P. DODDASIDDAIAH Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2022 for condonation of delay of 33 days in filing the appeal. Before issuing notice on delay, this Court has considered the matter regarding the findings of the Trial Court, since the Trial Court has entertained an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, when the appeal was filed by the defendants to reject the plaint as barred by law under Sec. 68 of Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Acts, having no jurisdiction to try the subject matter of above suit.

(2.) In support of this application, it is stated in the affidavit accompanying the application that plaintiffs are running Dasoha Samithi under the name of Siddeshwara Swamiji of Siddarabetta voluntarily from 1988, which is not permissible under the law. It is stated that under Sec. 69(b) of Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable endowments Act ('the Act' for short), such Samithi or development institution are not permissible without registration by the competent authority. The Seva Samithi which is alleged by the plaintiffs is said to have been registered in S.O.C.No.132/1988-89 dtd. 31/8/1988 which is in fact not tenable under law. There is a rule that Sangha, Samithi or Trust shall not be registered which are coming under the notified institutions as per the Act. It is stated in the plaint that plaintiff Samithi has kept Rs.30,00,000.00 in fixed deposit which is also not permissible under Sec. 69(c) of the Act. It is also stated that audit will be held in Samithi, but the veracity of such statement will have to be verified. Further plaintiffs have not disclosed for what purpose the property was leased to them from the Zilla Panchayath. If the Zilla Panchayath has leased the property in favour of Samithi for Dasoha purpose, that is not proper under law. The alleged constructions made by the plaintiffs Samithi in the suit schedule property out of the income all are illegal constructions and they will have to be taken possession in favour of Government. Before conducting any function etc, the Samithi has not taken any prior permission. Further, plaintiffs stated that in the plaint that the Hundi maintained by Samithi and the Hundi of Temple are two different properties and by the Hundi maintained by Samithi, no harm or injury will be caused to the temple, but as per the Act, no organization, individual or Seva Samithi can collect fund or donation of any purpose in the name of notified institutions or declared institutions, unless it is sanctioned by the prescribed authority. Therefore, any amount collected by the Samithi is illegal. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

(3.) Having filed the said application, objections are also filed contending that the very grounds which have been urged in the application cannot be considered. It is contended that defendants have conducted illegal activities in the temple and they have colluded to take over the income of the Samithi, so that income of the temple will be increased. Therefore, the application filed by them is not maintainable. It is also contended that Sec. 68 is not applicable to the relief's claimed under Sec. 26 of Specific Relief Act and contend that the very application is filed with an intention to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs.