Dismissed

Hebron Church (Regd) v. the Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2026RFA/2879/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A trust's bare injunction suit over management of a church was dismissed below as barred by res judicata, earlier suits having conclusively invalidated its Trust Deed. The High Court affirmed that the suit was barred under Section 11 CPC and dismissed the first appeal with exemplary costs for abusive repeated litigation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Hebron Church (Regd) Vs the Society of Trustees of… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2879 OF 2025 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HEBRON CHURCH (REGD.) RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE TRUST G.B.J. 447/4, NEAR WATER TANK, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 037. REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN MR. D. ANDREWS S/O LATE DB RAJARATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO D-24, OLD TOWNSHIP HAL COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. UMESH B.N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE SOCIETY OF TRUSTEES OF INDIGENOUS CHURCHES IN INDIA H. NO 1-1-574, GOLCONDA CROSS ROADS HYDERABAD - 500 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SRI. R. VEERACHARY.

¶15

THE INDIGENOUS CHURCHES IN INDIA TRUST H. NO. 1-1-574, GOLCONDA CROSS ROADS HYDERABAD - 500 020.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND FOUNDER TRUSTEE SRI. F.C.S. PETER.

¶20

SRI. SUNEEL BABU S/O YESAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO 120, LORDS HOUSE, 2ND MAIN, RANGANATHAPURA KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 079.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. H. MALATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2025 PASSED ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE (ISSUE NO.3) IN OS.NO.1525/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT AS BARRED BY PRINCIPLES OF RES-JUDICATA.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who is aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court passed on preliminary issue No.3, wherein the Trial Court, while answering preliminary issue No.3 in the affirmative, has

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

held that the present suit is clearly hit by a principle of res

¶32

judicata in view of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.10116/1998 and the judgment rendered by this Court in RFA.No.1543/2023. The said order is impugned before this Court.

¶33

For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties

¶34

are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

¶35

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶36

The plaintiff–Hebron Church has instituted the

¶37

present suit in O.S.No.1525/2025 seeking the relief of injunction simpliciter. The case set up in the plaint is that the plaintiff claims to have constituted a trust and, on that basis, asserts a right to manage and administer the affairs of the Hebron Church. Proceeding on the said premise, the plaintiff asserts that it is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the church premises and alleges that the defendants are unlawfully interfering with its right to

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

administer the church, thereby necessitating the filing of the present suit.

¶42

Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement, specifically contending that the present suit is barred by the principles of res judicata. It is pleaded that the issues sought to be reagitated have already attained finality in view of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.10116/1998, as affirmed by this Court in RFA.No.1206/2010, and more recently by the judgment rendered in RFA.No.1543/2023, arising out of O.S.No.1368/1997, wherein the suit filed by the present plaintiff was dismissed.

¶43

The Trial Court, after framing issues, treated Issue No.3 as a preliminary issue. Upon consideration, the Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the present bare suit for injunction is clearly hit by the doctrine of res judicata, having regard to the final adjudication between the parties

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

in O.S.No.10116/1998 and the judgment rendered by this

¶48

Court in RFA.No.1543/2023.

¶49

This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the defendants. This Court has also carefully perused the judgments and decrees rendered in O.S.No.10116/1998 and RFA.No.1543/2023, arising out of O.S.No.1368/1997, instituted by the present plaintiff.

¶50

Upon a meticulous examination of the plaint averments in the present suit and a comparative analysis of the findings recorded by the competent Civil Court and this Court in the earlier rounds of litigation, the following points arise for consideration:

¶51

(i) Whether the present suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1525/2025 is barred by the principles of res judicata in view of the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.10116/1998 and affirmed by

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

this Court in RFA.No.1543/2023, arising out of O.S.No.1368/1997?

¶56

(ii) Whether the institution of the present suit amounts to a misuse of the due process of law by repeatedly filing suits on the same cause of action, thereby constituting an abuse of process of Court, warranting dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs?

¶57

(iii) What order?

¶58

Finding on point No.(i):

¶59

Before this Court proceeds to examine the correctness of the reasons assigned by the Trial Court in dismissing the present suit on the ground that it is barred

¶60

by the principles of res judicata, it is both necessary and apposite to advert to the nature, scope, and legal effect of the declaration granted in the earlier round of litigation.

¶61

The record unmistakably discloses that the first defendant herein had instituted a comprehensive suit for declaration

¶62

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

and consequential injunction in O.S.No.10116/1998 against the present plaintiff–Hebron Church. In the said suit, the first defendant specifically sought a declaration with regard to the right of management and control of the Hebron Church, as well as a declaration invalidating the Trust Deed dated 24.04.1987, which forms the very foundation of the present plaintiff’s claim.

¶66

The Civil Court, upon a full-fledged trial, was pleased to decree O.S.No.10116/1998, recording a categorical finding that the Hebron Church is managed and administered by the first defendant–society and further holding that the Trust Deed dated 24.04.1987, on which the present plaintiff bases its alleged right to administer the Church, is illegal and not binding. The declaration so granted is not incidental or collateral in nature, but is a substantive and conclusive adjudication on the core issue of management and control of the Hebron Church, which lies at the heart of the present lis .

¶67

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

The legal effect of the said declaration is that the very juridical foundation of the present plaintiff’s claim to administer the Hebron Church stands negated by a binding decree passed by a competent Civil Court. The said judgment has attained finality, having been affirmed in the multiple rounds of litigation, and therefore operates as a complete bar against any attempt by the present plaintiff to reassert the very same rights, albeit in the guise of a suit for injunction simpliciter.

¶71

In order to appreciate the binding nature and operative effect of the declaration granted in O.S.No.10116/1998, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the operative portion of the judgment, which reads as under:

¶72

" The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. It is hereby declared that Hebron church formed under the Trust Deed dated 24.4.87 registered as Document No. 53 of 1987-88 in the Office of the SubRegistrar, Bangalore is illegal. It is hereby declared further that defendants and their previes have no

¶73

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

right or interest in the management and control of the Hebron church situated at GBJ.447/4, Marathahalli, Bangalore 560 037. The defendants and their previes are hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction from interfering in any manner with the conduct of administration control and management of the schedule church. The defendants 1(a) to 1(h) are also directed to restore the moveable properties of the church, to the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, no order as to costs."

¶77

EMPHASIS SUPPLIED

¶78

A careful reading of the operative portion of the judgment rendered in O.S.No.10116/1998 leaves no manner of doubt that the Trust Deed dated 24.04.1987, on the strength of which the present plaintiff asserts its right to control, administer, and manage the affairs of the Hebron Church, stood conclusively negatived. The Civil Court, by a reasoned judgment, granted a clear and unequivocal declaration holding the said Trust Deed to be illegal, thereby putting a complete quietus to the very foundation of the present plaintiff’s claim. The said decree

¶79

10 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

was carried in appeal by the present plaintiff in RFA.No.1206/2010, and this Court, by judgment and decree dated 05.01.2012, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Consequently, the declaration attained finality inter partes and became binding on the present plaintiff.

¶83

Notwithstanding the binding nature of the decree in O.S.No.10116/1998, as affirmed by this Court in RFA.No.1206/2010, it is both surprising and disturbing to note that the present plaintiff had already approached the Civil Court by instituting O.S.No.1368/1997, seeking a declaration that it is a religious and charitable trust and that its Board of Trustees is entitled to administer the affairs and activities of the Hebron Church, coupled with an allegation that the first defendant has interfered with such administration. The reliefs sought in the said suit, though couched in different language, unmistakably disclose an attempt to reassert the very same right of

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

management and control, which already stood adjudicated against the present plaintiff in the earlier suit.

¶88

The institution of present suit in O.S.No. 1525/2025 , after having suffered an adverse and final decree in O.S.No.10116/1998, coupled with reversal of decree in OS 1368/1997 by this court in RFA 1543/2023 is a clear instance of re-litigation on an identical cause of action and amounts to a deliberate attempt to circumvent the binding declaration rendered by a competent Civil Court. Such successive suits, seeking to reopen settled issues by merely altering the form of relief or the phraseology of pleadings, strike at the very root of judicial finality and certainty.

¶89

In order to demonstrate that the reliefs claimed in O.S.No.1368/1997 substantially overlap with, and are founded upon, the very same assertions which stood conclusively negated in O.S 10116/98, this Court deems it

¶90

12 -

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

appropriate to extract the prayer of O.S.No.1368/1997, as mentioned in the judgement, which reads as under:

¶94

"This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining them, their agents, workers, henchmen etc., from entering into the Hebron Church premises and interfering in any manner with the rights of the plaintiffs in performing the Church Services and other religious observances of the Hebron Church at No.GBJ 447/4, Near Water Tank, Marathahalli, Bangalore and also for declaration that monies of the offertory box offered by the congregation of the Holy Services of the Church and the monies collected on the name of the Church are the fund of the Hebron Church Trust."

¶95

Though the suit filed by the present plaintiff in O.S.No.1368/1997 was initially decreed, the said judgment did not attain finality. Aggrieved by the decree, the first defendant preferred an appeal in RFA.No.1543/2023, and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, upon a detailed re-examination of the entire matter, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the

¶96

13 -

¶97

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

plaintiff in O.S.No.1368/1997. While doing so, this Court once again reiterated the settled position that the claim of the plaintiff to exercise control and administration over the Hebron Church is entirely founded on the Trust Deed dated 24.04.1987, which had already been declared illegal and unenforceable in the earlier comprehensive suit filed in O.S.No.10116/1998.

¶100

This Court, in RFA.No.1543/2023, categorically held that once the very foundation of the plaintiff’s claim, namely the Trust Deed dated 24.04.1987, stood invalidated by a binding decree in O.S.No.10116/1998, the plaintiff could not be permitted to re-assert the same right of management and administration in a subsequent suit, either directly or indirectly. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the suit in O.S.No.1368/1997 was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 09.01.2018, thereby reaffirming the earlier declaration and restoring finality to the adjudication between the parties.

¶101

14 -

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

Despite having suffered two adverse judgments

¶105

in two comprehensive rounds of litigation namely O.S No. 10116/1998 and reversal of decree in O.S No. 1368/1997 by this Court in RFA No. 1543/2023 wherein the decree

¶106

granted in O.S No. 1368/1997 was reversed and the suit filed by present plaintiff was dismissed , the present plaintiff has once again made a feeble attempt to resurrect the very same claim by instituting the present suit for injunction simplicitor, ostensibly relying upon the alleged withdrawal of a suit said to have been filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.8628/2012. The defendants have seriously disputed the maintainability of the said suit by contending that it was not instituted with due authorization and in the absence of any valid Board resolution.

¶107

Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that the institution and subsequent withdrawal of O.S.No.8628/2012 is wholly inconsequential and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, dilute or nullify the binding

¶108

15 -

¶109

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

effect of the comprehensive decree rendered in O.S.No.10116/1998, as affirmed by this Court in RFA.No.1206/2010, and further reiterated in

¶112

RFA.No.1543/2023 arising out of O.S.No.1368/1997.

¶113

The cumulative effect of the above adjudications unmistakably demonstrates that the plaintiff’s claim of a right to manage and administer the affairs of the Hebron Church on the strength of the Trust Deed dated 24.04.1987 stands conclusively negatived. The said Trust Deed has been declared illegal in O.S.No.10116/1998, and the said finding has been consistently reaffirmed in the subsequent rounds of litigation. In view of these two elaborate and independent judgments rendered between the same parties, the present suit is clearly barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, squarely applies. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that the Trial Court was fully justified in dismissing the suit as barred by res judicata. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the " Affirmative" .

¶114

16 -

¶115

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

Finding on Point No.(ii):

¶118

The record unmistakably reveals that the present plaintiff has been consistently asserting a right to manage and administer the Hebron Church solely on the basis of

¶119

the Trust Deed dated 24.04.1987. The said Trust Deed was the subject-matter of adjudication in O.S.No.10116/1998, wherein it was categorically held to be illegal, coupled with a clear declaration that the present plaintiff has no right, title, or interest in the management and control of the Hebron Church. The said judgment was affirmed by this Court in RFA.No.1206/2010, thereby lending finality to the declaration.

¶120

Notwithstanding the said final and binding adjudication, the present plaintiff once again instituted O.S.No.1368/1997 , seeking substantially identical reliefs, thereby compelling the first defendant-society to defend a second round of litigation on the very same issues. Though the plaintiff initially succeeded in the said suit, this Court,

¶121

17 -

¶122

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

in RFA.No.1543/2023, after adverting to the judgments rendered in O.S.No.10116/1998 and RFA.No.1206/2010, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The judgment rendered in RFA.No.1543/2023 has attained finality and continues to operate against the present plaintiff.

¶125

The material on record further reveals that the plaintiff has succeeded in keeping the litigation alive for nearly 28 years, notwithstanding repeated and categorical findings rendered against it. The first defendant-society, despite succeeding in the first comprehensive suit, has been repeatedly dragged into successive litigations and compelled not only to defend proceedings before the Trial Court but also to contest appeals before this Court, including RFA.No.1206/2010 and RFA.No.1543/2023. Such conduct, in the considered view of this Court, clearly amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law.

¶126

Though the Trial Court was justified in answering Issue No.3 in the affirmative and dismissing the present

¶127

18 -

¶128

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶129

HC-KAR

¶130

suit by applying the principles under Section 11 CPC, it failed to impose costs despite the plaintiff’s conduct being demonstrably vexatious and oppressive. The present suit for injunction simplicitor is yet another attempt to reagitate settled issues on the very same pleadings and on the strength of the very same Trust Deed which has been declared illegal long ago. In the considered opinion of this Court, this is a fit case to deter such frivolous and repetitive litigation by imposing exemplary costs.

¶131

Accordingly, this Court holds that the conduct of the plaintiff warrants imposition of costs, and therefore, the plaintiff is directed to pay costs of ₹1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) to the first defendant-society. Accordingly, point no.(ii) is answered in " Affirmative" .

¶132

Finding on Point no. (iii)

¶133

For the forgoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶134

NC: 2026:KHC:4712 RFA No. 2879 of 2025

¶135

19 -

¶136

HC-KAR

¶137

ORDER

¶138

The regular first appeal is dismissed with cost of ₹1,00,000/- payable to the first defendant-society.

¶139

Draw decree accordingly.

¶140

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶141

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Hebron Church (Regd) v. the Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hebron Church (Regd) v. the Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G Ashwathnarayan Vs Smt. Chinnamma

Smt. D Vasantha Kumari Vs the State of Karnataka

Yuvraj Singh Vs v M Chakravarthy

Pavan Kumar Vs Smt Chandraleela

Smt Revamma Vs Sri E Shivraj

Smt Shanthakumari a Vs v Nagesh