- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 637 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI S.K.SHIVARAM S/O LATE SHRI S.KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 2. SHRI S.H.MARUTHI S/O LATE SHRI S.HANUMANTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 3. SHRI S.H.NARAYANA S/O LATE SHRI S.HANUMANTHA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS ALL ARE AT C/O SREE MARUTHI SILKS NO.167, 1ST CROSS, KILARI ROAD BENGLAURU-560 053. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KESHAVA REDDY .M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHREE PATTABHIRAMACHANDRA TEMPLE TRUST (REGD) NO.50, BBMP WARD NO.28 HURIOPET MAIN ROAD BVK IYENGAR ROAD CROSS BENGLAURU-560 053. REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 SHRI BASAPPA AND S.G.SOMASHEKAR 2. SHRI. BASAPPA PRESIDENT S/O LATE SHRI SARODE VISHWANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.12, 7TH MAIN ROAD 21ST CROSS, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, N.S.PALYA BEELEKAHALLI BENGLAURU-560 103. 3. SHRI S.G.SOMESHEKAR SECRETARY S/O LATE SHRI S.GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.7, HURIOPET 2ND CROSS BVK IYENGAR ROAD CROSS BENGLAURU-560 053. ALSO NOW R/AT NO.218 4TH CROSS, GNANABHARATHI 1ST BLOCK BDA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 056. 4. SHRI M.H.NARAYANA S/O LAT SHRI M.G. CHIKKASHANUMANTHA RAO AGED 51 YEARS R/AT NO.12, 3RD FLOOR COCONUT GARDEN OLD BANK COLONY, KONANAKUNTE BENGLAURU-560 062. 5. SHRI V.KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE SHRI VENKATAPPA AGED 81 YEARS R/AT NO.42, 2ND MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS, KIRLOSKAR COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGLAURU-560 079. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 6. SHRI S.V.SATHYANARAYAN S/O LATE SHRI S.VITTOBARAO AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.K-83/10, 1ST FLOOR 4TH CROSS, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA BENGLAURU-560 021. 7. SMT. S.G.ANURADHA W/O HARIKUMAR D/O LATE SHRI S.GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.30/1, 7TH CROSS NEAR LAKSHMIJAYATH SCHOOL LAKSHMINARAYANAPURAM SREERAMAPURA BENGLURU-560 021. 8. SHRI S.SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE SHRI S.VISHWANATHAPPA AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.OLD NO.32/1 NEW NO.88, CHOWLAGALLI SIDDANNALANE CROSS JIMMA MASJID ROAD CROSS BENGLAURU-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY .V, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2022 PASSED IN OS No.1445/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE HOLDING C/c OF XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree rendered by the Court below in O.S.No.1445/2019, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking injunction simpliciter is decreed and defendants are restrained from causing interference pertaining to schedule 'A' property and are further restrained from causing obstruction to the construction work undertaken by the plaintiffs in schedule 'B' property. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The suit schedule properties are stated to be owned by Shri Pattabhiramachandraswamy Temple/ Sri Kodandaramaswamy Temple situated at No.50, Ward No.28. The plaintiffs contend that earlier there existed a small temple where their ancestors were performing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 pooja. It is asserted that one Dodda Yellappa, S/o Ananthappa, gifted property bearing old No.145, new No.150/2 under a registered gift deed dated 30.07.1919. Likewise, Theramma and Narayanappa, who were the absolute owners of property bearing No.50, also executed a registered gift deed dated 11.11.1948 in favour of the temple. According to the plaintiffs, pursuant to these gifts, the temple became the owner of four properties and the revenue records (katha) also reflect the temple’s name. 4. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that after the demise of the original trustees, one Sarode Vishwanathappa and others continued to manage the temple as trustees/devotees by performing pooja and overseeing the affairs. The plaintiffs, being legal heirs of the earlier trustees, claim to have not only continued the pooja but also developed the temple by constructing a new structure measuring 14 x 34 feet. They also assert that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 taxes are being paid regularly to the concerned authorities. 