Partly allowed

G.D. Chitrashekar v. Church of South India

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2024RFA/100015/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a dismissal of a suit for breach of trust, the High Court held that the defendant Trust failed to form a mandatory Managing Committee and utilized Trust properties. The appeal was partly allowed; the impugned decree was set aside, and the suit was decreed to remove trustees and settle a new scheme under strict court supervision to ensure proper management.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and decree dated 07.11.2015 were set aside. The suit was decreed to appoint new Trustees and settle a scheme for the Trust's management, including the formation of a Managing Com

G.D. Chitrashekar Vs Church of South India — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶8

R.F.A. NO. 100015 OF 2016 (APPT. OF TRUSTEES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

G.D. CHITRASHEKAR SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶11

F.M. MARTIN

¶12

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶13

1a. EMMANUEL SUDHAKAR MARTIN, S/O. F.M. MARTIN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT MARTIN GARDEN, NEAR VIMS, BALLARI – 583101.

¶14

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. H. SULOCHANA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LR, EMMANUEL SUDHAKAR MARTIN, WHOL IS ALREADY ON RECORD AS APPELLANT NO.1(a)

¶16

Sri. V.D. CHRISTOPHER, S/O. V. DEVADANAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.N. 16/52, KATEGUDDA, BALLARI-583101.

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO AND SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATES)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶20

AND:

¶21

CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION, REP. BY REVERED BISHOP, KARNATAKA NORTHERN DIOCESE, HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD-580008.

¶22

THE PROPERTY MANAGER, KARNATAKA NORTHERN DISOCESE, HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD-580008.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. C. V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶25

¶26

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 R/W ORDER 41 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT BALLARI DATED 07.11.2015 IN O.S.NO.3/2005, ALLOW THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶29

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

This is plaintiffs’ appeal. The plaintiffs had sought the leave of the Court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘Code’) to institute the suit. Leave to sue was granted. However, the suit is dismissed. The prayer in the suit is:

¶32

to remove the defendants as Trustees and to

¶33

appoint new Trustees;

¶34

to vest the Trust properties described in the schedule in the new Trustees;

¶35

to direct the defendants to produce the accounts of the Trust properties; and

¶36

to settle the scheme to run the Trust.

¶37

Though the suit is dismissed, some arrangement is

¶38

made to auction the cultivation rights in the suit properties.

¶39

The operative portion of the decree reads as under:

¶40

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶41

“The suit of the plaintiffs fails hence, it is dismissed without costs.

¶42

It is further ordered and decreed that, however, for effective utilization of the suit properties and to achieve the object of Trust a Court Commissioner shall be appointed for a period of five years from the date of decree.

¶43

It is further ordered and decreed that, an advocate shall be appointed as Court Commissioner to auction the cultivation rights of suit properties every year before 31^st March for a period of one year. The Court Commissioner shall deposit the auction amount in the Court.

¶44

It is further ordered and decreed that, the defendant No.1 is at liberty to take the amount to achieve the object of Trust.

¶45

It is further ordered and decreed that, the defendant No.1 shall submit list of beneficiaries to the Court ever year immediately after making payment to students.

¶46

It is further ordered and decreed that, if huge amount is generated from the suit properties, the defendants may open a hostel for students and they have to submit report to the court.

¶47

It is further ordered and decreed that, after expiry of five years, if the court satisfies

¶48

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶49

that defendants are capable to achieve the object of trust without assistance of Court, then appointment of Court Commissioner may be discontinued for auction of the cultivation rights of suit properties.

¶50

It is further ordered and decreed that, in case, the daughters of plaintiff No.2 come forward to give suggestion to defendant No.1, then the defendants shall form a committee in terms of Ex.P.2 trust deed dated 19.7.1979.

¶51

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, on this 7^th day of November, 2015.”

¶52

Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the plaintiffs are before this Court.

¶53

Brief facts as narrated in the plaint.

¶54

4.1. On 19.07.1979, registered Trust deed was

¶55

executed by Dr.J. Shanthasila, S/o. late H. Gayappa, Sri.G. D. Chitrasekhar, S/o. Late H. Gayappa and Col. K.Rajashekar, S/o. late H. Gayappa. The Church of South India Trust Association was named as the Trustee and Executor. The deed mandated a Trust to be

¶56

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶57

formed in the name of "Rathnamma and

¶58

Gayappa Memorial New Life Center Trust."

