Sangam Enterprises vs Ekambara Sahujee Dharmasthalas

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—These two appeals are filed by the appellant-defendant against the order dated 30th July 2013 passed by the City Civil Court, Bangalore, on I.A. Nos. I & II filed in O.S. No. 4688/2013. The plaintiff-respondent herein filed applications for restraining the appellant-defendant or any other person claiming in trust in any manner from carrying any construction activities in the suit schedule property bearing Municipal New No. 13/3, Subedar Chatram Road, Bangalore, and restraining the defendant from removing Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Temple situated therein. The trial Court allowed the applications and restrained the appellant-defendant from carrying on any civil works, including the construction on the suit property and causing further damages to Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Temple. Heard the learned counsel for respective parties.

The suit is filed by one of the Member of respondent-plaintiff which is a Public Charitable Trust. The trial Court has raised several issues with regard to the construction activities being carried out by the appellant. On the applications filed by the plaintiff, the impugned order came to be passed against the appellant. Against which, the present appeals are filed for setting the order passed on the applications.

During, the pendency of these proceedings, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the only point for consideration in these appeals is with regard to retaining the temple for which, the learned counsel for the appellant has conceded to. The learned counsel for the respondent has also sought to retain the Pipal tree situated in the suit schedule property. Today, the learned counsel appearing for both the parties have filed a Compromise Petition dated, duly signed by the parties and identified by their respective advocates. The Compromise Petition reads thus:

The parties at the instance of their friends and well wishers and with an intention to settle all their disputes and differences and to resolve matters in controversy have entered into the present Compromise. The present compromise is entered into by the parties of their own free will and volition and without any element of fraud, coercion, or undue influence. The present compromise is entered into to resolve and settle all the disputes and in entirety. The parties have entered into this settlement after securing legal advise of their case and the implications of entering into the present compromise.

The Members of the Committee of Supervision along with the Hereditary Trustee/Manager have under the Meeting held on 21.09.2013 and pursuant to the resolutions passed therein decided to enter into the present compromise.

The suit of the Respondent has been instituted by a Member of the Committee of Supervision stating that the suit is filed after a decision taken in this regard by all the Members of the committee of Supervision. Therefore the present Compromise is executed by the two authorised Members of the committee of Supervision who were members as on the date of the suit namely (a) Mr. S. Gandhi; and (b) Mr. D. Karnanidhi.

The Compromise is entered into by Sri R. Chandru, as the Partner of Sangam Enterprises being the tenant of the Schedule A Property; for and on behalf of himself in his individual capacity; as also for and on behalf of Sangam Enterprises being the tenant of the Schedule B Property and the Schedule C Property.

The suit of the Plaintiff has filed for the relief of Perpetual Injunction to restrain the Defendant from putting up construction over the Schedule A Property; the Schedule B Property; and the Schedule C Property and to restrain the defendant from demolition of the Anjaneya temple. The suit of the plaintiff is based on the allegation that the renewal of the Lease of the Schedule A Property, the Schedule B Property and the Schedule C Property is contrary to the scheme settled by the Hon''ble High Court of Mysore in R.A. No. 99/1945-46 and that the permission of the Court is not secured as was the precedent with the Ekambara Sahujee Dharmasthalas.

The defendant entered appearance and has raised the following contentions as detailed hereunder:

a. The Trust has no independent existence in its own and consequently the Trust will have to institute a suit being represented by all its Trustees.

b. The person by name Sri Gandhi who has alleged that he was a member of Committee of Supervision is not entitled to maintain the suit individually or on behalf of the Trust.

c. The present suit is therefore not a suit filed by the Trust and has to be deemed to have been instituted by one of the Members of the Committee of Supervision. The said member of the Committee of Supervision has no legal right or authority to institute the suit and is a person on behalf of the Trust or to represent the Trust.

d. The Members of the Committee of Supervision is a creation of the proceedings in the Scheme settled and is governed by the Scheme and cannot claim or operate beyond the realm of the said Scheme.

e. The Defendant herein submits that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties. The suit is in the nature of a representative suit and the plaintiff cannot sue for and on behalf of the other trustees without the permission of the Court.

f. The Committee of Supervision is creation of judgment in R.A. No. 99/1945-46 and has no legal existence. The power of the Committee is merely supervise the performance of the trust, the maintenance of the property and to ensure that the directions of the trustees are carried out. Therefore the Committee of Supervision is merely an administrative wing of the trust and the trustees. The suit by one member or any member of such a Committee has no legs to stand.

g. The renewal of the Lease from 2047 and 2023 till 2073 is pursuant to valid compromises entered into between the parties by way of settlement of the court proceedings and by incurring a huge expenditure and all of which expenses have been incurred within the knowledge, consent and concurrence of the Trust and the Trustee.

h. There is not intention to demolish the Anjaneya Temple, but the same if requires shifting shall be in accordance with performance of all the religious ceremony and that Clause 2.3 of the Lease Deed also provides for the same with all reasonable and due care the temple will be shifted with strict adherence to the religious requirements.

I. The execution of the Lease Deed/s by the Trust represented by its Hereditary Manager is intimated to the Principal Judge, Bangalore City, Bangalore in O.S. No. 16/1943-44, by way of an appropriate Application.

j. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the Scheme there is no requirement to take the permission of the Court for execution of the Lease Deed and the Lease was approved by the Committee of Supervision and the Trustee as was in office on the date of the execution of the Lease Deed/s.

k. The execution of the Lease Deed/s is in the interest of the Trust and the same is after due deliberation and by the consent and concurrence of all the office bearers and the Trustees.

