2025 INSC 717 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3821-3822 OF 2023

PRASANNATMA DAS … APPELLANT(S)

versus

K.N. HARIDASAN NAMBIAR (DEAD)

AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S)

with

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9313/2014

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9314-9315/2014

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9311-9312/2014

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9307-9308/2014

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9305-9306/2014

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9309-9310/2014

and

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9316/2014

J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1.We are concerned in this group of cases (except

Contempt Petition No.58 of 2012 and SLP (Crl.) No.8019-

8021 of 2017) with two suits. The first is Suit No. 1758 of

2003, and the second is Suit No. 7934 of 2001. There are

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 1 of 56

two Societies subject matter of the suits. The first is the

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, which is

registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860

(hereinafter referred to as ‘ISKCON Mumbai’). It is also

registered as a public trust under the Maharashtra

Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘MPT Act’). It has a registered office in Juhu, Mumbai.

The second Society is the International Society for

Krishna Consciousness (hereinafter referred to as

‘ISKCON Bangalore’). It is registered under the Karnataka

Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘Karnataka Societies Act’). It has its registered office

in Bangalore. Apart from this, ISKCON Mumbai claims to

have a branch in Bangalore.

SUIT NO. 1758 of 2003

2.This suit was filed by Amiya Vilas Swami and four

other individuals as the first five plaintiffs. The said

Amiya Vilas Swami claimed to be the disciple and son of

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

The 6

th

plaintiff in this suit is ISKCON Bangalore. Shanka

Brita Das and 16 others were defendants in the said suit.

3.In the Suit, the following reliefs were prayed for:-

a)a declaration that the 1

st

to 5

th

plaintiffs and 1

st

to 10

th

defendants constitute the Governing

Body of the 6

th

plaintiff-ISKCON Bangalore,

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 2 of 56

which was registered under the Karnataka

Societies Registration Act;

b)a declaration that the 11

th

to 17

th

defendants

have no right to manage or control the 6

th

plaintiff-ISKCON Bangalore;

c)a mandatory injunction enjoining the 11

th

to

17

th

defendants to make over to the governing

body of the 6

th

plaintiff, comprising the 1

st

to 5

th

plaintiff and 1

st

to 10

th

defendants, all the

assets, effects, affairs, books of account, and

records of ISKCON Bangalore;

d)a perpetual injunction restraining the 11

th

to

17

th

defendants from interfering with the

management and control of ISKCON Bangalore.

4.The learned judge of the City Civil Court, Bangalore,

by his judgment and decree dated 17

th

April 2009,

dismissed the suit. The learned Judge held that the

plaintiffs have failed to prove that the 1

st

to 5

th

plaintiffs

and the 1

st

to 10

th

defendants constitute the General Body

of the ISKCON Bangalore. Similarly, it was held that the

plaintiffs failed to prove that the 11

th

to 17

th

defendants

have no right to manage or control ISKCON Bangalore.

The Trial Court accepted the contention of the 11

th

to 17

th

defendants that in the general body meeting held on 1

st

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 3 of 56

July 1984, the Governing Body was elected and that they

were the part of the Governing Body.

5.Being aggrieved by the decree of dismissal of the

suit, the original 4

th

and 6

th

plaintiffs had preferred an

appeal before the High Court, being Regular First Appeal

No.423 of 2009. Later on, the original 5

th

defendant, who

had supported the plaintiffs, was transposed as the

appellant. By the impugned judgment, the High Court

dismissed the appeal. Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of

2023 have been preferred by the original 5

th

defendant.

SUIT NO. 7934 of 2001

6.This suit was filed by ISKCON Bangalore, with

ISKCON Mumbai as the first defendant. In the suit, the

following reliefs were prayed for:-

a.a declaration that ISKCON Bangalore was the

absolute owner of the immovable properties

described in Schedule ‘A’ and movable properties

in Schedules ‘B’ and ‘C’;

b.a declaration that the executive committee or

Bureau of the ISKCON Mumbai has no power or

authority to remove the President or any office

bearers of the plaintiff Society (ISKCON

Bangalore), and its temples or to exercise control

over the possession of the property of the

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 4 of 56

plaintiff Society or administration of affairs of

ISKCON Bangalore;

c.There were consequential prayers made for

injunction.