¶59

4.2. The aforementioned three persons, are the sons of the late H. Gayappa, and Rathnamma and are the authors of the Trust. These facts are not in dispute.

¶60

The terms and conditions of the Trust are incorporated in the Trust deed, and they are as under:

¶61

1. This Trust shall be named as "Rathamma And Gayappa Memorial New Life Centre Trust".

¶62

1. The Trustees shall hold the property hereby entrusted in Trust for all or any of the youths (beneficiaries) admitted to the said project;

¶63

1. The above Trust shall be formed under the name and style as specified above and it shall be conducted and functioned in the manner and for the purpose herein-after appearing by the 2^nd party:

¶64

1. The 2^nd party shall utilize the Schedule mentioned lands for the said purpose and in the manner here-in-after appearing; It shall be a standing Monument to perpetuate the names of the parents of the First party.

¶65

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶66

1. The Trust properties shall be utilized for the purpose of educating the youths (beneficiaries) leading to self-reliance and to commemorate to names of the revered Parents viz., Ratnamma and Gayappa, of the 1^st Party under the said youths project scheme:

¶67

1. The Parties of the First Part shall deliver possession of the schedule mentioned properties to the 2^nd party as they are now from the date execution of this Deed of Trust; (1) G.D.Chithrasekhar (2) Edwored Rajashekar (3) G.D. Chithrasekar, Agent of Sri.J.Sonthosila Under General Power of attorney Document No. 719 of 1979-80 Book 1 contains 5 Sheets 3^rd Sheet K.A.Sub Registrar Page No.3;

¶68

1. The 2^nd Party shall take immediate steps in consonance of this Deed of Trust to perform and fulfill the objects and aims of this Trust Deed;

¶69

1. The 2^nd Party shall not use the schedule mentioned properties for any other purpose other than the purpose specified herein-before appearing;

¶70

1. The Church of South India Karnataka Northern Diocese shall appoint a committee of Management of the Trust Projects the

¶71

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶72

membership of which shall include one of the family members of the first party of their legal representatives;

¶73

1. The said Trustees shall have the power inspect the schedule mentioned properties and to supervise the work so as to carry on the work smoothly without any hindrance or in violating of the terms and conditions of this trust as per the true intent and tenor of this deed of trust;

¶74

1. The Trustees will have the discretion to use the property for a similar purpose in case with the written consent of the First Party;

¶75

1. The Trust now reposed in Church of South India Trust Associations irrevocable and the Trustees shall have the full power to deal with the property in a manner which will ensure the continuity of the Memorial by instituting a scholarship Fund invested by the Trust Association the income of which shall provide scholarships for the said purpose of the memorial for deserving students in the Bellary area.

¶76

The Trust deed referred to above is an undisputed document. As could be seen from Clause No.7 of the Trust deed, the Managing Committee should be formed immediately to achieve its objectives. One of

¶77

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶78

the conditions is that the Managing Committee should accommodate one member of the authors' family to manage and run the Trust. The income derived from the Trust properties should be utilized to educate the youth.

¶79

The plaintiffs claim that all the three authors, who formed the Trust were employed outside the State of Karnataka. The authors had trust in the defendant No.1 Association. They believed that defendant No.1 Association was carrying out the objectives of the Trust in the manner provided in the deed.

¶80

One of the authors, namely Dr. J. Shanthasila, passed away on 11.09.1983 and Chitrashekhar, another author retired in the year 1999 and now no more. One more author Col. K. Rajashekar was one of the plaintiffs and he died after the institution of the suit.

¶81

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶82

The suit is filed primarily on the premise that the objectives of the Trust, established in 1979, are not fulfilled, and the defendants have mismanaged and committed breach of trust.

¶83

The plaintiffs allege that, since the objectives of the Trust are not met, the defendants committed breach of trust.

