Dismissed¶71

Sri. Vitobha Rukma Bai Devara Bhandaram v. Sri. Hanumantha Kamath

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2025CRP/75/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Trusteeship dispute over a private religious trust (Bhandaram), Mangaluru - hereditary trustee claim versus appointed managing trustee - Order VII Rule 11 CPC applications to reject plaint and counter claim - Section 115 CPC revisional interference - 'mini trial' at threshold impermissible; claim and counter claim require evidence at trial - Vitobha/Vittobha Rukma Bai Devara Bhandaram and M Varadaraya Prabhu v. Hanumantha/Hanumanth Kamath - O.S.No.1228/2014 - CRP No. 75 of 2022 c/w CRP No. 189 of 2019 - NC: 2025:KHC:48306 - High Court of Karnataka, 21.11.2025 - both revisions dismissed, no merits opinion, trial to proceed.

What did the court decide?

The question of who is the Trustee of the first plaintiff cannot be decided by holding a mini trial at the threshold. ¶62

Sri. Vitobha Rukma Bai Devara Bhandaram Vs Sri. Hanumantha Kamath — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiffs' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the defendant's counter claim and the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint as a whole in O.S.No.1228/2014 were liable to be allowed, in light of the disputed trusteeship of the first plaintiff-Trust.

¶60

Court's answer

The question of who is the Trustee of the first plaintiff cannot be decided by holding a mini trial at the threshold.

¶62

Ratio / Principle

When there is a claim and a counter claim, the matter requires detailed consideration and the parties are required to place necessary evidence to substantiate their claims.

¶63

Key takeaways

The trial court's rejection (dismissal) of both the Order VII Rule 11 applications - the plaintiffs' against the counter claim and the defendant's against the plaint - is just and proper and requires no interference in these revision petitions.ratio¶68
The Court has not opined anything on the merits of the matter; the parties remain at liberty to canvass their respective contentions in accordance with law, including the pending applications.ratio¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petitions (S.115 CPC) - Rejection of plaint / counter claim at threshold (Order VII Rule 11 CPC) - O.S.No.1228/2014, IV Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mangalore: plaintiffs sought declaration that the defendant is not a lawfully appointed trustee of the first plaintiff-Bhandaram (private religious trust) with consequential permanent prohibitory injunction; the defendant counter-claimed as hereditary trustee seeking declaration that the second plaintiff is not the trustee and his removal. The plaintiffs' IA No.12 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC (order dated 02.12.2021) and the defendant's IA No.III under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC for rejection of plaint (order dated 04.01.2019) were dismissed by the trial court, treating trusteeship as a question of fact for trial. Held: the question of who is the trustee of the first plaintiff cannot be decided by holding a mini trial at the threshold; where there is a claim and counter claim, parties must place necessary evidence; dismissal of both applications is just and proper and calls for no interference. Both revision petitions dismissed; no opinion expressed on the merits; parties free to canvass contentions in accordance with law. (V. Srishananda, J.)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:48306 CRP No. 75 of 2022 C/W CRP No. 189 of 2019

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 75 OF 2022 (IO)

¶8

C/W

¶9

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 189 OF 2019

¶10

IN CRP No. 75/2022

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI. VITOBHA RUKMA BAI DEVARA BHANDARAM A PRIVATE RELIGIOUS TRUST HAVING ITS OFFICE AT V T ROAD MANGALURU REP BY PETITIONER NO.2

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI M VARADARAYA PRABHU S/O SRI M RAMAKRISHNA PRABHU AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS MANAGING TRUSTEE VITOBHA RUKMA BAI DEVARA BHANDARAM R/AT AYODYA PATIDHAM G T ROAD MANGALORE - 575 001

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48306 CRP No. 75 of 2022 C/W CRP No. 189 of 2019

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI. HANUMANTHA KAMATH S/O DEVADAS KAMATH G AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT SEVANJALI CHARITABLE TRUST JODUMATT ROAD MANGALORE - 575 001

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2021 PASSED ON IA No.12 IN OS No.1228/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALORE, REJECTING THE IA No.12 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC.

