-Trust, are claiming audited statement of accounts from defendants No.2 to 13 as they are its managing committee members of defendant No.1-Trust. When this being the fact, in what way the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is causing interference with defendant No.14, is not convinced by the
learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.14 and in what way the judgment and decree passed by the Trial is not correct, is not demonstrated by the
learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.14.
14. The relief claimed by the plaintiff is just for mandatory injunction seeking direction against the defendants No.1 to 13 to furnish audited statement to the plaintiff and other members of defendant No.1-Trust for the period ending 2007-2008 by convening General Body Meeting and to elect new management committee of defendant No.1-Trust. Therefore, the direction issued against defendant No.1-Trust and its members of managing committee, in what way this
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1747 RFA No. 100005 of 2017
decree infringes the rights, duties and affairs of defendant No.14, is not convinced to this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.14. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed by answering points No.1 and 2 in the negative.
15. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with cost.
16. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER a) This appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. b) The judgment and decree dated 18.10.2016 passed in O.S No.4/2008 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Belagavi is hereby confirmed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE
PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15