- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100193 OF 2014 (-) BETWEEN: 1. ASHOK SHRIMANDHAR PATIL S/O. SHRIMANDHAR, AGE 59 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, 2. ASHOK TATOBA KANGALE @ KANAGALE S/O. TATOBA, AGE 63 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 3. RAJAGOUDA SATYAGOUDA BHABAGOUDA PATIL, S/O. BHABAGOUDA AGE 65 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, 4. SHRIPAL ANNAPPA KAMAGOUDA S/O ANNAPPA, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 5. SURENDRA TATYA KUMBHOJE S/O. TATYA, AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 6. APPASAHEB RAMACHANDRA MAHAJAN S/O. RAMACHANDRA, AGE 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 7. APPASAHEB TAVANAPPA MAHAJAN SINCE DECEASED 8. ANNASAB ADAGOUDA HUVANNAVAR @ PATIL SINCE DECEASED MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.01 11:21:13 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 9. APPASAB BHARAMU GOURAJ S/O. BHARAMU, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 10. APPU BALAPPA MUKARE S/O. BALAPPA, AGE. 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 11. DHARAMU B KALEMANI SINCE DECEASED ALL ARE R/O: KOTHALLI TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BALAGOUDA A.PATIL, ADV FOR A2 TO A5, A9 & A10; A1- ASHOK A. PATIL, A6- APPASAHEB R. MAHAJAN; A7, A8 & A11 ARE DECEASED;) AND: 1. NEMINATH MALLAPPA ROTE S/O. MALLAPPA, MAJOR, R/O : NEAR GOKUL HOTEL, SHAHAPURI STATION ROAD, KOLHAPUR, STATE MAHARASHTRA. 2. BABU RAO GANGARAM VANAKUDRE S/O. GANGARAM, AGE: MAJOR, R/O : ADAT DUKAN SHAHAPURI, KOLHAPUR, STATE MAHARASHTRA. 3. PRATIBA W/O BALAGOUDA PATIL AGE 82 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O : BEDAKIHAL TALUK CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. PRASHANT S/O BALAGOUD PATIL AGE 59 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, 5. PRADYUMNA S/O BALAGOUDA PATIL AGE 57 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, RESPONDENT NO.4 & 5 ARE R/O: BEDAKIHAL, CHIKODI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 6. SUSHILA W/O DHANPAL KHOT AGE. 77 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, 7. JIVENDRA DHANPAL KOT, S/O. DHANPAL AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 8. KIRAN DHANAPAL KHOT, S/O DHANAPAL AGE 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 8 ARE R/O : SHAMANEWADI, CHIKKODI TALUK, BELAGAVI DIST. 9. KANCHAN W/O DEVENDRA KHOT AGE. 82 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O : KUPPANWAI, CHIKKODI TALUK, DIST BELAGAVI. 10. PAYAGOUDA DEVENDRA KHOT S/O. DEVENDAR, AGE 62 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : KUPPANWADI, CHIKKODI TALUK, DIST. BELAGAVI. 11. ANITHA D/O DEVENDRA KHOT AGED 55 YEARS, R/O. KUPPANWADI CHIKKODI TALUK, DIST. BELAGAVI. 12. PASAGOUDA BALAGOUDOA PATIL AGE MAJOR, R/O : BEDAKIHAL, CHIKODI TALUK, BELAGAVI DIST. 13. CHOUGOUDA BALAGOUDA PATIL S/O. BALAGOUDA, AGE MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: SADALGA TALUK, CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 14. ABHAYA KUMAR PURANDAR KHOT S/O. PURANDAR, AGE. R/O. SADALGA, CHIKKODI TALUK, DIST. BELAGAVI. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 15. KUMAR NIKHIL SURESH PATIL S/O. NIKHIL, AGE MAJOR, 16. SURESH ADAGOUDA PATIL S/O. ADAGOUDA, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 17. 18. KUMARI KOUSHALYA SURESH PATIL MAJOR, RESPONDENT NOS.13 TO 16 ARE R/O: INDIRANIVAS, UDAY COLONY NEMINATH NAGAR, DHAMANE ROAD, SANGLI, MAHARASTRA. THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M PATIL, ADV FOR R3 TO R6, R8 TO R14, SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADV FOR R15 TO R17, SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP, FOR R18, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED; R2 & R7 ARE ABATED) THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED:28.07.2014, PASSED IN OS.NO.1/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS, JUDGE, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR REMOVAL OF TRUSTEES. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2014 passed in O.S.No.1/1997 by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this regular first appeal, are as follows: 4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that there is a Public Trust by name “Shri 108 Acharyaratna Deshbhushan Digamber Jain Shantigiri Trust”, Kothali- Kuppanwadi, Taluk Chikkodi, District Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trust’ for short). Plaintiff No.1 is a trustee of the said Trust. Plaintiff Nos.2 to 15 are the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 Devotees/Beneficiaries of the above Trust, and they are vitally interested in the welfare and development of the Trust. It is contended that the objects of the Trust are religious and charitable in nature, mainly, aiming at achieving development, maintenance of the Trust properties and its funds utilizing to attain the religious and charitable objects as mentioned in Rule 5 of the Bye-laws of the Trust. Defendant Nos.1 to 9 are claiming as the trustees of the Trust have never worked either for development of the Trust or for achieving the objects of the Trust aimed to achieve, as dreamed by the found er Muni, and at no point of time, the defendants regarded nor followed or acted in accordance with the directions of the founder Muni, or as per the bye-laws of the Trust, and unauthorizedly continued as trustees of the above Trust. It is contended that the General Body Members of the Trust have to elect the Managing Trustees of the Trust