¶24

IN CRP NO. 189/2019

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SRI HANUMANTH KAMATH S/O SRI DEVADAS KAMATH G AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SEVANJALI CHARITABLE TRUST, JODUMATT ROAD, MANGALORE - 575 001

¶27

...PETITIONER

¶28

(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

SRI VITTOBHA RUKMA BAI DEVARA BHANDARAM A PRIVATE RELIGIOUS TRUST,

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48306 CRP No. 75 of 2022 C/W CRP No. 189 of 2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

HAVING OFFICE AT G.T.STREET, MANGALURU REPRESENTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN

¶34

SRI M VARADARAYA PRABHU S/O M RAMAKRISHNA PRABHU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, MANAGING TRUSTEE, SRI VITTOBHA RUKMA BAI DEVARA BHANDARAM R/AT AYODHYA PATIDHAM G T STREET, MANGALURU-1

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶37

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2019 PASSED IN IA.NO.III OS.NO.1228/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶38

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

Heard Sri. A. Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Suyog Herele E., learned counsel for the respondents.

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48306 CRP No. 75 of 2022 C/W CRP No. 189 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

These two revision petitions are filed by the

¶45

plaintiffs and defendant respectively challenging the rejection of the counter claim and rejection of the claim.

¶46

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost

¶47

necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

¶48

3.1 A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.1228/2014 on

¶49

the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangalore with the following prayer:

¶50

a.	For a declaration that the defendant is not a lawfully appointed trustee of the 1^st plaintiff Bhandaram and for consequential permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from claiming or functioning or interfering with the administration or affairs of 1^stplaintiff Bhandaram, in any manner, claiming to be a trustee.	Rs.1000/-
b.	For cost of the suit
c.	For such other and further reliefs as may be just and necessary under the circumstances of the case.
d.	TOTAL	Rs.1000/-

¶51

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48306 CRP No. 75 of 2022 C/W CRP No. 189 of 2019

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

3.2 The defendant filed a counter claim claiming that he is the hereditory Trustee and sought for a declaratory relief stating that second defendant is not the Trustee of the first plaintiff and he should be removed.

¶54

3.3 To reject such a counter claim, plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereas defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of the Civil Procedure to reject the plaint as a whole.

¶55

3.4 Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the objections from the plaintiffs and defendant in respect of those applications, noted that the trusteeship claimed by the second plaintiff and defendant is a question of fact which need to be adjudicated during the trial after permitting the parties to place necessary evidence on record.

¶56

3.5 In other words, learned Trial Judge is of the opinion that the matter requires full fledged trial and

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48306 CRP No. 75 of 2022 C/W CRP No. 189 of 2019

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

therefore neither the claim in the plaint nor the counter claim can be rejected at the threshold and thus dismissed both the applications.

¶60

Being aggrieved by the same, defendant and plaintiffs are before this Court in these revision petitions.

¶61

Sri. A. Madhusudhan Rao and Sri. Suyog Herele canvassing their respective contentions vehemently contended that there are serious disputes about the trusteeship of the first plaintiff-Trust inasmuch as the second plaintiff is claiming that he is the Trustee whereas the defendant claiming that he is the trustee by heredity.

¶62

This Court considered the rival contentions and is of the considered opinion that the question of who is the Trustee of first plaintiff cannot be decided by holding a mini trial at the threshold.

¶63

Matter requires detailed consideration and when there is a claim and counter claim, parties are required to place necessary evidence to substantiate their claim.

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48306 CRP No. 75 of 2022 C/W CRP No. 189 of 2019

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Therefore, rejection of the application filed by

¶67

the plaintiff as well as the application filed by defendant is

¶68

just and proper and requires no interference in these revision petitions.

¶69

Hence, following Order:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

(i) Both the revision petitions are dismissed. Consequently, pending interlocutory applications are consigned to records.

¶72

(ii) It is made clear that this Court has not opined anything on the merits of the matter and parties are at liberty to canvass their respective contentions in accordance with law including the pending applications.

¶73

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶74

SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT-SG

Sri. Vitobha Rukma Bai Devara Bhandaram v. Sri. Hanumantha Kamath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Vitobha Rukma Bai Devara Bhandaram v. Sri. Hanumantha Kamath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K M Mohammed Akbar Vs Sri M B Ramachandran

Sri Markandaiah Naidu Vs Sri D Venkatesh

Smt.Supriya Acharya Vs Shri.Shivaram Naik M

Pira Scientific (Opc) Pvt. Limited Vs Novo Nordisk India Private Limited

Mailappa Gowda Vs Smt Janaki

M/S Tamarind Multi Cuisine Bar and Restaurant Vs Smt. Sarasamma