Dismissed¶189

Sri G S Sudharshan v. Grama Seva Sangha Trust

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2026MFA/7165/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 92 CPC; public trust; Dodda Maavalli Bisilu Maramma Temple; receiver; Order XL Rule 1 CPC; temporary injunction; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; prima facie case; balance of convenience; irreparable injury; Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719; MFA No.8514/2023 paragraph 28; indirect relief; putting defendants on terms; O.S. No.8215/2024; MFA No.7165/2025; MFA No.7164/2025; NC: 2026:KHC:15869; Justice K.S. Hemalekha; High Court of Karnataka.

What did the court decide?

In the absence of any material demonstrating immediate threat to the trust properties or misuse of funds, the extraordinary relief of appointment of a receiver cannot be granted. ¶167

Sri G S Sudharshan Vs Grama Seva Sangha Trust — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7165 OF 2025 (CPC)

¶9

C/W

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7164 OF 2025 (CPC)

¶11

IN MFA NO.7165/2025

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SRI G.S. SUDHARSHAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O LATE G.N. SRIRAMU, R/AT NO.14, S.B. ROAD, V.V. PURAM, BENGALURU-560004.

¶14

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. AMBUNJAMMA W/O LATE SRI R.N. NARENDRANATH, AGED 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.17/1, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶16

SMT. MAMATHA B.V. D/O VENKATRAMA .B AGED 53 YEARS, NO.42, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVALLI MARAMMA TEMPLE, BASAVANGUDI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶17

SRI B.V. SAMPATH AGED 62 YEARS, S/O B.M. VENKATARAMANAPPA R/AT NO.24, ANNAPURNESHWARI NILAYA, SIDDEGOWDA STREET, DODDAMAVALLI,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BENGALURU-560004.

¶21

DEAD AND HENCE NOT MADE PARTY AND LRs. AND NOT NECESSARY TO THE SUIT.

¶22

SRI V. MANJUNATH AGED 55 YEARS, S/O P. VEERABHADRAPPA, R/AT NO.69, MANJINNA BALLI, MAVALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR LALBAGH WEST GATE, BENGALURU-560004.

¶23

SRI V. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED 56 YEARS, S/O P. VEERABHADRAPPA, R/AT NO.33/4, 2^ND FLOOR, KRUMBIGAL ROAD, NEAR LALBAGH MAIN GATE, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶24

SRI KAVIRAJA AGED 44 YEARS, S/O PUTTAMUDDAPPA, R/AT NO.E -86, OLD NO.33, RANGAPPA STREET, NEAR LALBAGH, CHIKKAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶25

SRI S. SOMASHEKAR AGED 57 YEARS, S/O LATE SHIVARAM, R/AT NO.02, YELLAPPA STREET, CHUIKKAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶26

SRI S. JAGANNATHA AGED 58 YEARS, S/O LATE M. SRINIVAS, R/AT NO.35/3, RAMAMURTHY ROAD, CHIKKAMAVALI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶27

B.V. RAKESH S/O VIJAY KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS,

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

NO.1B/25, NEW CROSS ROAD, CHIKKAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶31

SRI G. VENKATESH AGED 49 YEARS, S/O GOPAL R/AT NO.2, MUTTON STALL ROAD, DODDAMAVALLI,

¶32

BENGALURU-560004.

¶33

J. PADMANABHA AGED 42 YEARS, S/O M. GANESH MUDALIAUYAR NO.1/A, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶34

N.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED 37 YEARS, A/O K.N. PRABHUDEV, NO.12, 4^TH CROSS, LALBAGH FRONT ROAD, DODAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶35

&APPELLANTS

¶36

(BY SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B.S. RAGHU PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

GRAMA SEVA SANGHA TRUST OLD CORPORATION NO.25/A SUSHEELA ROAD, (MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD), CHIKKAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶39

SRI N. VENKATESH S/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.58, MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, CHIKKAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

SRI M. UDAY SHANKAR S/O LATE H. MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.40, SIDDEGOWDA STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI,

¶43

BENGALURU-560004.

¶44

SRI B.S. GOPALAKRISHNA S/O R. SRINIVASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1/A, BANASHANKARI TEMPLE ROAD, DODDAMAVAHALLI,

¶45

BENGALURU-560004.

¶46

SRI B. BANASHANKARAPPA S/O EARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.26, KEMPANNA STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU3560004.

¶47

SRI S. RAMACHNADRAPPA S/O K. SRINIVASAPPA, AGED 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.25, SRI MARAMMA TEMPLE STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI,

¶48

BENGALURU-560004.

¶49

SRI M. NAGARAJ S/O MUNIRAMAIAH, AGED 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, MUDDALAPPA CROSS, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶50

SRI M. VISHWANATH S/O MUNISHAMAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.415, MARUTHI LAYOUT, BELTHUR, KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU-560067.