once in three years, but since the inception of the Trust, no General Body Meeting has been called for to elect the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 Managing Trustees. Furthermore, the total number of General Body Members is now reduced to 10. Originally the General Body Members were only 13 in number, who were the first batch of Trustees, and out of them, three Trustees are dead. It is contended that defendant Nos.1 to 9, who claims to be trustees, are not maintaining the accounts of the Trust properly and regularly. Despite the repeated demands and warning given by plaintiff No.1, defendants are concocting the bogus accounts by showing a meagre amount as income of the Trust and the major income of the Trust is being misappropriated by defendant Nos.1 to 9. It is also contended that plaintiff No.1 and other devotees/disciples of founder Muni are insisting for taking action against the persons/culprits who are responsible for destruction of ‘Charan Kamal’ (Paduka) of founder Muni, defendant Nos.1 to 9 have not taken any action, which shows the guilty consciousness of defendant Nos.1 to 9. As such, they have become not only disqualified, but also acting against the interest of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 Trust, its object and against the directions and advice of the founder Muni. It is contended that the acts of the defendants were exposed in a daily newspaper on 21.05.1990, and under the moral pressure of the plaintiffs and others in that regard, defendant Nos.1 to 9 have filed two change reports, one for movable and the other for immovable properties. It is contended that while doing so, the defendants withheld the Trust lands bearing R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3, fixed deposits to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- and other funds collected regularly with an oblique motive of misappropriating the same. It is contended that R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3 are disposed of in favour of defendant Nos.13 to 15 for consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- and the said amount was received by defendant Nos.1 to 9. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 got issued legal notice to defendant Nos.1 to 9, for which, an evasive reply in common was given by going to the extent of alleging that plaintiff No.1 is not the Trustee of the Trust. It is contended that meeting notice was again sent - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 to plaintiff No.1 calling upon him to attend the meeting as Trustee on 30.09.1995, wherein defendant Nos.1 to 9 have confessed all their misdeeds and expressed their readiness to deposit Rs.7,56,000/- instead of Rs.30,00,000/- as the sale consideration of the Trust lands disposed off, which was refused by plaintiff No.1 and others. When the plaintiffs and other beneficiaries started questioning about the misdeeds of defendant Nos.1 to 9, they instead of replying properly started deploying police, so as to discourage the plaintiffs and others from putting such queries. Hence, plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for removal of defendant Nos.1 to 9 from the Trusteeship, and appointing new Trustees in their place. 5. Defendant No.8(b) filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is false, frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed. It is claimed that the plaintiffs have come up with a concocted story, with baseless allegations against the defendants. The Trust in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 question is a Public Trust, and plaintiff No.1 is the Trustee of the Trust. Plaintiff Nos.2 to 15 are the devotees/beneficiaries of the Trust. It is denied that plaintiff Nos.2 to 15 are the disciples of the late Shri 108 Acharyaratna Deshbhushan Maharaj, who was the founder of the above Trust. It is contended that during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.1, i.e., Trustee, passed away himself died, and the suit does not survive for consideration,, and the devotees cannot proceed with the matter. It is denied that the defendants have not called a general body meeting since from the inception of the Trust. It is denied that defendant Nos.1 to 9 have misappropriated the income of the Trust, and also denied that the movable and immovable properties of the Trust are entered in the RTC extracts of the Trust. It is contended that defendant Nos.6 to 8 got entered their names and defendant Nos.10 to 12 to the land bearing R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3. It is contended that the said lands are self-acquired properties of defendant No.8 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 and other defendants, i.e., defendant Nos.6 to 8, and 10 to 12, and it has got no nexus with the Trust properties. It is contended that plaintiff No.1 in collusion with the media/journalists has published false news against defendant Nos.1 to 9, and tarnished the image of the defendants, so that plaintiff No.1 can charge over the Trust and seize the Trust properties. It is also denied that defendant Nos.1 to 9 got filed the changed reports for movables and immovable properties of the Trust. It is contended that plaintiff No.1 issued legal notice to defendant Nos.1 to 9 and they have already gave a reply to the legal notices. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 6. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and additional issues as follows: 1) Whether defendants prove that this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act? Or In the alternative, whether defendants prove that it is only the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belagaum, has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised by the plaintiffs? - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 2) Whether defendants prove that plaintiffs No.2 to 15 have no locus standi to bring the suit? 3) Whether plaintiffs prove that defendants No.1 to 9 have acted contract to the interest of Shri. 108 Acharyaratna Deshbhushan Digambar Jain Shantigir Trust and its properties? 4) Whether plaintiffs prove that defendants No.1 to 9 are liable to be removed as trustees of Shri. 108 Acharyaratna Deshbhushan Digambar Jain Shantigir Trust? If so, who are to be appointed as new trustees for administration of the said trust and its properties? 5) Whether plaintiffs prove that lands bearing Sy.No.264/1, 264/2, and 264/3 of Savadi village are trust properties and the sales effected in respect of these properties are void and not binding the trust? 6) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? 7) Whether defendants No.13 to 15 prove that they are the bonafide purchasers for value of Sy.No.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3 of Savadi village and as such their sales are valid and binding? 8) To what reliefs the parties are entitled to? 9) What decree or order? 7. To substantiate their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as P.W.1 and marked 41 documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P41. In rebuttal, defendant No.9 examined as D.W.1 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 and examined three witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 4 and marked 36 documents as Ex.D1 to D36. 8. The trial court, after hearing both side and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 6 and 8 in the negative, issue No.7 in the affirmative and issue No.9 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2014. 9. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.1/1997 filed this Regular First Appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, learned HCGP, and the learned counsel for defendants. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that plaintiff No.1 was the Trustee of the Trust. He submits that defendant Nos.1 to 9 have not conducted the General Body Meetings since the inception of the Trust, and there is misappropriation of the funds of the Trust. He submits - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 that the lands bearing R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3 are the Trust properties. He submits that the defendants have sold the R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3 to defendant Nos.13 to 15. Hence, they are acting against the interest of the Trust. Plaintiff No.1 got issued legal notices to defendant Nos.1 to 9, bringing to their notice regarding illegal acts against the Trust. The defendants have not properly replied to the legal notices issued by plaintiff No.1. He submits that the trial court committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. The judgment and the decree passed by the trial court, is perverse, arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 9 submits that defendant Nos.1 to 9 have conducted General Body Meetings, since the inception and they have never acted against the interest of the Trust. He submits that the land bearing R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3 were owned and possessed by defendant Nos.6 to 8 and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 the said properties do not belong to the Trust. Defendant Nos.6 to 8 have sold property bearing R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3 to defendant Nos.13 to 15. He also submits that based on Exs.P7 to P9, the Trust has not acquired any title over R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3, as per the explanation to Section 54 of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). He submits that P.W.1 has admitted in his cross- examination that defendant Nos.1 to 9 have not acted against the interest of the Trust. He submits that the trial court, considering the admission of P.W.1 in the cross- examination, has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Learned HCGP supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 14. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.13 to 15 submits that R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3 were owned and possessed by defendant Nos.6 to 8 and they are the absolute owners of the said properties. Defendant Nos.13 to 15, after verifying the records have purchased the said properties, and they are the bonafide purchasers for value without notice. He submits that based on the agreement of sale, the Trust will not get any right, as per the explanation to Section 54 of the Act. He also submits that the agreement of sale, i.e., Exs.P7 to P9 were executed in 1986, and the Trust has not filed any suit for the specific performance of the contract. He submits that the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 15. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 16. The points, that would arise for my consideration, are as follows ; - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant Nos.1 to 9 have acted against the interest of the Trust and its properties? 2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3 were the properties of the Trust? 