The Appellant and the Respondent have agreed to compromise the suit as hereunder:

a) The Respondent upon the institution of the above suit has verified the contents of the Written Statement and verified the records of the Trust and have ascertained that the Committee of Supervision and the Trustees including the Hereditary Trustee have followed all the necessary procedures, duly deliberated on the terms and conditions of the lease and that the Lease of the Schedule A Property; the Schedule B Property and the Schedule C Property is in terms of the aims and objectives of the Trust. The Respondent further confirms and declare that the Trustees and the Committee of Supervision have performed their duties in conformity with the Scheme settled by the erstwhile Hon''ble High Court of Mysore and the decision to renew the Lease until 2073 is correctly arrived and in the interest of the Trust. The Respondents on perusal of the Written Statement have independently ascertained and verified the documents and are satisfied of the legality of the action of the Trust and its members. The Respondent further confirms that the Trustees namely Mrs. K. Rekha, Mrs. Shakuntala Rao, Mrs. Parvathi and that the then Members of the Committee of Supervision namely Mr. H.S. Appaji Gowda (who has signed this Compromise) Mr. Ahobla Rao, and Mr. V. Annaiah have duly discharged their duties in the administration of the Trust and authorised the Hereditary Manager to execute and register the necessary Deed of Lease until 2073.

b) The Respondent withdraws all the allegations made in the Plaint against Sangam Enterprises, being the tenant of the Schedule A Property; Sangam Enterprises being the tenant of the Schedule B and Schedule C Properties and Sri R. Chandru in his individual capacity. The appellant withdraws the allegations in the Written Statement in paragraphs 9 and 44.

c) The Respondent hereby specifically admits the validity, correctness and legality of the lease deeds executed by the Managing/Hereditary Trustee in favour of the Appellant for the period ending 2073 and confirm that the Lease of Sangam Enterprises being the tenant of the Schedule A Property; Sangam Enterprises being the tenant of the Schedule B and Schedule C Properties and Sri R. Chandru in his individual capacity is for valid consideration, legal and binding on the Trust and the Members of the committees of Supervision. The Respondent hereby confirm that the Lessee is entitled to put up the construction over the Schedule A Property; the Schedule B Property and the Schedule C Property and to use and enjoy the same for the period as contained in the Lease Deed.

d) The Respondent admit and declare that the permission of the District Court for the purpose of the lease is not required as per the Scheme and that the Scheme sanctioned by the erstwhile Hon''ble High Court of Mysore in R.A. No. 99/1945-46 does not mandate the permission of the District Court to lease the Schedule Property and that the permission of the court if any is for the limited purpose of sale only The Respondents herein specifically confirm that they have no objection for this Hon''ble Court to declare and decree that the permission of the District Court is not required for the purpose of Lease of the Schedule Properties herein.

e) The Appellant on his part and on behalf of both the firms titled Sangam Enterprises undertakes not to demolish the existing Anjaneya Temple located in Eastern side of the Schedule B and abutting Subedar Chatram Road. The said temple is bounded on the East by: Subedar Chatram Road; West by: Schedule B Property and the Schedule A Property and thereafter Dhanvantri Road; on the North by: Schedule B Property and Schedule C Property and thereafter Bunk/Cross Road connecting Subedar Chatram Road and Dhanvantri Road; and on the South by: The Schedule B Property and thereafter Annama Temple. The Trust and its Trustees are solely responsible to undertake and carryout the necessary external repairs to the Anjaneya Temple and to maintain the same from time to time. The area of the temple is ascertained to be in an extent of 10 Feet East to West and 15 Feet North to South and the said area shall be maintained by the Trust.

f) The parties submits that there is no collusion amongst them, while entering into this compromise, there is no monetary consideration paid for the purpose of entering into this compromise.

The existing members of the Committee of Supervision namely: Mr. H.S. Appaji Gowda, Mr. S. Gandhi and Mr. D. Karunanidhi have expressed their intention to retire from the membership of the Ekambara Sahuji Dharmasthalas and in continuation of such an intention have issued the necessary letters of resignation to come into effect after the disposal of O.S. No. 4688/2013 in terms of the present compromise and have no objection for the appointment of fresh members to the Committee of Supervision.

The parties pray that the suit in the O.S. No. 4688/2013 may be directed to be decreed in terms of the present Compromise Petition and in terms of the order of this Hon''ble Court to be passed in addition to the present compromise or on such terms as this Hon''ble Court to be passed in addition to the present compromise or on such terms as this Hon''ble Court, deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

In view of the above compromise and also considering the fact that in the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein, they are adjudicating their rights only as a matter of intimacy attached to the temple and they want to retain the temple as it is or in a better condition, the suit is to be decreed in terms of the compromise petition. In that view of the matter, the suit in O.S. No. 4688/2013 filed before the trial Court itself be treated as disposed of in terms of the Compromise Petition filed in these appeals and the order passed by the trial Court on the injunction application is set aside. However, there may not be any impediment for the appellant to go on with the construction.

Appeals are disposed of accordingly.