¶51

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

SRI B.A. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O ABBAIAPPA, AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI,

¶54

BENGALURU-560004.

¶55

SRI MUDLAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.596, 7^TH MAIN, TOM CROSS, 3^RD STAGE,

¶56

J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078.

¶57

SRI B.M. CHELUVARAJU S/O B.N. MARAPPA, AGED 63 YEARS, NO.3, APPAIANNA STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI,

¶58

BENGALURU-560004.

¶59

STATE BANK OF INDIA SAJJAN RAO CIRCLE, P.B. NO.423, NO.116, KAVI LAKSHMISHA ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶60

KARNATAKA BANK R.V. ROAD BRANCH, R.V. ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU.

¶61

&RESPONDENTS

¶62

(BY SRI R.S. RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

¶63

SRI B. ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4, R-7 TO R-9 & R-11; SRI VASU K., ADVOCATE FOR R-10; NOTICE TO R-13 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶64

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(S) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.8215/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER XL RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶65

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

IN MFA NO.7164/2025

¶68

BETWEEN:

¶69

SRI G.S. SUDHARSHAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O LATE G.N. SRIRAMU, R/AT NO.14, S.B. ROAD, V.V. PURAM, BENGALURU-560004.

¶70

SMT. AMBUNJAMMA W/O LATE SRI R.N. NARENDRANATH, AGED 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.17/1, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶71

SMT. MAMATHA B.V. D/O VENKATRAMA .B AGED 53 YEARS, NO.42, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVALLI MARAMMA TEMPLE, BASAVANGUDI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶72

SRI B.V. SAMPATH AGED 62 YEARS, S/O B.M. VENKATARAMANAPPA R/AT NO.24, ANNAPURNESHWARI NILAYA, SIDDEGOWDA STREET, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. DEAD AND HENCE NOT MADE PARTY AND LRs. AND NOT NECESSARY TO THE APPEAL.

¶73

SRI V. MANJUNATH AGED 55 YEARS, S/O P. VEERABHADRAPPA, R/AT NO.69, MANJINNA BALLI, MAVALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR LALBAGH WEST GATE, BENGALURU-560004.

¶74

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

SRI V. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED 56 YEARS, S/O P. VEERABHADRAPPA, R/AT NO.33/4, 2^ND FLOOR, KRUMBIGAL ROAD, NEAR LALBAGH MAIN GATE, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶77

SRI KAVIRAJA AGED 44 YEARS, S/O PUTTAMUDDAPPA, R/AT NO.E -86, OLD NO.33, RANGAPPA STREET, NEAR LALBAGH, CHIKKAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶78

SRI S. SOMASHEKAR AGED 57 YEARS, S/O LATE SHIVARAM, R/AT NO.02, YELLAPPA STREET, CHUIKKAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶79

SRI S. JAGANNATHA AGED 58 YEARS, S/O LATE M. SRINIVAS, R/AT NO.35/3, RAMAMURTHY ROAD, CHIKKAMAVALI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶80

B.V. RAKESH S/O VIJAY KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, NO.1B/25, NEW CROSS ROAD, CHIKKAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶81

SRI G. VENKATESH AGED 49 YEARS, S/O GOPAL R/AT NO.2, MUTTON STALL ROAD, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶82

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

J. PADMANABHA AGED 42 YEARS, S/O M. GANESH MUDALIAUYAR NO.1/A, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶85

N.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED 37 YEARS, A/O K.N. PRABHUDEV, NO.12, 4^TH CROSS, LALBAGH FRONT ROAD, DODAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶86

&APPELLANTS

¶87

(BY SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B.S. RAGHU PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶88

AND:

¶89

GRAMA SEVA SANGHA TRUST OLD CORPORATION NO.25/A SUSHEELA ROAD, (MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD), CHIKKAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶90

SRI N. VENKATESH S/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.58, MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, CHIKKAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶91

SRI M. UDAY SHANKAR S/O LATE H. MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.40, SIDDEGOWDA STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶92

SRI B.S. GOPALAKRISHNA S/O R. SRINIVASAPPA,

¶93

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1/A, BANASHANKARI TEMPLE ROAD, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶96

SRI B. BANASHANKARAPPA S/O EARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.26, KEMPANNA STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU3560004.

¶97

SRI S. RAMACHNADRAPPA S/O K. SRINIVASAPPA, AGED 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.25, SRI MARAMMA TEMPLE STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI,

¶98

BENGALURU-560004.

¶99

SRI M. NAGARAJ S/O MUNIRAMAIAH, AGED 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, MUDDALAPPA CROSS, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶100

SRI M. VISHWANATH S/O MUNISHAMAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.415, MARUTHI LAYOUT, BELTHUR, KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU-560067.