7.In this suit, a counter-claim was filed by the first

defendant (ISKCON Mumbai) for claiming that properties

in Schedules ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ were of ISKCON Mumbai. The

suit was decreed, and the counter-claim was dismissed. It

was held that ISKCON Bangalore (plaintiff) was the

absolute owner of properties mentioned in Schedules ‘A’,

‘B’, and ‘C’. It was also declared that ISKCON Mumbai or

its Executive Committee or Bureau has no power or

authority to remove the President or office bearers of the

ISKCON Bangalore and its temples or to exercise control

over the possession of the property mentioned in

Schedules ‘A’ ‘B’, and ‘C’. Consequential relief of

injunction was granted by the learned Judge of the City

Civil Court.

8.Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court,

the 1

st

to 4

th

defendants preferred Regular First Appeal

No.421 of 2009. By the impugned judgment and order

dated 23

rd

May 2011, the appeal was allowed by setting

aside the decree passed by the Trial Court. The counter-

claim made by ISKCON Mumbai was allowed by granting

a decree restraining ISKCON Bangalore or its office

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 5 of 56

bearers or any persons claiming on their behalf from

interfering with the possession and enjoyment of

Schedule ‘A’ ‘, B’, and ‘C’ properties of the Bangalore

Branch of ISKCON Mumbai. Civil Appeal No.9313 of 2014

has been preferred by the original plaintiff (ISKCON

Bangalore), being aggrieved by the Judgment of the High

Court.

9.We find from the order sheets that, by the order

dated 6th June 2011 in Civil Appeal No.9313 of 2014, the

day-to-day management of the temple on the Schedule ‘A’

property of the ISKCON Bangalore was protected, subject

to the condition that it would not take any major

decisions. Under the order dated 14

th

December 2011,

this Court appointed a committee headed by Hon’ble Mr.

Justice R.V. Raveendran (retired) to oversee the

management of the temple and its properties by ISKCON

Bangalore. Paragraph 7 of the said order reads thus:

“7. In the meantime, in addition to

the interim directions, which had

been given in the order of 6

th

June

2011, we appoint a Committee to

oversee the management of the

temple and its properties. The said

Committee shall consist of :-

1.Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.V.

Raveendran (retd.) as Chairman.

2.Shri Ananda Thirtha Das,

Member.

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 6 of 56

3.Shri Stoka Krishna Das, Member.

The said Committee shall oversee the

management of the temple and its

properties by the petitioner-society

and shall be entitled to advise the

said society on matters relating to

the management of the temple and

its properties.”

10.Civil Appeal Nos. 9314-15 of 2014 have been

preferred against the order dated 29

th

October 2010,

passed in Regular First Appeal No. 421 of 2009, by which

the issues in the suit were recast. Civil Appeal Nos.9311-

9312 of 2014, Civil Appeal Nos.9307-9308 of 2014, and

Civil Appeal Nos.9309-9310 of 2014 have been preferred

by certain parties against the order declining to expunge

adverse remarks against them in the Judgment in

Regular First Appeal No.421 of 2009. Civil Appeal

No.9316 of 2014 has been filed by a third party to

challenge the decree passed in Regular First Appeal

No.421 of 2009.

SUBMISSIONS

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3821-3822 OF 2023 (ARISING OUT

OF SUIT NO. 1758 OF 2003)

