GADIGEYYA VEERAYYA KALMATH Vs. VISHNU DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeals are presented against the judgment end decree dated July 24, 1969 in Long Cause Suit No. 1 of 1964 on the file of the District Judge. North Kanara. The said suit was instituted on December 23, 1963 by three plaintiffs. Plaintiff 1 is the deity by name Sri Vishnu Dev of Sri Mahavishnu Devasthan at Sirsi represented by its Moktesar K. V. Govindarao. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the above said K. V. Govindarao and Ramdas Govinda Kuntu.

(2.) Shri Mahavishnu Devasthan in which plaintiff 1 is installed wag declared as public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and it is entered at Serial No. A 646 (KWA) in the register of public trusts maintained under the Act.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-Lands bearing R. S. No. 44 measuring 3 acres 15 guntas and R. S. No. 288 measuring 2 acres 19 guntas situate in Sirsi Kasaba within the Municipal limits of Sirsi Town belong to the deity plaintiff 1. One Seshagiri Balakrishna Rao Sonde (hereinafter referred to as Seshagiri Sonde) acting as the moktesar or manager of plaintiff 1 save the said land on permanent lease to defendants 1 and 2 in consideration of an annual payment of Rs. 22-50 under a permanent lease deed dated July 4. 1928 and that defendants 1 and 2 executed a deed dated July 4, 1928 in favour of the deity represented by one Govind Narayanrao Islur who was acting on behalf of Seshagiri Sonde. Pursuant to the said lease, defendants 1 and 2 were put in possession of the lands, Under the lease it was not permissible for the lessor i. e. the deity to vary the rate of rent agreed upon and even that rent was very much inadequate in view of the potential value of the lands in question. The lands were capable of being converted into building sites in view of their situation within the Municipal limits of a growing town like Sirsi. There was no legal necessity justifying the creation of the said permanent lease. It was also pleaded that even according to one of the terms of the said lease, the lessees were not entitled to alienate the lands in favour of other parties and that it was stipulated that if there was a breach of the said condition, the lessor could exercise the right of re-entry on the lands in question. In spite of such a condition being there, defendants 1 and 2 having transferred the lands in favour of other parties had violated the said condition. After the said lease came into existence, defendants 1 and 2 divided the lands between themselves and that defendant 1 transferred the lands which came into his possession in favour of third party from whom defendant 3 purchased the same. Defendant 2 had transferred the land in his possession in favour of defendants 4 to 31. Defendant 32 is the Charity Commissioner appointed under the Act. who was impleaded in accordance with law,