¶84

Before filing the suit, plaintiff issued notice on 02.02.1999 to the defendants, bringing to their notice that the objectives of the Trust have not been fulfilled by the defendants. However, there was no response to the said notice. One more notice was issued on 08.03.1999 to the defendants, informing them that the objectives of the Trust have not been fulfilled. The plaintiffs contend that, for more than 30 years since the date of formation of the Trust, defendant No.1 Trustee has not formed the Managing Committee. Thus the suit was filed for the aforementioned reliefs.

¶85

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶86

Leave was granted to the plaintiffs under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure to institute the suit. The defendants, engaged the counsel, but they did not participate in the trial by filing written statement.

¶87

The suit was initially decreed as prayed for in terms of the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2009, against which, an appeal was filed in R.F.A.No.4081/2012 before this Court. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

¶88

After the remand, defendants filed the written statement. The defendants denied the allegations leveled against them. However it is not the case of the defendants that Managing Committee is formed. It is stated that the income derived from the Trust properties are used for the benefits of poor students by distributing scholarships. The defendants contend that the plaintiffs have no locus to file the suit. Since

¶89

12 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶90

plaintiff No.1 died on 26.06.2006, the suit cannot be pursued as plaintiff No.1 dies issueless is one of the contentions.

¶91

It is further contented by the defendants that in the Execution Petition No.512/2011, filed pursuant to the initial decree passed by trial court, the original plaintiff K. Rajasekhar did not join the execution petition. The original plaintiff did not appear in RFA No.4081/2012. Thus urged that the plaintiffs are not interested in the affairs of the Trust. It is further contended that plaintiff No.3 V.D. Christopher is not a party to the Execution Petition, as such, he has no interest in Trust.

¶92

The defendants have also contended that first defendant is registered under the provisions of Indian Companies Act and first defendant is having head office at Chennai and the suit is not maintainable without impleading institution registered in Chennai

¶93

13 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶94

It is also urged that the Trust created under the deed dated 19.07.1979 is irrevocable. Hence, the suit is not maintainable.

¶95

It is further stated that there is no breach as alleged by the plaintiffs and defendant institution is rendering a yeomen service. The defendants also contend that activities of the Trust were hindered for some time on account of some disputes relating to election to the office bearers of the defendant institution.

¶96

The suit is dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the plaintiffs are in appeal.

¶97

It is necessary to mention that the plaintiff No.1(a) is the wife of late G. D. Chitrasekhar one of the authors of the Trust. Plaintiff No.1(aa) is the son of author’s sister and plaintiff No.1(bb) is the authors’ sister’s daughter. Plaintiff No.2, K. Rajasekhar one

¶98

14 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶99

of the authors of the Trust and plaintiff No.3 who is a localite and not connected to the family of the authors and claims to be interested in ensuring that the Trust is managed properly.

¶100

The Trial Court framed the following issues:

¶101

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants have committed breach of trust by not performing the duties and obligations in terms of trust deed dated 19.7.1979?

¶102

1. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the suit is not maintainable, as the plaintiffs have no heritable right to institute the suit under the provisions of Sec. 92 CPC?

¶103

1. Whether the defendant No.1 further proves that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the representative of the Church of South India Trust Association having its registered and head office at Chennai?

¶104

15 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶105

1. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the trust deed registered on 19.07.1979 is irrevocable in nature?

¶106

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought for?

¶107

1. What order or decree?

¶108

The issue No.1 relating to alleged breach committed by the defendants is answered in the negative against the plaintiffs and issue No.2 relating to the maintainability of the suit is also answered in the negative but same is in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No.3 relating to non-joinder of necessary parties is answered in the negative. Issue No.4 relating to the registration of the Trust deed which is not in dispute and there should not have been an issue in this behalf.

¶109

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants Smt. V. Vidya, would contend that the Trust deed stipulates that to carry out the

¶110

16 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶111

objectives of the Trust, there has to be a Managing Committee and the Committee should comprise at least one member from the authors’ family. The Committee is not formed at all. No activities were carried out as per the objectives set out in the Trust deed. The accounts pertaining to the Trust are not filed and the defendants have allowed the encroachers to occupy some portion of the Trust properties and there is a complete mismanagement and breach of trust and same is established from the evidence before the court. The defendants have not produced the documents for having formed the Managing Committee and even if it is formed, same is invalid for not including a member of the authors’ family.