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 7 of 56

Submissions of the Appellant

11.His submission is that the learned Single Judge of

the Karnataka High Court has merely reproduced the

findings recorded by the Trial Court without appreciating

the evidence as required by a decision of this Court in the

case of K. Karuppuraj v. M. Ganesan

1

. Some of the full-

time devotees of the Hyderabad branch of ISKCON started

the activities of the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai

in 1975-1976. The Memorandum of Association and

Rules and Regulations of ISKCON Bangalore disclose the

names of the 1

st

to 5

th

plaintiffs and the 1

st

to 10

th

defendants in Suit No. 1758/2003. Learned counsel

pointed out that the 11

th

to 17

th

defendants admitted the

said Memorandum of Association and Rules and

Regulations of ISKCON Bangalore. According to the

appellant, ISKCON Bangalore became defunct, and no

activity was carried out by it. In July 1984, one Madhu

Pandit Dasa (Madhu Pandit), the 11th defendant, who

was president of the Trivandrum branch of ISKCON, was

sent to the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai as the

branch President. One Chanchalpati Das, 12

th

defendant,

who is a brother-in-law of Madhu Pandit, was sent as the

Vice-Chairman of the Bangalore branch.

1 (2021) 10 SCC 777

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 8 of 56

12.Learned counsel submitted that the terms

‘Managing Committee’ and ‘Governing Body’ are used

interchangeably, and therefore, the prayer in the Suit

No.1758 of 2003 was for a declaration that the 1

st

to 5

th

plaintiffs and 1

st

to 10

th

defendants were members of the

Managing Committee. They have been shown as members

of the Managing Committee in the Memorandum of

Association of ISKCON Bangalore. This fact is admitted.

The 11

th

to 17

th

defendants were never inducted as

members of the ISKCON Bangalore, and therefore, they

were not the members of the Governing Body. There is no

evidence produced on record to show that the 11

th

to 17

th

defendants were elected as members of the Governing

Body or Managing Committee. He submitted that, except

for a letter dated 15th June 1984 addressed by the 1st

defendant stating that he admitted Madhu Pandit and

others as the members of ISKCON Bangalore, there is no

other evidence in the form of minutes or resolutions

admitting the 11

th

to 17

th

defendants as members. In fact,

the stand taken by the 1

st

defendant is that they were

never admitted as members of the Governing Body. The

learned counsel submitted that a person must be a

member of the Society to be eligible for election to the

Governing Body. The 11th to 17th defendants had not

established that they had been admitted as members. He

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 9 of 56

pointed out that the minutes of the Annual General

Meeting held on 1st July 1984, relied upon by the 11th to

17th defendants, show several discrepancies. By pointing

out several discrepancies, he highlighted that there are

manipulations in the document.

13.Learned counsel submitted that the 11

th

to 17

th

defendants tried to rely upon minutes of the Annual

General Meeting held on 1

st

July 1979. The minutes were

belatedly produced on 24

th

September 2008, eight months

after the evidence was recorded. It is contended that the

alleged minutes of the meeting dated 1

st

July 1979 were

fabricated by Madhu Pandit and Chanchalpati Das. He

pointed out several discrepancies in the said minutes. He

pointed out that the 1st defendant had taken the stand

that the notice dated 25th May 1984 was not sent, and

no meeting was held on 1

st

July 1984. However,

inconsistent with the stand taken in the written

statement, the 1

st

defendant admitted the minutes of the

alleged Annual General Meeting held on 1

st

July 1984.

14.He pointed out that Madhu Pandit, in his written

statement, stated that the Memorandum of Association

and Rules and Regulations of ISKCON Bangalore are

riddled with inconsistencies, and no reliance can be

placed upon them. Only at the stage of final arguments

before this Court, the 11

th

to 17

th

defendants admitted the

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 10 of 56

Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations

of ISKCON Bangalore.

15.For proving the alleged minutes of the meeting of

the Annual General Meeting of 1st July 1984, the 11

th

to

17

th

defendants have relied upon only the reply to the

interrogatories by the 1st defendant. Although the 1st

defendant accepted his signature on the minutes of the

Annual General Meeting held on 1st July 1984, in his

written statement, he denied that any such meeting had

been held.

16.Learned counsel pointed out that Regular First

Appeal No.421 of 2009 arising out of Suit No.7934 of

2001 was decided by the High Court on 23

rd

May 2011.