5. To generate funds for maintenance of the temple, the plaintiffs state that three small houses were constructed on the temple land and were let out to tenants, including S. Krishna Rao and others. As the tenants defaulted in payment of rent, a notice dated 31.08.1976 was issued calling upon them to pay arrears and vacate the premises. It is contended that several HRC proceedings were initiated, and ultimately the houses collapsed on their own due to dilapidated condition, whereafter the tenants voluntarily vacated. 6. The plaintiffs further aver that as trustees of the temple, they have been managing its affairs, and in order to streamline administration, a trust deed was registered on 07.12.2017 under the name “Shri Pattabhiramachandraswamy Temple Trust”. Plaintiff No.2 is the President of the said trust, while Plaintiff No.3 is its - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 Secretary. Having obtained sanctioned plan for construction of a building in the vacant portion of the temple property (described as schedule ‘B’ property), the plaintiffs commenced construction. At that stage, the defendants, who according to the plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or interest, attempted to obstruct the construction, compelling the plaintiffs to institute the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining interference with schedule ‘A’ property and an injunction against obstruction to construction in the schedule ‘B’ property. 7. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement, denying the plaint averments in toto. Their primary contention is that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute the suit and that it is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs have suppressed material facts, fabricated documents, and misled the Court. The defendants dispute the plaintiffs’ possession over the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 schedule properties as well as their right to perform pooja in the temple. They specifically challenge the creation of the 2017 trust, asserting suppression of a pre-existing trust. 8. While admitting that S. Krishna Rao was inducted as a tenant and that rent collected from him was utilized for the temple, the defendants contend that Hanumantha Rao, brother of Krishna Rao, and father of defendant No.2, was also residing in the leased property. They dispute the HRC proceedings, asserting that the alleged proceedings were never initiated by the trust and that the father of Plaintiff No.2 had no locus to initiate such actions. 9. In light of the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: "1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession and peaceful enjoyment over the 'A' schedule property of the plaint as on the date of filing of this suit? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 2) Further plaintiff proves that the Defendants alleged to have tried to obstruct in putting up construction over 'B' schedule property? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the decree as prayed for? 4) What order or decree?" 10. The plaintiffs and defendants, in support of their respective claims, adduced both oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.4 as PW.1 and one other witness as PW.2, and produced 44 documents marked as Exs.P-1 to P-44. The defendants, in rebuttal, examined defendant No.2 as DW.1 and one witness as DW.2, and produced 57 documents marked as Exs.D-1 to D-57. 11. Upon appraisal of the material evidence on record, the trial Court answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. While doing so, it held that the plaintiffs had established lawful possession over schedule ‘A’ property as on the date of the suit. It further held that the plaintiffs - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 had succeeded in proving the alleged obstruction by the defendants to the construction put up in schedule ‘B’ property. Consequently, the suit came to be decreed and the defendants were restrained by a decree of perpetual injunction. Aggrieved, the defendants are before this Court in appeal. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo, has vehemently contended that the plaintiffs, under the guise of a newly constituted trust, have attempted to usurp the temple properties without impleading the actual trust as a necessary party. It is his submission that the plaintiffs are not trustees of the temple and the present suit is instituted by strangers, thereby rendering the entire proceedings untenable. He would argue that the plaintiffs failed to substantiate possession or establish their right to put up construction in schedule ‘B’ property. Drawing attention to the findings of the trial Court, he contended that the temple trust was in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 existence for over a century and that the original trustees had accepted the gift on behalf of the trust. Therefore, vesting of the temple properties in the newly constituted trust of 2017 is impermissible in law. 13. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs have not produced any document to prove payment made to contractors or to establish that they had secured a sanctioned plan for construction in schedule ‘B’ property. It is contended that the rebuttal evidence adduced by the defendants was not properly appreciated. Referring to the material on record, it was argued that S.H. Narayana, grandson of Shivaramappa, was connected with the original gift deed, and except for Shivaramappa, all other trustees had expired. Serious dispute was also raised with regard to Ex.P-19. It was urged that the plaintiffs’ ancestors had failed to establish that they were ever trustees of the temple property. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 14. Placing reliance on Ex.D-6, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the name of Shivaramappa, the grandfather of defendants 1 to 3, is reflected at the bottom of the document. Referring to Ex.D-11, the soil testing report secured by the defendants, it was contended that this establishes their management and control over the temple property. Attention was also drawn to records indicating that the defendants’ ancestors were permitted to receive grants from the Endowment Department, which according to him clinches the issue of the defendants’ right to manage the temple properties. 15. It was further argued that the trial Court misread the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and failed to properly appreciate the rebuttal evidence, particularly as recorded in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the judgment. Consequently, it was urged that the decree of perpetual injunction suffers from perversity and warrants interference by this Court. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs, placing reliance on Ex.P-19, contended that seven persons were managing the temple and that plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 are grandsons of three of the original trustees, namely Mallappa, Venkatappa, and Narasappa. It was submitted that Shivaramappa is the ancestor of the defendants. By referring to Ex.P-1 (gift deed), Ex.P-5 (endorsement by BBMP), Exs.P-7, P-8, P-14, P-15, P-16, P-18 (tax paid receipts) and Ex.P-19 (trust deed dated 07.12.2017), learned counsel argued that the plaintiffs have traced their right of management through their ancestors. On the contrary, the defendants’ ancestors, being tenants, had no semblance of right. It was further contended that the trial Court, on a proper appreciation of cogent and convincing evidence, rightly decreed the suit, and the said findings, being based on legally admissible evidence, do not call for interference in appeal. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 17. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/defendants and learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, and upon independent re-appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the following points arise for consideration: 1) Whether the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiffs have proved their lawful possession and enjoyment over schedule ‘A’ property suffers from perversity warranting interference in this appeal? 2) What order? Finding on Point No.1: 18. Before proceeding further into the merits of the present appeal, this Court considers it necessary to advert to and take cognizance of the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.2106/1987. The said revision petition was filed by Sarode, Vishwanathappa, and Pissey Narasimhappa. Amongst them, Sarode Vishwanathappa is - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 admittedly the ancestor of plaintiff No.2 as well as plaintiff No.8 herein. 19. While examining the rival claims of the parties in the said revision, this Court had an occasion to consider the very dispute relating to the rights and management of the temple in question. Ultimately, the revision petition came to be dismissed. However, while dismissing the petition, this Court made pertinent observations which have a direct bearing on the controversy now before this Court. In particular, this Court, while referring to the plaintiffs’ ancestors, recorded a finding that they were functioning in the capacity of trustees of the disputed temple. 