¶101

SRI B.A. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O ABBAIAPPA, AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶102

SRI MUDLAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH,

¶103

10 -

¶104

NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.596, 7^TH MAIN, TOM CROSS, 3^RD STAGE,

¶107

J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078.

¶108

SRI B.M. CHELUVARAJU S/O B.N. MARAPPA, AGED 63 YEARS, NO.3, APPAIANNA STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶109

STATE BANK OF INDIA SAJJAN RAO CIRCLE, P.B. NO.423, NO.116, KAVI LAKSHMISHA ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶110

KARNATAKA BANK R.V. ROAD BRANCH, R.V. ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU.

¶111

&RESPONDENTS

¶112

(BY SRI R.S. RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

¶113

SRI B. ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4, R-7 TO R-9 & R-11; SRI VASU K., ADVOCATE FOR R-10; NOTICE TO R-13 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶114

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(S) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.8215/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶115

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶116

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶117

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶120

These appeals are directed against the common order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No.8215/2024 (8Trial Court9 for short), whereby I.A. No.III filed under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking appointment of a receiver, and I.A. Nos.IV and VI filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction came to be dismissed. The appeals are preferred only against the orders on I.A. Nos.III and IV, no appeal is preferred against the order on I.A. No.VI.

¶121

Since both the appeals relate to the very same

¶122

impugned order, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶123

The plaintiffs instituted suit under Section 92 and 26 read with Order VII Rule 8 CPC in respect of Dodda Maavalli Bisilu Maramma Temple against defendant No.1-

¶124

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

Trust, seeking removal of trustees, settlement of a scheme

¶127

for administration of the trust and other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed

¶128

i. I.A. No.III seeking appointment of a receiver /

¶129

administrator to manage the affairs of the trust and its properties and

¶130

ii. I.A. Nos.IV and VI seeking temporary injunction

¶131

restraining the defendants from altering the nature of the temple and trust properties and from putting up any construction pending disposal of the suit.

¶132

The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings,

¶133

documents and objections filed by the defendants, held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of misappropriation or misuse of temple funds. The Trial Court also observed that the allegations were largely based on assumptions and that the defendants had produced documents such as accounts, receipts and records, indicating maintenance of the trust affairs. Consequently, the Trial Court answered the points relating

¶134

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

to prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in the negative and dismissed the said interlocutory applications. Aggrieved by the common order on I.A. Nos.III and IV, the present appeals are filed.

¶137

Learned senior counsel Sri M.R. Rajagopal appearing on behalf of Sri B.S. Raghu, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court has proceeded on an erroneous premise by treating the present suit as an ordinary suit for injunction, whereas the suit is one instituted under Section 92 of CPC, which is in the nature of representative action concerning a public trust. It is contended that, in such proceedings, the approach of the Court ought to be different, as the Court acts as a custodian of the public trust property, and therefore, great scrutiny is required to safeguard the interest of the temple and its properties.

¶138

Learned senior counsel further relies upon the

¶139

decision rendered by this Court in MFA No.8514/2023,

¶140

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

particularly paragraph No.28, to contend that in matters concerning a public trust, the Court must adopt a protective approach. It is further contended that the Trial Court has erroneously construed the proceedings under Section 92 CPC as if they were pure adversarial litigation between private parties, without appreciating the representative nature of the proceedings.

¶143

Learned senior counsel submits that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the seriousness of the allegation regarding misuse of temple funds and demolition of the existing temple structure and therefore, the impugned order warrants interference.

¶144

8 . Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri R.S. Ravi appearing on behalf of Sri B. Roopesha, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that the plaintiffs have repeatedly initiated proceedings on the same allegation without producing any credible material. It is submitted that, even prior to the

¶145

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶146

HC-KAR

¶147

present appeal, an application seeking appointment of a receiver had been filed and rejected, which was carried in MFA No.5167/2023, and the said appeal was withdrawn, and therefore, the present attempt is nothing but a repetition of earlier proceedings on I.A No.III.

¶148

It is further contended that I.A. No.IV had

¶149

already been the subject matter of challenge in MFA No.7999/2024 and in view of subsequent developments, the said appeal itself has become infructuous. Learned senior counsel also submits that order on I.A. No.VI passed by the Trial Court has not been challenged in the present proceedings and therefore, the appellants cannot seek interference with the impugned order.

¶150

It is further submitted that the allegations of misappropriation are wholly unsupported by documentary evidence, whereas, the defendants have placed on record the documents relating to accounts, audit report, bank statements and other materials demonstrating proper

¶151

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶152

HC-KAR

¶153

administration of the trust. It is therefore contended that

¶154

the Trial Court has rightly concluded that no prima facie case is made out and the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiffs.