The said Appeal was decided by a Division Bench. The

High Court held that the Bangalore branch of ISKCON

Mumbai had been functioning in Bangalore all along and

that ISKCON Bangalore had never functioned after it was

registered. The Division Bench found that ISKCON

Mumbai was the owner of the property subject matter of

Suit No. 7934 of 2001, and Madhu Pandit had functioned

as the President of the Bangalore branch. He pointed out

the finding recorded in RFA No.421 of 2009 by the

Division Bench holding that ISKCON Bangalore did not

function. The Division Bench held that ISKCON Mumbai

had a branch in Bangalore, and in fact, the branch was

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 11 of 56

operational. His submission is that while deciding RFA

No.423 of 2009, which is the subject matter of challenge

in this civil appeal, the learned Single Judge ought to

have adverted to the findings recorded in RFA No.421 of

2009.

17.Learned counsel submitted that Madhu Pandit

admitted in his deposition recorded in 1986 in Original

Suit No.4165 of 1984 that he was functioning as the

President of the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai,

which had acquired the land for the Bangalore temple

and constructed a temple thereon. He also pointed out

the finding that the temple in Bangalore has been

constructed on land allotted by the Bangalore

Development Authority (hereafter referred to as the BDA)

to the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai. He

submitted that the 11

th

to 17

th

defendants have no right

to manage or control ISKCON Bangalore.

Submissions of 9

th

to 12

th

Respondents

18.Learned counsel appearing for 9

th

to 12

th

Respondents (11

th

to 14

th

defendants in Suit no.1758 of

2003) pointed out that the appeal at the instance of the

present appellant (5

th

defendant) cannot be entertained as

the appellant had not even filed his written statement. He

pointed out that initially, RFA No.423 of 2009 was filed by

the 4

th

plaintiff. When the original 4

th

plaintiff sought to

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 12 of 56

withdraw the appeal, the present appellant (5

th

defendant)

transposed himself. He pointed out that there were

originally six plaintiffs, including ISKCON Bangalore. He

submitted that three out of the original six plaintiffs

withdrew from the suit, and plaintiff no.4, who preferred

RFA No.423 of 2009, withdrew from the appeal. The

learned counsel, therefore, submitted that merely

because transposition of the present appellant was

allowed, he does not get a locus to prosecute the appeal.

Learned counsel submitted that the appellant lacks bona

fide.

19.He pointed out that ISKCON Mumbai was the first

ISKCON entity in India, founded by His Divine Grace A.C.

Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Learned counsel

pointed out the issues framed and findings recorded by

the Trial Court and High Court. He submitted that, on

the one hand, it is as asserted by the original plaintiffs

that ISKCON Bangalore had no account, no assets, and

was defunct; however, a prayer was still made for a

mandatory injunction, stating that its Governing Body

comprises of the 1

st

to 5

th

plaintiffs and the 1

st

to 10

th

defendants. He submitted that the plaintiffs themselves

have asserted that after registration of the society, no

general meeting was held and no election was held.

Therefore, the 1

st

to 5

th

plaintiffs and 1

st

to 10

th

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 13 of 56

defendants could not have been members of the

Governing Body.

20.Learned counsel referred to documentary evidence

on record in the form of a letter dated 6

th

September 1996

issued by the 3

rd

plaintiff to the 6

th

plaintiff. Learned

counsel pointed out that even the 2

nd

witness examined

by the plaintiffs produced a certified copy of the extract of

the register of the Societies maintained by the Registrar

of Societies, in which there was an entry to the effect that

accounts and a list of the members of the management

as on 31

st

March 1987 was filed on 24

th

September 1987.

It is submitted that the documents produced by the

plaintiffs themselves demolish the theory that the 1st to

5th plaintiffs and the 1

st

to 10

th

defendants constituted

the Governing Body. He submitted that the 1

st

defendant,

after supporting the stand taken by the plaintiffs in the

written statement, was not examined as a witness.