20. The unnumbered paragraphs of the said order, which touch upon and recognize the role of the plaintiffs’ ancestors as trustees and custodians of the temple affairs, are of considerable relevance. For the sake of clarity and completeness, the relevant extracts from the said - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 judgment are reproduced hereinbelow, as they have a material bearing on the adjudication of the present lis. The same reads as under: "ORDER This revision is directed against the trial court's order rejecting the petitioners' claim for eviction of the tenants on the ground under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The eviction petition has been filed by the petitioners purportedly in their capacity as managing trustees of Pathabhiramaswamy temple situated at B.V.K. Iyengar Road Cross, Bangalore City. They have sought for possession of the premises for the bonafide use and occupation of the trust. The petition was resisted by the respondents inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners are not trustees of the said trust. They had further disputed the tenancy and the rate of the rent. It is now conceded that the respondents are in occupation of the premises as the tenants in view of the earlier finding of the Court, which was affirmed by this Court in CRP No.2787/86. The only question for consideration is whether the petitioners are trustees of the said temple and competent to prefer and maintain the eviction petition. The evidence of the petitioners is that there are six trustees, who, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 according to them are alive. The petitioners did not produce any material even to show that they are trustees under the trust deed (referred as 'gift deed' in the evidence). In this state of evidence, the learned trial judge in my opinion, has rightly held that the petitioners have failed to establish their locus standi to instituted the eviction petition and the same has to fail. No exception can be taken to that finding on the basis of the material available on record. However, it is open for the Trust, if that it so chooses to seek appropriate relief against the tenants in fresh proceedings in accordance with law. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above observations." (emphasis supplied by me) 21. A careful reading of the findings recorded by this Court in CRP No.2106/1987 makes it abundantly clear that the plaintiffs’ ancestors had failed to substantiate their claim of being trustees of the disputed temple. This Court, while dismissing the revision, categorically held that the petitioners therein had not produced any material, either under a trust deed or otherwise, to establish their locus as trustees. The Court also observed that in the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 absence of such proof, the eviction petition instituted by them could not be maintained. These observations, in unequivocal terms, cast serious doubt on the plaintiffs’ present assertion that their ancestors were trustees of the temple. In fact, the very foundation of their claim to management stands undermined by the earlier judicial pronouncement. 22. In this background, it is necessary to advert to the lease agreement, which is an admitted document, entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, who is the son of Late Krishna Rao. Significantly, Krishna Rao was not only inducted as a tenant but was also described as one of the trustees. The relevant portion of the said agreement, which has a direct bearing on the rival claims, is extracted herein below: "ಸ ಾರದ ಒಂೈನೂರ ನಲವತಾಲೇ ಏ ಾ ೕಖು ಹೆ$ರಡರಲೂ& ೆಂಗಳ)ರು * ಗುಡಮಯ-ನ.ೇ/ೆ ಮು0ಯ 1ೕ2ಗ3&ಯ3&ರುವ ಢ5ೆ ಯಲ&ಪ7 ನವರ ಮಗ 8ಾಮಕೃಷ<ಪ7ನವ ಗೂ ಮತು ರಂಗಾ=ಗು>ೕ8ೋಡು ಆಂಜೇಯಾ= ಗು> - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 AಂBಾಗದ3&ರುವ ನರಸಪ7ನವರ ಮಗ ನರಂಹಪ7ನವ ಗೂ ಮತು 5ಾಂCೕನಗರದ3&ರುವ ಖಂDಾ/ೆ 8ಾಮಾಮಪ7ನ ಮಗ Eಕನರಸಪ7ನವ ಗೂ ಹು Fೕ.ೇ/ೆಯ3&ರುವ Gೕವ* ಕುಾHಜಪ7ನವರ ಮಗ 8ಾಮುಯವ ಗೂ ಇJೇ ೆಂಗಳ)ರು * ಹು Fೕ.ೇ/ೆಯ3&ರುವ Kೕ ಪ/ಾLM8ಾಮಾ= JೇವಾNನದ Oಾ-ೇಜು1ಂಟುJಾರರ .ೈQೕ ಸRಾSೇ8ೆ Kವ8ಾಮಪ7ನವರ ಮಗ ಕೃಷ<8ಾT ಆದ ಾನು ಬ8ೆKVೊಟL ಾ>5ೆ ಕ8ಾರು ಏೆಂದ8ೆ 1ೕಲಂಡ Kೕ ಪ/ಾLM8ಾಮಾ=ಯವರ JೇವಾNನVೆ 0ೕವWಗಳ) ಮತು ಾನೂ ಸXಾ 1ೕೇಜು1ಂಟುJಾರ8ಾYರುವWದು ಸ ಯZೆL. ಸದ ೕ JೇವಾNನVೆ ೇ ದ ನಮ[ಗಳ Oಾ-ೇಜು1ಂ*ನ3&ರುವ ದರ>ೕ Zೆಡೂ- ನ3& ವ ಸತಕ ಮೆಯು ಬಹಳ ಆ8ೋDಾYದ\ ಪಯುಕ ಾನು ಸದ ಮೆ .ೇ ವ5ೈ8ೆ ಖಚು^ಗ_5ೋಸರRಾY ಯರಡು ನೂರು ನಲವತು 240-00 ರೂ.ಾಗಳನು$ 0ಮ[ಗಳ ವಶVೆ .ಾವaೕ Oಾ>ರುವWದು ಸ ಯZೆL. ಸದ ೕ cಬಲಗು aೕರುವ_5ೋಸರRಾY 0ೕವWಗಳd aೕOಾ^ನ Oಾ>ರುವ ಪVಾರ Zೆಡೂ- ಮೆಯನು$ aಂಗಳd ಒಂದVೆ 5-00 ಐದು ರೂ.ಾನಂೆ ಾ>5ೆ 0ಷಷ^ Oಾ>Vೊಂಡು ಸದ ಮೆಯನು$ ಾನು ಾ>5ೆ5ೆ ೆ5ೆದುVೊಂ>ರುೇೆ. ಇದVಾY ಾನು0ಮ5ೆ VೊಡೇVಾYರುವ ಾ>5ೆ OಾXೆiಾನ ಐದು ರೂ.ಾನ3& 1ೕಲಂಡ JೇವಾNನದ ೇRಾ ಖE^5ೋಸರ OಾXೆiಾನ ಮೂರು ರು.ಾಗಳನು$ 0ಮ[ಗಳ .ೈQೕ iಾ 5ಾದರೂ .ಾವa Oಾ> ಸದಸೂರು ರೕG ಪDೆಯುೇೆ." (emphasis supplied by me) 23. On a close reading of the lease agreement entered into between the plaintiffs’ ancestor and the father - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 of defendant No.1, namely Krishna Rao, it becomes evident that the plaintiffs’ own predecessors have unequivocally admitted that Krishna Rao was also associated in the joint management of the temple properties. Thus, Krishna Rao’s role was not confined merely to that of a tenant occupying the small houses constructed in the temple property. On the contrary, the recitals in the lease deed clearly acknowledge that he had an active role in the management of the temple properties as well. This admission strikes at the very foundation of the plaintiffs’ claim that their ancestors alone were discharging the functions of trustees. 