While allowing an application filed by the Plaintiff under Section 92 of CPC seeking permission to file a suit against the defendants under Section 92 of CPC, which was rejected by the Principal District Judge, Belagavi, the Karnataka High Court has held that the Trust is duly registered in the name of Hunasevari Siddeshwar Devasthan, and therefore held that the plaintiffs have made out of prima facie case for grant of permission to sue under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The essence of the judgment revolved around the need to resolve critical questions pertaining to the legitimacy of the first defendant Committee's claims over the property associated with the Hunasevari Siddeshwar Devasthan Trust.

While firmly emphasizing that the resolution of these matters could only be achieved through the presentation of substantial evidence by the concerned parties, the High Court allowed the appeal, leading to the overturning of the Trial Court's order.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde observed that “Whether the first defendant Committee is a duly constituted Committee or whether the first defendant Committee can claim any right in the property in the name of Hunasevari Siddeshwar Devasthan or whether the first defendant is claiming right over the property belonging to the aforementioned Trust, can be adjudicated only if the parties are permitted to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. At the same time, the question whether the property in the name of first defendant is the property of the Hunasevari Siddeshwar Devasthan is also the question to be decided after recording the evidence. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs have made out of prima facie case for grant of permission to sue under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure."

Advocate Vishwanath Badiger appeared for the appellant whereas Advocate Ballolli appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case are that an appeal filed under Section 104(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the dismissal of an application under Section 92 of the CPC. The plaintiffs sought permission to sue the defendants regarding the Hunasevari Siddeshwar Devasthan Trust. They alleged that the Committee formed by the defendants, claiming authority over the Trust, was unauthorized. The plaintiffs presented evidence of the Trust's registration under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. However, the defendants argued that their committee was established to manage properties left by a saint, Laxman Nilajkar, unrelated to the Trust. The Principal District Judge, Belagavi, however, rejected the application citing two reasons: the plaintiffs lacked a direct association with the Trust, and they failed to provide proof of Trust registration. This judgment led to the appeal under Section 104, challenging the rejection of their application.

After considering the submission, the Bench noted that section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly emphasized that for such a suit to be valid, two conditions must be met: firstly, two or more individuals filing the suit must have an interest in the Trust in question, and secondly, the suit must seek one of the reliefs specified in Section 92(1)(g), which includes settling a scheme for the Trust.

The Bench further noted that the records clearly indicated that the Hunasevari Siddeshwar Devasthan was a registered trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act.

Since more than two plaintiffs had initiated the suit, asserting their interest in the Trust's affairs and seeking the formulation of a scheme, the Bench ruled that the dispute regarding the legitimacy of the first defendant Committee and their claims to the Trust's property could only be resolved through the presentation of evidence.

Consequently, the Trial court's rejection of the plaintiffs' application was declared unlawful, and permission to proceed with the suit under Section 92 was granted.

Cause Title: Manohar Balappa Mungari & Ors v. Revansiddeswar Siddarshram Committee & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2023: KHC-D: 8451]

Click here to read/download Judgment


Karnataka High CourtJustice Anant Ramanath Hegde

Pankaj Bajpai