¶112

Since the Trust deed mandates the formation of the a Managing Committee to manage the Trust, and the said Committee should include the member of the authors’ Trust, the failure on the part of the

¶113

17 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶114

defendants to form the Managing Committee for 30 years after the formation of the Trust itself is sufficient to hold the defendants committed breach of trust.

¶115

Sri C.V. Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents would contend that defendant No.1 is a reputed institution having presence across South India and carrying out commendable charitable work across South India and defendant No.1 has been distributing scholarships to the deserving students. The plaintiffs have not allowed the defendants to cultivate the Trust properties since 1999, as such, the Managing Committee was not formed in the initial days. It is also his contention that the members of the authors family did not come forward to participate in the activities of the Trust. Thus, the defendants had no occasion to appoint any member of the authors’ family in the Managing Committee.

¶116

18 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶117

Sri. Angadi also contends, that the plaintiffs having kept quite for many years cannot file a suit for removing the trustees and the plaintiffs have no locus.

¶118

It is also his contention that, though the Trust is irrevocable, the plaintiffs are trying to claim right over the properties and he would submit that after the disposal of the suit, the plaintiffs are wrongly interpreting the decree have been asserting their title and possession over the properties by putting a board in the suit properties wherein they claim that the properties belong to them. Thus he would contend that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief claimed.

¶119

It is also his contention that the direction issued by the Trial Court for managing the Trust properties is a workable solution and because of the stay order granted by the this court that direction could not be implemented and the direction should be allowed to

¶120

19 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶121

be implemented to find out whether it works out to achieve the objectives of the Trust. It is urged that the direction would take care of the objectives of the Trust and there is no need to remove the defendant from the position of the trustee.

¶122

Sri. Angadi would also contend that the head office of Church of South India located in Chennai should also be arrayed as a party and the suit is defective for non-joinder of necessary party.

¶123

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶124

The following points arise for consideration;

¶125

a) Whether the appellants have proved the breach of trust and made out a case for settling the scheme to manage the Trust?

¶126

b) Whether defendant No.1 Trust proves that there is no breach of trust and they have fulfilled the objectives of the Trust?

¶127

20 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶128

c) Whether the suit is defective for not impleading Church of South India Trust Association, Chennai as a party to the proceeding?

¶129

The execution of Trust deed dated 17.07.1979 is an admitted fact. The objectives set out in the Trust deed are also not in dispute. The fact that the schedule properties are the Trust properties is also not in dispute. Defendant No.1-Association is appointed as a trustee-executor with an obligation to manage the Trust properties is not in dispute.

¶130

It is also not in dispute that defendant No.1 Trust has to manage the properties by forming a Managing Committee. The number of members in the Committee is not specified in the Trust deed. However, it is stipulated that one of the members of the authors’ family should be a member of the Managing Committee. Thus there is an obligation on defendant No.1 to form a Managing Committee to manage the Trust properties to achieve the

¶131

21 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶132

objectives of the Trust. The clauses No. 7 and 9 of the Trust deed read as under:

¶133

“7. The 2^nd Party shall take immediate steps

¶134

in consonance of this Deed of Trust to perform and fulfill the objects and aims of this Trust Deed;

¶135

The Church of South India Karnataka Northern Diocese shall appoint a committee of Management of the Trust Projects the membership of which shall include one of the family members of the first party of their legal representatives.”

¶136

On a reading of the aforementioned clauses, it is evident that defendant No.1 was under obligation to form a Managing Committee to manage the Trust properties and in that Committee one of the members of the authors’ family should be the member and that Committee should manage the properties and the income derived from the properties should be used for educational purposes.

¶137

22 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶138

On going through the evidence placed before the Court, it is apparent that no Managing Committee was formed since its inception in 1979. Thus, obviously no member of the authors’ family is invited to be the part of the Managing Committee. There is nothing on record to show that the defendants approached the authors’ family to be part of the committee.

¶139

It is true that even there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiffs approached first defendant association requesting them to form a Managing Committee and to include a member of the authors’ family to be the part of the Managing Committee.

¶140

Inaction on the part of the plaintiffs in not approaching the first defendant with a request to form a Managing Committee and to include one of the family members in the Managing Committee does not absolve the responsibility of defendant No.1 to form a Managing Committee. The Trust deed

¶141

23 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶142

imposes an obligation on defendant No.1 to form a Managing Committee and to include one of the members of the authors’ family as the part of the Managing Committee. The obligation to form a Managing Committee is not dependent on the initiative on the part of the members of authors’ family. In case defendant No.1 had approached the authors or any of the members of the authors’ family requesting them to be the part of the Managing Committee, and if they had refused to be part of the Managing Committee, then the defendants could have formed a Managing Committee to manage the affairs of the Trust without including the members of the authors’ family by obtaining suitable orders from the Court by invoking Section 92 of the Code. Such course is not adopted.

¶143

From the pleadings as well as the evidence placed before the Court, it is apparent that no such attempt is made by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 did not

¶144

24 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶145

approach the authors of the Trust or any of the family members of the authors. Thus, it is evident that the Managing Committee was not formed at all to manage the Trust properties.

¶146

Now the question is; whether the income from the Trust properties were utilised to achieve the objectives of the Trust. There is nothing on record to show that defendants cultivated 54 acres of land which are the Trust properties. No records are produced by the defendants to show that they have cultivated the lands, and the income is utilised for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the Trust.

¶147

Though Sri. Angadi would contend that defendant No.1 is running several institutions and has been distributing scholarships to thousands of students who are unable to meet the educational expenses, no material is placed to show that income from the Trust properties are utilised to distribute the scholarships. On the other hand the evidence on

¶148

25 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶149

record would indicate that defendant No.1 never cultivated the lands.

¶150

It has also come in evidence that there was a sale deed in respect of 13.5 acres in schedule properties in the name of a third person wherein, the vendors impersonated one of the authors of the Trust and thereafter, the complaint is filed by one of the plaintiffs and the person who impersonated one of the authors of the Trust pleaded guilty and surrendered the property.

¶151

It has come in the cross-examination of DW-1 that in the Register maintained by defendant No.1 where they are required to maintain the properties of the defendant No.1, the suit schedule properties are not mentioned.

¶152

In paragraph No.5 of the cross examination, the witness DW-1 has stated as under:-

¶153

“Possession of trust properties was given to Donees in 1979 as Ex.P.1. Except Ex.P.1 we

¶154

26 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶155

have no other document with regard to handing over possession to Donees. There is rule in Ex.D.4 that the properties acquired by church shall be entered in register. We have not produced the property register of the church. It is not correct to say that I have not produced property register since Ex.P.1 properties not entered in the property register of church. The property register is in the office with his lock. Witness says that the keys are with the property manager who resigned and not yet handed over the charge. The property manager remained unauthorizedly absent since 01.01.2014 and wrote letter to him. I do not know whether the suit properties entered or not in the register of our church.”

¶156

Smt. V. Vidya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would also contend that Trust deed imposed obligation on the trustee to form a Trust in the name of "Rathnamma and Gayappa Memorial New Life Center Trust" and thereafter, the trusteedefendant No.1 was required to form a Managing Committee to administer the said Trust.

¶157

27 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶158

As against this, Sri C.V.Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants would contend that Trust is already created by the authors and all that the defendants were required to do was to form a Managing Committee to manage the properties and use the income for educational purposes. However, the Managing Committee as contemplated under the Trust deed, could not be formed for non co-operation on the part of the authors and their family members to be part of the Managing Committee. Thus, he would contend that the obligation to form the Trust was not there on defendant No.1.

¶159

At this juncture it is necessary to consider whether there is a breach of Trust within the meaning of breach of Trust under the Indian Trust Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act’). The relevant portion of Section 3 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act’), reads as under;

¶160

28 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶161

xxxx

¶162

“breach of trust”:—a breach of any duty imposed on a trustee, as such, by any law for the time being in force, is called a “breach of trust”:

¶163

Clauses 1 to 3 referred to above read as under;

¶164

This trust shall be named as "Rathamma And Gayappa Memorial New Life Centre Trust.

¶165

The Trustees shall hold the property hereby entrusted in Trust for all or any of the youths (beneficiaries) admitted to the said project;

¶166

The above Trust shall be formed under the name and style as specified above and it shall be conducted and functioned in the manner and for the purpose herein-after appearing by the 2^nd party.

¶167

As already noticed from the recitals in the Trust deed, there is an obligation on defendant No.1 to form a Managing Committee of the "Rathnamma and Gayappa Memorial New Life Center Trust". This Court has concluded that that Managing Committee is not formed and the income is not utilized to achieve the object. Thus, same constitutes the

¶168

29 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶169

breach of trust within the meaning of breach of trust as contemplated under the Indian Trust Act, 1872.

¶170

Defendants failed to manage the properties of the Trust has contemplated in the Trust. In action on the part of the defendants is prolonged and continuous. Absolutely, there is no justification for such an inaction. Hence, this Court is of the view that breach of trust is established.

¶171

By referring to Clauses 7 and 12, Sri. C.V.Angadi, learned counsel would contend that Trust is already formed and there is no obligation to form the Trust on defendant No.1. Whether one more entity under the name "Rathnamma and Gayappa Memorial New Life Center Trust" is required to be formed by defendant No.1 or the Trust is already formed by the authors is of little consequence given the fact that the Managing Committee is not formed and the income is not derived from the Trust properties and

¶172

30 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶173

the income is not utilized for the purpose mandated in the Trust deed.

¶174

Sri C.V.Angadi, learned counsel for respondents submits that suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is his contention that Trust created by the authors should have been made as a party. It is also his contention that defendant No.1 is registered in Madras (now Chennai) and said entity should have been made a party.

¶175

As far as the first contention relating to "Rathnamma and Gayappa Memorial New Life Center Trust" should be made as a party is concerned, said defence is not found in the written statement. Nevertheless it is a question of law.

¶176

It is required to be noticed that defendant No.1 is appointed as a trustee to manage the Trust in a particular manner. Hence, the person responsible for the management of said "Rathnamma and Gayappa

¶177

31 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶178

Memorial New Life Center Trust", is arrayed as defendant No.1. Hence, from that view of the matter the contention that the suit is not maintainable for not impleading "Rathnamma and Gayappa Memorial New Life Center Trust" has to be rejected as no prejudice is caused for such non inclusion assuming that that the Trust "Rathnamma and Gayappa Memorial New Life Center Trust" should have been arrayed as one of the defendants.

¶179

As far as the contention that defendant No.1 registered in Chennai should be made as a party and suit not maintainable for not impleading defendant No.1 registered in Chennai is concerned, it is relevant to note that in the Trust deed itself the Church of South India Trust Association represented by Rt.Rev. W.V.Karl. Bishop, Karnataka Northern Diocese, Haliyal Road, Dharwar, and Mr.R.S.Bangera, property manager, Karnataka Northern Diocese, Dharwar, are appointed as the trustees-executors.

¶180

32 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶181

Thus, it is evident that defendant No.1 is the Trust. Said Trust or entity is made a party. And it is represented by authorized persons who were managing its operations in North Karnataka. Hence, the contention that necessary parties are not arrayed has to be rejected and the Trial Court has rightly rejected the said contention.

¶182

For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs have established breach of trust and have made out a case for removal of the existing Trustees and appointment of new Trustees, and vesting of the properties in the new trustees. However, the Trial Court has wrongly held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the breach of trust.

¶183

Having held that the breach of trust is not proved, the Trial Court has made arrangements to auction the cultivation rights in the properties for a period of five years, by appointing the Court Commissioner to oversee the process. The proceeds realized from the

¶184

33 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶185

auction of cultivation rights were ordered to be given to the first defendant to fulfill the objectives of the Trust. Given the fact that there is breach of trust on the part of defendants, such course is not open. Hence this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and decree have to be set aside and suit of the plaintiffs is to be decreed.

¶186

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents Sri.C.V.Angadi, apprehended that the plaintiffs are claiming ownership right over the properties and they are asserting their title over the properties by placing a board in the Trust properties after the disposal of the suit.

¶187

It is to be noticed that the Trust created by the authors is an irrevocable Trust, and the plaintiffs cannot claim any ownership right or any other right over the properties. At the most, one of the members of the authors’ family can be a member in

¶188

34 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶189

the Managing Committee of the Trust. Beyond that, the plaintiffs do not have any right.