24. If these two crucial pieces of evidence, the earlier findings recorded in CRP No.2106/1987 and the recitals in the lease agreement are taken into account, it becomes apparent that the claim of exclusive trusteeship set up by the plaintiffs is untenable. Even otherwise, if one were to examine the voluminous documents produced by both sides, it is seen that almost all such documents - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 whether tax paid receipts, sanction plans or endorsements stand in the name of Shri Pattabhiramachandraswamy Temple. None of them, however, specifically establish that such acts were undertaken by a particular trustee or by any recognized body of trustees. Therefore, the production of such documents by either party does not decisively advance the case of the plaintiffs or the defendants in proving their exclusive right to trusteeship or management. Since the present lis is a bare suit for injunction, the reliance placed on such documents by both sides falls short of enabling this Court to arrive at a conclusive determination as to which is the legally constituted trust and who in fact is in lawful management of the temple properties. 25. More significantly, the extracts culled out from Ex.P-25 and Ex.D-1 reinforce the position that the management of the temple property has never been the exclusive domain of the plaintiffs’ branch. These documents indicate that defendant No.1, being the son of - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 Krishna Rao and grandson of Shivaramappa, also has a legitimate claim to be associated with the management of the temple affairs. The lease deed itself refers to Shivaramappa’s role in the management of the properties, which fact stands admitted by the plaintiffs. Thus, the evidence as a whole unmistakably suggests that both branches of the family, namely that of the plaintiffs and that of the defendants, have historically participated in the management of the temple. 26. In this context, and particularly in the light of the findings recorded by this Court in CRP No.2106/1987, it is clear that the plaintiffs have not yet established that the trust constituted by them in the year 2017 is the genuine and exclusive trust managing the affairs of the temple. Unless a comprehensive suit is brought by either of the parties, wherein all rival claims are adjudicated and the authenticity of the respective trusts is determined, neither the plaintiffs can lay claim to exclusive possession and management so as to entitle them to an injunction, - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 nor can the defendants assert an exclusive right to administer the properties of the temple. 27. On perusal of the documents produced by both parties, it is evident that the material relied upon does not advance the case of either side in establishing exclusive possession or management of the temple properties as legal heirs of the original trustees. The plaintiffs have placed reliance on Exs.P-2 to P-4 (encumbrance certificates), Ex.P-5 (endorsement for issuance of katha), Ex.P-6 (notice of tax increase issued by BBMP), Ex.P-7 (show cause notice relating to tax), Exs.P-8 to P-16 (tax paid receipts), Ex.P-18 (self-assessment of property), Ex.P-20 (katha extract), Ex.P-21 (katha certificate), and Ex.P-24 (approved plan). Similarly, the defendants have relied on Exs.D-2 to D-5 (property tax receipts), Ex.D-12 (approved plan signed by defendants as owners), Ex.D-14 (tax invoice), Exs.D-40 and D-41 (katha certificates), Ex.D-42 (katha extract), and Ex.D-43 (electricity bill). - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 28. A closer scrutiny of the above documents reveals that all such records stand only in the name of Shri Pattabhiramachandraswamy Temple or its variations, and none of them specifically recognize either the plaintiffs or the defendants as trustees or lawful successors of the original managing body. The mere payment of taxes, possession of katha certificates, or procurement of sanction plans in the name of the temple cannot, by itself, clothe either the plaintiffs or the defendants with the legal status of trustees or confer on them an exclusive right of management. Both sides, therefore, have failed to discharge the burden of proving that they are in lawful possession of the properties as successors of the original trustees. 