¶155

In reply, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the earlier appeal MFA No.5167/2023 was not dismissed on merits but was withdrawn by filing a memo, reserving liberty to pursue appropriate remedies and therefore, the present application-I.A. No.III cannot be said to be barred by res judicata .

¶156

This Court has carefully considered the

¶157

submissions and perused the material on record.

¶158

The point that arises for consideration is:

¶159

<Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting I.A. Nos.III and IV filed by the plaintiffs?=

¶160

17 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶161

HC-KAR

¶162

The Trial Court has specifically recorded that the allegations of misuse of funds and mismanagement of temple and trust are not supported by any concrete material. The documents relied by the plaintiffs do not prima facie establish any act of misappropriation or diversion of funds. On the other hand, the Trial Court has noted that the defendants have produced documents indicating maintenance of accounts, receipts relating to temple collections and records pertaining to the administration of the trust. The Trial Court has taken note of all these materials and has observed that the allegation of misappropriation cannot be presumed merely on the basis of submission. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case.

¶163

If a prima facie case is not established, the Court usually does not proceed to examine the other requirements. The Apex Court in Dalpat Kumar and Anr. Vs. Prahlad Singh and Ors¹ ( Dalpat Kumar ) has held

¶164

1 (1992) 1 SCC 719

¶165

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶166

HC-KAR

¶167

that 8 Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial.9 It only means that the Court must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried. Prima facie case means a case which appears to have merit on the face of record and requires full trial for final determination. In the absence of any material demonstrating immediate threat to the trust properties or misuse of funds, the extraordinary relief of appointment of a receiver cannot be granted.

¶168

Similarly, the prayer of temporary injunction restraining the construction or alteration of temple premises cannot be granted in the absence of a prima facie case. This Court finds that the Trial Court has exercised its discretion judicially and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting any interference.

¶169

19 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶170

HC-KAR

¶171

It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that, in the event this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, certain conditions may be imposed on the defendants and they may be put on terms so as to safeguard the interest of the trust and temple properties.

¶172

This Court has considered the submission. However, since the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case and the balance of convenience does not lie in their favour, the question of imposing conditions on the defendants or putting them on terms would not arise. Imposition of such conditions would, in effect, amount to granting indirect relief, which the appellants have otherwise failed to establish in accordance with law.

¶173

It is also relevant to note that the Trial Court has taken into consideration the documents produced by the defendants relating to the accounts and administration of the trust and recorded a finding that the allegation of

¶174

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶175

HC-KAR

¶176

misuse are not substantiated by any material on record. In the absence of any prima facie material demonstrating mismanagement or diversion of funds, there is no justification for this Court to place the defendants on terms at this interlocutory stage. However, it is needless to observe that the administration of the trust and the temple property shall remain subject to final adjudication of the suit and the parties are at liberty to place all relevant materials before the Trial Court during the course of trial.

¶177

Learned senior counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in MFA No.8514/2023, particularly paragraph No.28, to contend that in the proceedings instituted under Section 92 CPC, the Court acts as a custodian of a public trust and therefore, the approach of the Court while considering interlocutory application should be different from that in an ordinary suit. MFA No.8514/2023 was filed by the present appellants challenging the order passed in

¶178

21 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶179

HC-KAR

¶180

proceedings under Section 92 of CPC, wherein the Court permitted the appellants to present the plaint. The observations made in paragraph No.28 of the said judgment were in the context of considering whether leave under Section 92 CPC ought to have been granted and cannot be construed as laying down any principle dispensing with the requirement of establishing the ingredients necessary for grant of interim relief.

¶181

In the present case, the Trial Court after examining the pleadings, documents placed on record has recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case of mismanagement or misuse of the trust property. The said finding is based on the appreciation of material before the Court. Even in a suit instituted under Section 92 CPC, an applicant seeking interim relief is required to satisfy the well-settled principle governing grant of such relief, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Therefore, the reliance placed on the observation made in paragraph

¶182

22 - NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025

¶183

HC-KAR

¶184

No.28 of MFA No.8514/2023 does not assist the appellants

¶185

in the facts of the present case. For the foregoing reasons, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following:

¶186

ORDER

¶187

i. The miscellaneous first appeals are hereby

¶188

dismissed .

¶189

ii. The common order dated 07.07.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.III and IV in O.S. No.8215/2024 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in is hereby confirmed .

¶190

iii. The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the present appeals and does not influence the Trial Court while deciding the suit on its merits.

¶191

Sd/-

¶192

MBM

¶193

______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶194

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75

Sri G S Sudharshan v. Grama Seva Sangha Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G S Sudharshan v. Grama Seva Sangha Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eranna M Vs Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec)

M/S a S K Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B v Sathyanarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. B Pushpalatha v Prasad Vs Sri. H N Balanarasimha

D Kenchappa Vs Sri D C Basavaraju

Sri. Purandara Kulal Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited