C. PANDIT RAO Vs. VISHWAKARMA ASSOCIATION (SANGHAM)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent is the society, registered under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli, (for short the Act'), in the year 1965, with the development and welfare of Viswakarma Community in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, as its objective. It filed O.S. No. 358 of 2000 against the appellants (defendants 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7) and respondents 2 and 3 herein, in the Court of IXth Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the relief of declaration, to the effect that the trust deed dated 16.10.1996 brought into existence in relation to a Kalyana Mandapam is null and void. Consequential relief of injunction, in relation to property bearing No. 3-1-228 to 232, Somasundaram Street, Secunderabad, and Dharmakanthas, was also claimed. In the plaint, it was pleaded that the 1st respondent has undertaken several activities to promote its aims and objectives and as part of that activity, an extent of 1064.77 sq. yards, being the suit schedule property was purchased in the year 1976. As a measure of decentralization of activities, a building committee is said to have been constituted under the chairmanship of the 1st appellant. It was alleged that he did not account for the expenditure, or the amount collected by him. It was mentioned that the 4th appellant has misappropriated huge amounts, collected as donations.

(2.) The 1st respondent further alleged that the appellants herein, along with some others have brought into existence, a trust deed, registered on 16.10.1996, and on the strength of the same, claims were being made, detrimental to the administration and maintenance of Kalyana Mandapam and Dharmakantha, and interest of its members.

(3.) The 1st appellant alone filed written-statement, denying the allegations. He raised objection, as to the maintainability of the suit, on the ground that all the trustees are not made parties. It was also alleged that the trust was constituted with 11 members, out of whom, two died, and the suit was filed only against 7 members. The circumstances under which the trust was created were explained and the allegations as to misappropriation and mismanagement were denied. Exclusive right of the trust was claimed, vis-a-vis the property in question.