29. In this backdrop, unless and until the plaintiffs and defendants institute a comprehensive suit and establish, on cogent evidence, the validity of the trust claimed to have been formed and their respective status as lawful successors to the original trustees, neither party - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 can seek or be granted the relief of injunction. The failure of plaintiffs to substantiate their claim of trusteeship or lawful possession renders the present suit for bare injunction unsustainable. 30. These crucial aspects have been overlooked by the learned trial Judge while answering issue Nos.1 and 2. The approach of the trial Court, therefore, suffers from material irregularity in appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. 31. Conclusions: On an independent re-appraisal of the entire material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit for injunction is unsustainable in law. The reasons are manifold: a) The foundation of the plaintiffs’ case rests upon their assertion that they are the lawful trustees and successors to the original management of the temple. However, as noticed in CRP No.2106/1987, this Court had - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 already held that the plaintiffs’ ancestors had failed to substantiate that they were trustees of the temple. Even in the present proceedings, plaintiffs have not produced any cogent or convincing material to demonstrate that they were recognized under a valid trust deed or by any competent authority as trustees of the temple. b) The admitted lease agreement between the plaintiffs’ ancestors and the father of defendant No.1 (Krishna Rao) itself acknowledges that Krishna Rao was not only a tenant but was also part of the joint management of the temple properties. This admission undermines the plaintiffs’ contention of exclusive management and indicates that the defendants’ ancestors were equally associated with the affairs of the temple. c) The documents relied upon by the defendants, such as tax paid receipts, katha certificates, and sanction plans, also do not prove exclusive management or trusteeship in their favour. At best, they establish that - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 temple-related formalities were carried out in the name of Shri Pattabhiramachandraswamy Temple, without attributing such acts specifically to the defendants as lawful trustees. d) The voluminous documents produced on both sides, including encumbrance certificates, katha extracts, tax receipts, and building plans, uniformly stand in the name of the temple. None of them confer or recognize the plaintiffs or defendants in their individual capacity as trustees. Hence, such evidence cannot be treated as proof of lawful possession or management in favour of either party. e) The dispute between the parties is not one of mere possession but essentially one of title to management of the temple and validity of the rival trusts. Such complex questions cannot be adjudicated in a bare suit for injunction. Unless a comprehensive suit is filed by the plaintiffs or the defendants to establish which is the - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 genuine and legally recognized trust, neither party can claim an exclusive right to possession or management of the temple properties. f) The trial Court, while decreeing the suit, has failed to appreciate the binding observations made by this Court in CRP No.2106/1987. It has also overlooked the recitals in the lease deed which directly negate the plaintiffs’ plea of exclusive trusteeship. By misreading the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court wrongly concluded that the plaintiffs were in lawful possession and that the defendants had obstructed their construction. Such findings, being contrary to the weight of evidence, are perverse and call for interference. 32. For the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the plaintiffs have failed to establish exclusive possession or lawful management of the temple properties so as to entitle them to the relief of injunction. The - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33774 RFA No. 637 of 2022 judgment and decree of the trial Court, therefore, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Finding on Point No.2: 33. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed; (ii) The judgment and decree dated 15.02.2022 passed in O.S.No.1445/2019 by the learned XXXVIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside; (iii) Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for injunction stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2