Allowed

Sri. Seebi Narasimaswamy Temples v. Sri. Sheebi Narasimhaswamy Seva Samithi Trust

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2021WP/12852/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed an order by the Additional Senior Civil Judge rejecting an order 14 application for production of documents. It held the documents were relevant to establish the landlord-tenant relationship and allowed secondary evidence of the lease deed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.01.2018 is quashed; respondents directed to produce trust deeds; plaintiffs permitted to prove lease deed under Section 65 of Act 1872.

Sri. Seebi Narasimaswamy Temples Vs Sri. Sheebi… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.12852/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.12852/2018 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI SEEBI NARASIMASWAMY TEMPLES SEEBI KSHETHRA SY.NO.10, CHIKKA SEEBI VILLAGE NELAHAL POST, BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SHEBAITH & HEREDITARY DHARMAKARTHA SRI. T.K.NALLAPPA PIN – 572 101

¶10

SRI T.K.NALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS S/O LATE T.K.LAKSHMINARASAIAH @ T.K. DANDAPANAIAH SHEBAITH & HEREDITARY DHARMARTHA SRI. SEEBI NARASIMHASWAMY TEMPLES SRI SEEBI KSHETHRA SY.NO.10, CHIKKA SEEBI VILLAGE NELAHAL POST, BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK – 572 101

¶11

… PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI A.MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND :

¶14

SRI SHEEBI NARASIMHASWAMY SEVA SAMITHI TRUST A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST NO.524, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET VISWESWARAPURAM BANGALORE – 560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI A.C.NARASIMHAMURTHY

¶15

W.P.No.12852/2018

¶16

¶17

ALSO AT LOKAMBA KALYANA MANTAPA SY.NO.10, SRI SEEBI NARASIMHASWAY TEMPLE COMPLEX, CHIKKA SEEBI VILLAGE NELAHAL POST, BELLAVI HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT – 572 101

¶18

SRI K.NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE H.KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS FORMER PRESIDENT & PRESENT TRUSTEE SRI SHEEBI NARASIMHASWAMY SEVA SAMITHI TRUST R/AT NO.2208/G, OPP.SBI B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR – 572 101

¶19

SRI D.ANANTH S/O LATE DAKSHINA MURTHY MAJOR R/AT NO.5, RAMACHANDRA RAO STREET CHIKPET, TUMKUR - 572 101

¶20

SRI A.S.SATHYANARAYANA S/O SEETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/AT NO.149, BEML LAYOUT BASAVESHWARA NAGARA BENGALURU – 560 079

¶21

SRI A.R.JAYASIMHA S/O LATE A.S.RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.47, 14^TH ‘A’ MAIN WEST OF CHORD ROAD 2^ND STAGE, 3^RD PHASE BENGALURU – 560 086

¶22

SRI H.K.ANANTHA SUBBA RAO S/O LATE H.KAMBADA NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.647, VIKAS NAGAR EXTENSION, OPP. WIDIA (INDIA) NAGASANDRA POST, TUMKUR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 073

¶23

SRI G.N. LAKSHMI NARAYAN RAO S/O LET G.N.NAGESH RAO

¶24

W.P.No.12852/2018

¶25

¶26

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.530, 13^TH MAIN ROAD PADDAMANABHA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 076

¶27

SRI G.R. GANESH S/O LATE RAMADASAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.44, 14^TH ‘B’ MAIN 8^TH CROSS, RPC LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 040

¶28

SRI N.S.NARAHARI RAO S/O SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.7, 7^TH CROSS SHIVANANDA NAGAR NAGARABHAVI POST BENGALURU – 560 072

¶29

SRI A.C. NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O A.CHIDAMBARAIAH MAJOR R/AT NO.157, 2^ND MAIN, 1^ST CROSS SATHYANARAYANA LAYOUT BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 079

¶30

SRI A.S. RAVI S/O A.S.SHIVA RAM AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.319, NTI LAYOUT 9^TH CROSS, 9^TH MAIN VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU – 560 079

¶31

SRI A.R.VIVEK S/O A.S.RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.700, 16^TH ‘A’ MAIN 38^TH CROSS, 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK JAYANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 041

