Hebron Church vs The Societies of Trustees of Indigenous Church In India

Aravind Kumar, J.—This is a defendant''s appeal challenging the correctness and legality of order passed by XXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 8628/2012 dated 04.02.2014, whereunder appellants-defendants have been restrained by an order of injunction from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and for conducting of religious prayer in the name of Hebron Church by plaintiff till the disposal of suit.

I have heard Sri Ganapathy Narayan Bhat, learned counsel appearing for appellants-defendants and Sri M. Chidanandayya, learned counsel appearing for caveator.

By the consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal since it is agreed between the parties that there are various other litigations pending between the same parties in respect of same property for the same reliefs.

Perusal of records would indicate that plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S. No. 10116/1998 contending inter alia that defendants therein are interfering with the management and administration of church affairs and for a decree to declare that trust deed propounded by defendants therein is void, illegal and also to declare that plaintiff is the sole representative of management and administration of church in question. Said suit came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 24.02.2006. Said judgment and decree was challenged by defendants therein in RFA No. 1206/2010 and same came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2012. Thus, said judgment and decree passed by trial court in O.S. No. 10116/1998 has reached finality.

Defendants herein had filed a suit in O.S. No. 1368/1997 against the defendants therein for the relief of perpetual injunction. Said suit came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.08.2009. Said judgment and decree is under challenge before this Court in RFA No. 1543/2003 and same is pending. Subsequently, defendants herein have also filed a comprehensive suit namely, O.S. No. 6734/2012 against plaintiff herein for the following reliefs.

Declare that, the Trust Deed registered under the name & style of Hebran Church registered on 24.4.1987, registered as Document No. 53/1987-88, Office at No. 28, Cubbon Road, Bangalore-560 001, now addressed at No. 447/4, near Water Tank, 13th Cross, G.B.J. Colony, Marathahalli, Bangalore-560 037, under the Karnataka Societies Act is declared to be absolute and valid; Consequently declare that the declaration made in O.S. No. 10116/1998 is not binding on the plaintiffs, same is null and void;

Declare that, the 1st defendant society and 2nd defendant is altogether different from the plaintiffs, same is nothing to do with the plaintiff trust which is registered by Protestant Christian Members of HAL;

Declare that, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the day one and their possession has been confirmed by virtue of Lease Deed dated 30.08.2012, registered as Document No. 2773/2012-13, the same has been executed by the HAL Management in favour of the plaintiff to comply with the religious needs of the plaintiffs members.

Issue permanent injunction restraining the defendants to operate the Bank of the plaintiff i.e., Account No. 1268010100265589 of Punjab National Bank, HAL Branch, Bangalore-17 illegally and unauthorizedly;

Issue permanent injunction restraining the defendants from claiming the suit schedule property by making application or claiming before the HAL Management as Lease Deed has been executed in favour of the plaintiff on 30.8.2012;

Issue permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents, servants or any one claiming through or under them from interfering with plaintiff''s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Grant any other relief as this Hon''ble Court deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case including cost of the suit in the interest of justice and equity.

Perusal of above prayers would indicate that first defendant herein is plaintiff in said suit and plaintiff herein has been arrayed as first defendant in the said suit. In the said suit i.e., O.S. No. 6734/2012 an interlocutory application has also been made seeking temporary injunction against defendants, which is yet to be disposed of by the jurisdictional Court.

In view of fact that suit O.S. No. 10116/1998 having been decreed by the jurisdictional Court and same having attained finality, which is now under challenge in O.S. No. 6734/2012, it would suffice, if liberty is granted to the appellants herein to pursue their grievance in the said comprehensive suit, as it would meet the ends of justice.

Though Sri Ganapathy Narayan Bhat. learned counsel appearing for appellants would contend that judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 1368/1997 granting a decree of perpetual injunction in favour of first defendant herein, would enure to the benefit of first defendant. Sri Chidanandayya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 herein has rightly contended that said judgment and decree is against the defendant therein, to which present plaintiff is not a party. An order of injunction can only be construed as impersonam and not in-rem and as such, contention of Sri Chidanandayya, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 deserves to be accepted.

Be that as it may. The fact that first defendant herein has filed a comprehensive suit in O.S. No. 6734/2012 seeking various reliefs including relief for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 10116/1998 is being considered by the jurisdictional Court, no opinion is expressed on the rival contentions and the Court adjudicating O.S. No. 6734/2012 would be at liberty to consider the said application on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in the order under challenge. Contentions of both the parties in this regard are kept open and with this observation the present appeal is hereby rejected.

The trial court shall expeditiously dispose of the present suit and parties would be at liberty to move the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, by filing necessary application u/s 24 of CPC seeking for posting the suits O.S. No. 8628/2012, as well as O.S. No. 6734/2012 to any one of the Court to avoid conflicting judgment being passed which is in respect of same property and same parties. If such an application is filed, same shall be considered by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, on merits in accordance with law and suitable orders be passed.