MAHANTHASWAMIJI OF DEVANUR MUTT Vs. VASUDEVAMURTHY R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals, since arise from common judgment of the I Additional District Judge, Mysuru, in two original suits 71/1986 and 2/2002, are disposed of by a common judgment. The pleadings in both the suits in a nutshell are as follows : -

(2.) Xxx

(3.) Defendants 1 to 4 in their written statement admit that the first plaintiff founded the trust for public purpose and several educational institutions were established by the trust. They also admit that the trust established two hostels at Mysore. They contend that first plaintiff alone was not responsible for establishment of educational institutions. They admit that a trust deed came into existence on 21.6.1980, but they also state that it was resolved that the Head of Devanur Mutt should become the President of the trust and whoever would succeed as the Head of the Mutt would also become President of the trust. In regard to operation of the accounts of the trust, they contend that first defendant alone was authorized and that there was never an understanding that the first plaintiff and the defendant should operate and deny that at the instance of first defendant, a resolution was passed authorizing him to operate the accounts. With regard to collection of Rs.30,000/- at Vaddagere Village, it is contended that the first defendant collected that amount in his capacity as Head of Devanur Mutt from the devotees and disciples of the Mutt and not in the capacity of President of the trust. In so far as compensation amount of Rs.2,40,000/- is concerned, it is stated that the submerged lands belonged to the Mutt. Those lands had been acquired long back during the time of his predecessor, Sri Kothegala Shivabasappa Swamy and that he received the compensation as the head of Devanur Mutt. Relating to sale of lands at Haradanahalli, it is denied that the first plaintiff was authorized to sell the said land for a price not less than Rs.5,500/- per acre by a resolution dated 10.11.1985, rather it is contended that the trustees authorized the first defendant to sell the said land and that the sale of the land in favour of defendants 5 and 6 was not to the prejudice of the trust and that the first defendant remitted the sale consideration to the bank account of the trust.