¶32

SRI A.R.LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE A.L.RAMASWAMY

¶33

W.P.No.12852/2018

¶34

¶35

MAJOR R/AT ALALUGHATTA VILLAGE HAGALVADI HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101

¶36

SRI K.S.SATHYANARAYAN S/O LATE H.KRISHNAMURTHY MAJOR R/AT 11^TH MAIN, 1^ST BLOCK H.M.T. LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE – 560 079

¶37

SRI A.S.MADHUSUDHAN S/O A.S.SATHYANARAYANA MAJOR

¶38

NO.74, SBI OFFICERS’ COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 079

¶39

SRI S.MAHESH S/O S.SHAMARAJU MAJOR R/AT NO.220, 15^TH ‘C’ CROSS

¶40

WEST OF CHORD ROAD 2^ND CROSS, BANGALORE – 560 092

¶41

SRI J.S.BALASUBRAMANYA S/O J.N.SATHYANARAYANA RAO MAJOR R/AT NO.311, 60 FEET ROAD TALAKAVERI LAYOUT AMRUTHAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 092

¶42

MS.A.VIJAYAKUMARI D/O A.ANANTHMURTHY C/O SRI G.N.LAKSHMI NARAYANA RAO S/O LATE G.N.NAGESH RAO AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.530, 13^TH MAIN ROAD PADDAMANABHA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 092

¶43

SRI S.KRISHNAMURTHY S/O S.GUNDU RAO MAJOR

¶44

W.P.No.12852/2018

¶45

¶46

R/AT NO.96, 5^TH MAIN 8^TH CROSS, GOKULAM 3^RD STAGE MYSORE – 560 002

¶47

SRI B.V.PRAKASH S/O LATE VENKATASUBBAIAH R/AT BEHIND BHYRAVESHWARA COLLEGE HEGGERE POST, TUMAKUR – 572 101

¶48

SRI K.S.RAMESH

¶49

S/O LATE SRIKANTAIAH R/AT KODIALA, CHELUR

¶50

TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101 … RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI SUNDARESHA, ADVOCATE FOR INNOVA LAW SOLUTIONS FOR R1 TO R5, R8 TO R11, R13 TO R16 AND R18 TO R21;

¶52

R6, R7, R12 & R17 ARE SERVED)

¶53

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.01.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TUMAKURU IN O.S.NO.517/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶54

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶55

O R D E R

¶56

Heard.

¶57

2. Aggrieved by the rejection of their application

¶58

under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC for directions to the respondents for production of certain documents, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.517/2015 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru, have preferred this writ petition.

¶59

W.P.No.12852/2018

¶60

¶61

The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.517/2015 against the respondents for ejectment from the suit property and for damages etc. The subject matter of the suit was land measuring 140 ft. X 80 ft. out of Sy.No.10 of Chikka Sheebi Village, Tumkur Taluk. Plaintiff No.1 is the Temple. Plaintiff No.2 claims to be the hereditary Shebaith and Dharmakartha of the said Temple.

¶62

4. Plaintiffs’ case in brief is as follows:

¶63

The land bearing Sy.No.10 was purchased by the ancestors of 2^nd plaintiff and they have established the temple in the said land. The defendants came forward saying that they will build choultry for the benefit of the devotees of first plaintiff-Temple. Plaintiffs let out the disputed land under an unregistered lease deed dated 28.02.1981 in favour of first defendant on token rent of Rs.1.00 p.m. The defendants constructed the choultry and managing that. In course of time, the defendants became avaricious and started extracting unreasonable money from the devotees. Therefore, plaintiffs got issued notice dated 17.06.2013 terminating the tenancy of defendant

¶64

W.P.No.12852/2018

¶65

¶66

No.1-Trust and calling upon them to hand over the possession of the property. Defendants issued an untenable reply. Therefore, they seek decree for ejectment and damages etc.

¶67

During course of the proceedings, plaintiffs filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC seeking directions to the defendants to produce the unregistered lease deed dated 28.02.1981, trust deeds of the first defendant dated 25.01.1983, 27.04.1996, 22.05.2010 and 05.07.2014. In the affidavit filed in support of their application the plaintiffs contended that the original lease deed dated 28.02.1981 is in possession of first defendant. They also claimed that the trust deeds referred in the application are required to prove the case of the plaintiffs. Therefore, they sought directions to the defendants to produce the documents.

¶68

Defendant Nos.1, 4, 5, 7 to 11, 15 to 17 and

¶69

19 contested the application denying the allegations of the plaintiffs in the affidavit and the relationship of the landlord and the tenant. They contended that since the

¶70

W.P.No.12852/2018

¶71

¶72

plaintiffs have no manner of right, the question of producing the trust deeds or unregistered lease deed does not arise.

¶73

The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned order at Annexure-H dated 22.01.2018 rejected the application of the plaintiffs on the ground that documents in respect of which direction is sought are irrelevant for the purpose of the case.

¶74

Sri. A.Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that defendant No.12 in his written statement admitted that defendant No.1 is possessing the lease deed. He further submits that reasons of the trial Court for documents sought are irrelevant is wholly unsustainable and he further submits that, since, original document was unregistered and plaintiffs were holding only the copy of the lease deed, he was required to prove that as per Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘Act, 1872’). Therefore, he had called upon the first defendant to produce the original. He further submits that if the defendants claim that they are not in possession

¶75

W.P.No.12852/2018

¶76

¶77

of the documents, then plaintiffs may be permitted to

¶78

prove that in accordance with Section 65 of Act, 1872.

¶79

Respondent No.2 alone has filed statement of objections to the writ petition. His objections to the writ petition are in line with the statement of objections filed by the co-respondents before the trial Court.

¶80

It is contended that lease was for 99 years. The other respondents alleged collusion between respondent No.12 and the plaintiffs regarding his admissions. But anyway, according to the plaintiffs, lease was between them and first respondent. The documents were called for from the custody of the first respondent. The tenor of the objections filed to the application showed they disputed the landlord-tenant relationship. Therefore, that became contentious issue.

¶81

Certainly to prove that issue, lease deed becomes relevant evidence in terms of Section 5 of Act, 1872. It was the further contended that the trust was registered and building was constructed for the charitable purpose of serving devotees of first plaintiff-Temple, but

¶82

W.P.No.12852/2018

¶83

¶84

later, defendants turned them to commercial activities. To prove that also trust deeds referred in the application become relevant documents. Therefore, finding of the trial Court that documents sought to be produced were irrelevant is contrary to Section 5 of Act, 1872.

¶85

The contesting defendants disputed the jural relationship and existence of lease deed. They deny the possession of original lease deed and petitioners claim that there was a lease deed and they posses only the secondary evidence of the same. Therefore they have to prove the same in accordance with Section 65 of Act, 1872.

¶86

The trial Court committed jurisdictional error in rejecting the application on the ground of relevancy. Therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-H dated 22.01.2018 is unsustainable and hereby quashed. The petition is allowed.

¶87

It is submitted that case is listed before the trial Court on 10.01.2022. Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is hereby directed to produce the trust deeds mentioned at

¶88

W.P.No.12852/2018

¶89

¶90

Sl.Nos.2 to 5 in the application of the plaintiffs under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC before the trial Court by 10.01.2022.

¶91

The plaintiffs are permitted to prove the alleged lease deed dated 28.02.1981 as per Section 65 of Act, 1872. Application of the plaintiffs under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC is disposed of accordingly.

¶92

Sd/JUDGE

¶93

pgg

Sri. Seebi Narasimaswamy Temples v. Sri. Sheebi Narasimhaswamy Seva Samithi Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Seebi Narasimaswamy Temples v. Sri. Sheebi Narasimhaswamy Seva Samithi Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A M Satyanarayana Vs R Jayashree Devi

Sri Lokesh Kumar @ Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Jayamma Vs Thimmegowda

Ms Cleta Fernandes Prabhu Vs Lourdes Mascarenhas Prabhu

Smt Chandramma Vs Nil

Ms Cleta Fernandes Prabhu Vs Miss Bernadine @ Birdie Fernandes Prabhu