Therefore, when other contesting defendants served

interrogatories upon the 1st defendant, he admitted his

signatures on the proceedings of 1979 as well as the

1984 meeting. He submitted that there is no prayer made

for challenging the validity of the minutes of the 1

st

July

1984 meeting. He submitted that the suit was barred by

limitation as the right to sue accrued for the first time in

1987. He placed emphasis on the legal effect of the failure

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 14 of 56

to examine Madhu Pandit. He submitted that the whole

litigation is at the instance of the ISKCON Mumbai.

21.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 9th

respondent (11th defendant, Madhu Pandit) submitted

that Suit No. 1758 of 2003 is infructuous, as a significant

number of persons who were allegedly members of the

Governing Body are no longer alive. It was submitted that

the resolution of 1

st

July 1984 cannot be challenged by

filing Suit No. 1758 of 2023. Learned counsel accepted

that respondent no.9 has not filed a written statement.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9313 OF 2014

Submissions of the Appellant

22.Our attention was invited to pleadings. The issue

revolves around the question of whether the BDA allotted

property in Schedule ‘A’ to ISKCON Mumbai through its

Bangalore branch. He pointed out the application dated

February 5, 1987, made by ISKCON Bangalore to the

BDA. In fact, on 3

rd

August 1988, BDA executed a

registered sale deed in favour of ISKCON Bangalore. There

are clear recitals in the sale deed stating that ISKCON

Bangalore applied for the allotment of the plot. He

submitted that from recitals in the sale deed, it is clear

that the allotment was in favour of ISKCON Bangalore. He

pointed out that Madhu Pandit had applied for allotment.

He drew our attention to various documents on record.

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 15 of 56

He submitted that the execution of the sale deed has not

been explicitly denied. He pointed out several documents,

such as correspondence between BDA and the appellant.

It is pointed out that the exemption order was granted to

the plaintiff – ISKCON Bangalore under the Urban Land

(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the ULC

Act’).

23.Thereafter, he invited our attention to various

documents placed on record. Learned counsel pointed

out that under Section 38B (v) of the Bangalore

Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short ‘the BDA Act’)

allotment of bulk land can be made only to a Society

registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration

Act. Therefore, ISKCON Mumbai, which was not

registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration

Act, was not eligible for allotment. He pointed out that the

first application for allotment, dated 5th February 1987,

was made by ISKCON Bangalore, which stated that it was

registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration

Act. The follow-up application in the Kannada language

of 1

st

August 1987 was also on behalf of ISKCON

Bangalore. These two applications were marked as

exhibits without any objection from the defendants.

Learned counsel pointed out that the 1

st

defendant in the

suit alleged that the seal of ISKCON Bangalore was

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 16 of 56

affixed on the application dated 5

th

February 1987 to

make it look like ISKCON Bangalore’s application. Apart

from relying on the recitals in the sale deed dated 3rd

August 1988, executed by BDA, the learned counsel

submitted that Madhu Pandit signed and submitted the

allotment application. It was submitted that the President

of the ISKCON Bangalore for the year 1987-1988 was

Madhu Pandit. He submitted that a branch of ISKCON

Mumbai is not a legal entity, and therefore, it was

ineligible to receive allotment from BDA. Learned counsel

pointed out that the plot was allotted to ISKCON

Bangalore by the BDA on 23

rd

September 1987. Therefore,

the High Court ought not to have relied upon the letter

dated 28th November 1987 (D81) for recording a finding

that bulk land from BDA was secured by the branch of

ISKCON Mumbai by Madhu Pandit by using the

Memorandum of Association of ISKCON Bangalore.

24.Learned counsel submitted that the execution of the

sale deed by BDA was not denied in the written

statement. As the execution was not denied or disputed,

it was not necessary to examine any witness to prove the

same as held by this Court in the case of Muddasani

Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana

2

. Learned

counsel submitted that the title of the Schedule ‘A’

2 (2016) 12 SCC 288

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 17 of 56

property, by virtue of the sale deed, passed on to ISKCON

Bangalore. Even the telephone number mentioned on the

allotment application dated 5

th

February 1987 belongs to

ISKCON Bangalore. Even the address in the sale deed is

that of ISKCON Bangalore. There are several documents

that show the purchaser/allottee was ISKCON Bangalore.

