Allowed

Shri. Pratap Rao S/O Alagonda Patil, v. Shikshan Prasaraka Mandal Raibag

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024WP/110558/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ petitions challenging orders of the District Court under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920. Relying on a coordinate bench judgment, the Court held the District Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate rival factions and is not empowered to give approval for elections or settle disputes under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act. The impugned orders were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.09.2017 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Misc. Nos. 7/2015 and 5/2015 were quashed. Petitioners and re

Shri. Pratap Rao S/O Alagonda Patil, Vs Shikshan… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7851 WP No. 110558 of 2017 C/W WP No. 110557 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 110558 OF 2017 (GM-R/C)

¶5

C/W

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 110557 OF 2017

¶7

IN WP NO.110558 OF 2017 (GM-R/C)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. PRATAP RAO S/O. ALAGONDA PATIL, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PRESIDENT SHIKSHAN PRASARAKA MANDAL, BYAKUD, R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

PRANAV S/O. VIVEKRAO PATIL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, CHAIRMAN SHIKSHAN PRASARAKA MANDAL, RAIBAG, R/O: HILL STATION ROAD, RAIBAG.

¶11

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.06.21 12:12:33 +0530

¶12

SHRI. MAHAVEER S/O. SATYAPPA SANE, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, SECRETARY, SHIKSHAN PRASARAKA MANDAL, RAIBAG, R/O: HILL STATION ROAD, RAIBAG.

¶13

SHRI. VIVEKRAO S/O. VASANTRAO PATIL, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BEKKERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

SHRI. SATANGOUDA BASAPPA PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

SHRI. VEERABHADRA RAMA GENANI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7851 WP No. 110558 of 2017 C/W WP No. 110557 of 2017

¶18

SHRI. HALAPPA N. NEELAJAGI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BYAKUD, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶19

SHRI. ANNAPPA PEERAPPA GHANTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BEKKERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶20

SHRI. ANNASAHEB H. KESTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NESALAPURA, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶21

SHRI. ABDULRAZAK NANNESAHEB ARALIKATTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PENSIONER, R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SHIKSHAN PRASARAKA MANDAL RAIBAG, REGISTERED UNDER BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SHRI. AMARSIMHA V. PATIL, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAIBAG TALUKA, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶26

…RESPONDENT

¶27

(BY SRI. RAVIRAJ C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED:12.09.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN MISC.NO.7/2015 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7851 WP No. 110558 of 2017 C/W WP No. 110557 of 2017

¶31

IN WP NO.110557 OF 2017 (GM-R/C)

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

SHRI KSHAN PRASARAKA MANDAL RAIBAG, REGISTERED UNDER BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT UNDER REGISTRATION NO.F-28 (BELAGAVI), RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI. MAHAVEER S. SANE, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: SECCRETARY, R/O: RAIBAG, TALUK: DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶34

…PETITIONER

¶35

(BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

SHIKSHAN PRASARAKA MANDAL RAIBAG REGISTRED UNDER BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT UNDER REGISTRATION NO. F-28 (BELAGAVI), RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SRI. AMARSIMHA V. PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: CHAIRMAN, R/O: RAIBAG TALUKA, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶38

…RESPONDENT

¶39

((BY SRI. RAVIRAJ C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶40

¶41

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,

¶42

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7851 WP No. 110558 of 2017 C/W WP No. 110557 of 2017

¶44

¶45

ORDER

¶46

In these two petitions, the challenge is to the order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi on an application filed under Sections 3 and 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

¶47

The common order passed by the court below is squarely covered by an unreported judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in W.P.No.111276/2019 decided on 17.12.2021. It would be useful for this court to cull out paragraphs 4 to 7, which reads as under:

¶48

“4. According to the petitioners, by virtue of the registration of the Society, the provisions of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 would have no application.

¶49

5. Irrespective of the contentions advanced by the petitioners, one thing is clear that the petition under Section 7 of the CRT Act, 1920 cannot be invoked to seek for approval of any elections. Section 7 of the CRT Act, 1920 essentially enables any Trustee to file a petition to the District Court and request the Court to give advice, opinion or issue a direction in relation to the management or administration of the Trust property.

¶50

6. The District Court under Section 7 of the CRT Act, 1920 is not empowered to embark upon any adjudicatory role between two warring factions. It is therefore clear that the order passed be application filed before the District Court under Section 7 of the CRT Act, 1920 was misconceived and the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7851 WP No. 110558 of 2017 C/W WP No. 110557 of 2017

¶53

resultant order passed thereon by the District Court cannot also be sustained. As a result, the impugned order passed by the District and Sessinos Judge in Miscellaneous Application No.185/2018 is set aside.

¶54

7. It is open to the petitioners and the contesting respondents herein to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate fourm and seek to establish their rights in respect of the affairs of the Maratha Vidyaprasarak Mandal, Nippani.”

¶55

In the light of the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court, the District Court while entertaining a miscellaneous application filed under Section 3 and 7 of the Act has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining rival claims of both the parties. The Co-ordinate Bench while examining the scope of enquiry under Section 7 of the Act has clearly held that the District Court is not empowered to embark upon any adjudicatory role between two warring factions. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court culled out supra, the orders impugned in both the petitions are not sustainable.

¶56

For the forgoing reasons, this court passes the

¶57

following:

¶58

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7851 WP No. 110558 of 2017 C/W WP No. 110557 of 2017

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The writ petitions are allowed.

¶62

ii) The impugned order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Misc.No.7/2015 vide Annexure-J in W.P.No.110558/2017 is quashed.

¶63

iii) The impugned order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Misc.No.5/2015 vide Annexure-J in W.P.No.110557/2017 is quashed.

¶64

iv) It is open for the petitioners and contesting respondent herein to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum and establish their rights in respect of the affairs of the Shikshan Prasaraka Mandal, Raibag.

¶65

MBS Ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

Shri. Pratap Rao S/O Alagonda Patil, v. Shikshan Prasaraka Mandal Raibag

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Pratap Rao S/O Alagonda Patil, v. Shikshan Prasaraka Mandal Raibag

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinayak Vs Agricultural

Pooja D/O Basappa Gaddeppanavar Vs the Department of Backward Classes Welfare Department

M.Anees S/O M.Vali Basha Vs the Aribtrator Chennai

Karnataka Krushi Sangha Vs the District Registrar

Balu S/O Bomanna Patil Vs Gangu W/O Laxman Bhekane

Smt Pushpalata W/O Peerappa Chippalakatti Vs Smt Shivalila W/O Shivaling Ludabude