3) Whether defendant Nos.13 to 15 prove that they are bonafide purchasers for value without notice? 4) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the judgment and the decree passed by the trial court is perverse, arbitrary and erroneous? 5) What order or decree? 17. Point Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked to each other, hence, they are taken up together for discussion, to avoid repetition of the facts. Point No.1 and 2. 18. There is no dispute regarding the existence of the Trust, i.e., “Shri 108 Acharyaratna Deshbhushan Digamber Jain Shantigiri Trust”, and plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos.1 to 9 are its Trustees. It is the case of the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 plaintiffs that defendant Nos.1 to 9 have not conducted any General Body Meetings since their inception. It is also contended that they are acting against the interests of the Trust. It is claimed that R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3 are the Trust properties and defendant Nos.6 to 8 have sold the said properties in favour of defendant Nos.13 to 15. Further, submits that the sale consideration amount received by defendant Nos.6 to 8 is not deposited in the Trust account, and they have misappropriated the sale consideration amount. It is also contended that defendant Nos.6 to 8 have no right to sell the said lands in favour of defendant Nos.13 to 15. To substantiate their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as P.W.1. He reiterated the plaint averments in his examination-in-chief. To prove that the Trust owned properties, plaintiffs produced the documents. Ex.P1 is the Register of Public Trust, Schedule-1, which discloses that the said Trust was registered under the Bombay Public Trust, 1950 on 13.06.1977. Ex.P2 is the RTC extract of Public Trust, which - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 discloses the names of the then trustees. Ex.P3 is the bye- laws of the Trust. Exs.P4 and P5 are the certified copies of the record of rights about R.S.No.265/1 and 2, and at column No.9, the name of the Trust is shown. Ex.P6 is the application under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Exs.P7 to P9 are the agreements of sale executed by defendant Nos.1 to 6 in favour of the Trust. Exs.P10 to P12 are the certified copies of the record of rights of R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3. Exs.P13, 17 and 21 are the certified copies of the sale deed. Exs.P14, 15, 18, 19, 22 and 23 are the mutation entries. Ex.P25 is the certified copy of the order sheet in Misc.case No.27/1990. Ex.P26 is the copy of the application. Ex.P27 is the certified copy of the order sheet in MAG.CR.61/91-92. Ex.P28 is the certified copy of the panchanama. Ex.P29 is the legal notice. Ex.P30 is the postal receipts. Ex.P31 is the under posting certificate. Exs.P32 to P38 are the postal acknowledgements. Ex.P39 is a copy of the reply given by the defendants. Ex.P40 is the change report submitted by - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 the defendants. Ex.P41 is the changed report for amending the bye-laws. 19. During the cross-examination, P.W.1 admits that, as per Ex.P6, defendant Nos.1 to 9 have made application to enter the names of the immovable properties in the register, before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belagavi, and P.W.1 and plaintiff No.1 have filed an objection to Ex.P6. It is also admitted that Trust properties are not entered in the register with the concerned office. It is also admitted that as per the bye- laws, the election of the Managing Committee of the Trust has to be convened every three years. It is elicited that he has filed a petition along with Baburao Kage, and others against defendant Nos.1 to 9 (trustees) before the Assistant Charity Commissioner as per Ex.P26. It was suggested to P.W.1 that R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3 are not concerned with the Trust properties, and the Assistant Charity Commissioner has submitted a report. The said suggestion was denied by P.W.1 and he did not - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 make any enquiry regarding misappropriation of Rs.14,00,000/- of the Trust fund, since he did not have any knowledge regarding such deposits in the bank. He pleads ignorance whether the said amount is kept in the bank in the name of the Trust and now it is worth Rs.22,00,000/-. It is elicited that he is not the trustee. R.S.Nos.265/1 and 265/2 were purchased in the name of the Trust, but it was a jirayat land. It is admitted that these lands are in the custody of the Trust from the time of Maharaj. He pleads ignorance whether there was 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi, between the trustee and Vardatt Maharaj. He do not know whether the Assistant Commissioner passed the order holding possession of the Trust on the above mentioned land. He denied that defendant Nos.6 to 8 were the owners of the land bearing R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3 and the said lands were sold to defendant Nos.13 to 15 for valuable consideration. It is true to say that in 1997, the report of the auditor made a mention of - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 Rs.14,00,000/- being in the Druva fund in the name of the Trust. It is true that among the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 only was the trustee of the Trust and he is no more. During the cross-examination by the learned counsel for defendant Nos.13 to 15, wherein it was