Even the exemption granted under the provisions of the

ULC Act was in favour of the plaintiff - ISKCON

Bangalore. Moreover, payments made to the BDA have

been recorded in the books of account of ISKCON

Bangalore of the year 1987-1988. ISKCON Bangalore had

bank accounts in Vysya Bank and Indian Overseas Bank.

In the audit of the plaintiffs’ financial statements,

Schedule ‘A’ property is shown as a fixed asset of ISKCON

Bangalore. Moreover, the funds of ISKCON Bangalore

have been spent on the construction of the temple. He

pointed out that Schedule ‘A’ property was not registered

as required by Section 22B of the MPT Act. He pointed

out that the appellant had filed statutory accounts with

the Registrar of Societies under the Karnataka Societies

Registration Act on 24

th

September 1987. Learned

counsel explained why the plaintiff, ISKCON Bangalore,

consolidated its accounts with ISKCON Mumbai until the

year 2000. It was submitted that since ISKCON Bangalore

was a member of ISKCON Mumbai, there was no need to

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 18 of 56

file separate income tax returns till 2000. He pointed out

the finding of the High Court that, despite having

registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act,

1961, ISKCON Bangalore, never availed the benefits

under Section 12A. In fact, till the year 2000, the

certificate of exemption under Section 80G of the Income

Tax Act, 1961, issued to the 1

st

defendant (ISKCON

Mumbai) was allowed to be used by all ISKCON centres.

Learned counsel pointed out that various donations were

mobilised by the plaintiff, locally and from abroad. Some

of the donors took advantage of the Section 80G

certificate of ISKCON, Mumbai. But it does not make

Schedule ‘A’ property the property of ISKCON Mumbai. In

any case, the source of funds for acquiring property does

not decide the title to the property. He pointed out

sources of funds which were available to the plaintiff

society at the relevant time. Inviting our attention to the

evidence on record, he submitted that there was no

evidence to show that the Bangalore branch of ISKCON

Mumbai existed in Bangalore.

25.On the allegation of fraud made by the 1

st

defendant,

the learned counsel submitted that fraud must always be

specifically pleaded with material facts constituting the

alleged fraud. In this case, there was no specific pleading

on that behalf. It is submitted that the allegation of fraud

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 19 of 56

made by the 1

st

defendant (ISKCON Mumbai) was purely

speculative, and there was no evidence in support of the

plea of fraud. Learned counsel also dealt with allegations

of tampering with BDA files made by the 1

st

defendant.

26.Learned counsel submitted that the admissions of

Madhu Pandit were irrelevant. He submitted that the

non-examination of Madhu Pandit is not fatal. He

submitted that the plaintiff had submitted sufficient

documents. He submitted that the plaintiff, ISKCON

Bangalore, was never defunct and was fully functional.

He pointed out several documents on that behalf. He

pointed out that these documents were marked as

exhibits without any objection from the 1

st

defendant-

ISKCON Mumbai.

27.He submitted that Madhu Pandit was elected as the

President of ISKCON Bangalore on July 1, 1984. He

pointed out the findings recorded by the High Court in

RFA No.421 of 2009 in that behalf. Hence, the finding

that Schedule ‘A’ property is owned by ISKCON Mumbai

through its Bangalore branch is erroneous.

Submissions of the 1

st

Respondent

28.Learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st

defendant -ISKCON Mumbai submitted that ISKCON

Bangalore, registered under the Karnataka Societies

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 20 of 56

Registration Act, was always a defunct society. He pointed

out that four out of seven members of the Governing

Body of ISKCON Bangalore consisted of Madhu Pandit,

his wife, his wife’s sister and his wife’s sister’s husband

(Chanchalapati Dasa, the Vice-President). The other three

were the close friends of Madhu Pandit. He submitted

that ISKCON Bangalore is the real alter ego of Madhu

Pandit. He pointed out that 82 out of 110 documents

produced by ISKCON Bangalore are authored or signed

by Madhu Pandit. He submitted that he and his family

members have exploited the name of ISKCON of both

Mumbai and Bangalore.