¶190

This observation is made here to ensure that there is no claim by any of the plaintiffs in respect of the properties, which are the subject matter of the present suit and which are the schedule properties in the Trust Deed of 1979.

¶191

Since the breach of Trust is established, new Trustees have to be appointed. This Court is of the view that the scheme for the Trust under the name and style ‘‘Rathnamma and Gayappa Memoral New Life Center Trust’’ has to be settled.

¶192

The Trust Deed of 1979 has not spelt out the modalities of the Managing Committee in detail. The Trust deed of 1979 is silent on the composition of the Committee. The authors of the Trust wanted the management of the Trust properties to be managed

¶193

35 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶194

by a charitable institution involved in educational activities.

¶195

Under these circumstances, following directions need to be issued to incorporate the same in the scheme of the Trust:

¶196

i) The scheme of ‘‘Rathnamma and Gayappa Memoral New Life Center Trust’’ shall be settled by the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction at Ballari.

¶197

ii) A charitable educational institution shall be appointed as Trustee of ‘‘Rathnamma and Gayappa Memoral New Life Center Trust’’.

¶198

iii) The trustee shall form a Managing Committee to manage and run the affairs of the Trust.

¶199

iv) The Trial Court shall specify the number of the members of the Managing Committee and the same shall be not less than three.

¶200

36 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶201

One of the members of the Managing Committee shall be from the family of the authors. Number of members for the Managing Committee shall always be odd number.

¶202

v) The scheme shall also provide for replacement/substitution of the members of the Management Committee in the event of contingencies.

¶203

vi) The scheme shall also provide for the tenure of the Managing Committee and the minimum qualification for the members of the Managing Committee.

¶204

vii) Before selecting the Trustee institution, the Trial Court shall issue vide publications in newspapers having vide circulation across Karnataka, inviting expressions of interest

¶205

37 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶206

from charitable institutions involved in

¶207

educational activities.

¶208

viii) After receiving the expression of interest from the applicants, the Trial Court shall objectively assees the suitability among the applicants and select the most competent amongst them to be the trustee. Thereafter, the trustee institution shall from a Committee as specified in the scheme settled by the Trial Court.

¶209

ix) The further modalities of the scheme and procedures for conducting the meeting of the Managing Committee, operation of bank accounts of the Committee, are to be clearly spelt out in the scheme to be settled by the Trial Court.

¶210

x) The Trial Court may also incorporate a clause in the scheme (if found necessary) to seek

¶211

38 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶212

approval of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, Ballari, for approving the selection of the Managing Committee or substitution of any of the members of the Managing Committee.

¶213

It is made clear that the directions referred to above are not exhaustive but are indicative and the Trial Court shall incorporate such other terms and conditions in the scheme to safeguard the interest of the Trust as well as to achieve the objectives of the Trust.

¶214

The directions issued by this Court may take considerable time for compliance. In the meantime, the Trust properties have to be protected. Until the scheme is finalized, cultivation rights over the Trust properties have to be auctioned.

¶215

The jurisdictional Executive Magistrate shall take up responsibility of auctioning the cultivation rights in

¶216

39 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17963 RFA No. 100015 of 2016

¶217

the suit properties and the auction proceeds shall be deposited in a nationalized bank till the scheme is settled by the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, Ballari.

¶218

With these observations, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and decree dated 07.11.2015 passed in O.S.No.3/2005 on the file of the Prl. District Judge at Ballari, are set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed as indicated above.

¶219

No order as to costs.

¶220

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶221

gab/ CHS/AM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32 ..

G.D. Chitrashekar v. Church of South India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.D. Chitrashekar v. Church of South India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadev Since Dead by His Lrs Vs Yallawwa Mother Yamawawwa Madar

Gurappa Vs Yallawwa

Mahammuddin S/O Allauddin Nasaradi Vs Marembi W/O Shaboddin Chamanshaikh

Smt. Vanamala W/O Abasaheb Jadhav Vs Smt. Vithabai W/O Anantrao Jadhav

Shri.Ghulappa S/O Balappa Doddamani Vs Shri.Subhas S/O Ghulappa Doddamani

Shri.Subhas S/O Ghulappa Doddamani Vs Smt.Gangavva W/O Ghulappa Doddamani