suggested that defendant Nos.6 to 8 have delivered the possession of R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3. Further, plaintiff No.1 also admitted that it is for the Trust to appoint the trustees, and the funds received from devotees and donations, as well as the interest, which were being deposited into the bank. He also admits that idols and other materials were being kept intact after the death of the original Acharyarathna Deshbhushan Digambar Jain Swamiji, and defendant Nos.1 to 9 have admittedly got granted the funds and have constructed the hospital. Defendant Nos.1 to 9 have made an application to enter the names of the immovable properties in the register before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belagavi. He also admitted that every year the Chartered Accountant of - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 Chikodi audited the accounts of the Trust and prepared the audited balance sheet of the Trust, and the audited reports have been placed before the Management Committee. The plaintiffs have not made any attempt to enter the name of the Trust about R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3. 20. From the perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is clear that defendant Nos.1 to 9 have not acted against the interest of the Trust and its properties, as P.W.1 himself has admitted that defendant Nos.1 to 9 have deposited Rs.14,00,000/- in the Trust account. Further, the said account was audited every year, and the audit report was placed before the Managing Committee. The plaintiffs have not made any attempt to enter the name of the Trust insofar as lands bearing R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3. This very admission of P.W.1, makes it clear that defendant Nos.1 to 9 have not acted against the interest of the Trust, at any point in time. The plaintiffs have filed a false suit by making false allegations against defendant Nos.1 to 9. Plaintiffs have not produced a single - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 piece of paper to show that the lands bearing R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3 are owned and possessed by the Trust. The plaintiffs have produced the agreements of sale marked as Exs.P7 to P9. The said agreements were executed in 1986. Neither the Trust nor the trustees have filed a suit for the specific performance of the contract to enforce Exs.P7 to P9. Mere execution of the agreements of sale, the Trust will not get any right, as per the explanation in Section 54 of the Act. Admittedly, no sale deeds were executed regarding R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3 in favour of the Trust. The said properties are not the Trust properties. Further, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that defendant Nos.1 to 9 have acted against the interest of the Trust and misappropriated the funds of the Trust. Thus, the trial court was justified in answering issue No.3 in the negative. I concur with the finding recorded by the trial court on issue No.3. I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial court on issue No.3. In view - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 of the above discussion, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. Point No.3. 21. Defendant Nos.6 to 8 have executed agreements of sale as per Exs.P7 to P9 in favour of the Trust in 1986, no steps were taken by the Trust to enforce Exs.P7 to P9 for more than 11 years. Even the trustees have not filed a suit for the specific performance of the contract after the expiry of 10 years. Defendant Nos.13 to 15, after verifying the records have purchased R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3 under the registered sale deeds in 1990 as per Exs.P13, 17 and 21. The plaintiffs have not resisted the sale deeds executed by defendant Nos.6 to 8 in favour of defendant Nos.13 to 15. Thus, defendant Nos.6 to 8 have complied with the requirement of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, and defendant Nos.13 to 15 are the bonafide purchasers for the value without notice, regarding R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 and 264/3. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.3 in the affirmative. Point No.4. 22. The trial court, after considering the admission of P.W.1, has held that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that defendant Nos.1 to 9 have acted against the interest of the Trust and sold R.S.Nos.264/1, 264/2 and 264/3 in favour of defendant Nos.13 to 15. The trial court also held that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that defendant No.1 to 9 have misappropriated the funds of the Trust and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. As per the above discussion, the judgment passed by the trial court is just and proper and do not find any error in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Accordingly, I answer point No.4 in the negative. Point No.5. 23. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following; - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9977 RFA No. 100193 of 2014 ORDER i) The Regular First Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 28.07.2014 passed in O.S.No.1/1997 by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is hereby confirmed. No order as to the cost. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending I.A’s, if any, do not survive for consideration, and accordingly, disposed of. SD/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2