29.He pointed out three earlier suits filed by Madhu

Pandit in which the certificate of registration, the

Memorandum of Association and the Rules and

Regulations of ISKCON Mumbai were relied upon. He

pointed out the depositions of Madhu Pandit in the

earlier suits (OS No. 2180 of 1999, OS No. 4467 of 2000,

and OS No. 1483 of 2001). He submitted that Madhu

Pandit admitted that the temple at Bangalore is a branch

of ISKCON Mumbai. He also pointed out that accounts of

ISKCON Bangalore were sent every year to ISKCON

Mumbai for consolidation.

30.He submitted that an adverse inference must be

drawn against the plaintiff, ISKCON Bangalore, on

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 21 of 56

account of the failure of Madhu Pandit to enter the

witness box. In fact, his name was included in the list of

witnesses. Therefore, the Division Bench in the impugned

judgment rightly held that an adverse inference must be

drawn against the plaintiff for his non-examination. He

submitted that, in fact, during the course of the hearing,

while answering a query made by the Court, the counsel

appearing for the appellant accepted that Madhu Pandit

did not appear in the witness box in view of averments

made by him in his three previous suits. Relying upon

various documents on record and circumstances, he

submitted that ISKCON Bangalore never actually

functioned. He pointed out the admission by Shanka

Brita Das, the founder of ISKCON Bangalore, in his

written statement in Suit No.1758 of 2003. He pointed

out that there is no evidence to show that Madhu Pandit

and Stoka Krishna Dasa were admitted as members in

any General Body meeting. He pointed out that, until

1988, no reports had been filed with the Office of the

Registrar of Societies. In fact, from the date of registration

until 2002, ISKCON Bangalore had not filed income tax

returns. Even, telephone bills were not produced to show

that the telephone was functioning. The certificate issued

under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act to ISKCON

Bangalore was never used.

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 22 of 56

31.The learned senior counsel submitted that as rightly

found by the High Court, a branch of ISKCON Mumbai

existed and functioned at Bangalore. In fact, Madhu

Pandit had sent audited accounts of the Bangalore

branch to ISKCON Mumbai. He pointed out that the

audited accounts of the Bangalore branch from 1982 to

2000 were sent to ISKCON Mumbai, which are reflected

in the income tax returns of ISKCON Mumbai. A

certificate under Section 80 G of the Income Tax Act,

issued to ISKCON Mumbai, was used by the Bangalore

branch to raise funds. He pointed out admissions of

Madhu Pandit in the earlier five proceedings wherein he

admitted the existence of the Bangalore branch of

ISKCON Mumbai. He pointed out the inconsistent stand

taken by the plaintiff on the existence of the Bangalore

branch of ISKCON Mumbai.

32.Learned senior counsel pointed out that the

documents pertaining to the functioning of the Bangalore

branch were in the custody of Madhu Pandit and his

associates. He pointed out that almost all documents

were produced belatedly in 2008, along with the

depositions of PW-1, which had been manipulated. He

pointed out several instances of manipulation by Madhu

Pandit. He submitted that on the application for

allotment of land made to the BDA, a round rubber seal

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 23 of 56

of ISKCON Bangalore was affixed by making interpolation

and insertion. He pointed out that in the sale deed dated

3rd August 1988 and possession certificate issued by the

BDA signed by Madhu Pandit, neither the word

Karnataka nor the registration number of the Bangalore

society nor the round rubber seal of the Bangalore

society appear, and in fact, the name of only ISKCON

appears. The address of the purchaser is shown as 210,

Bellary Road, which is the address of the Bangalore

branch. He referred to a letter dated 10th March 1987

addressed by Indu Bai C. Patel to Ramkrishna Hegde, the

then Chief Minister of Karnataka, enclosing the letter

written by Madhu Pandit seeking allotment of the land. It

does not refer to ISKCON, Bangalore. He pointed out that

funds for the land, as well as construction, were

admittedly collected by using Section 80-G certificate of

ISKCON Mumbai, which were accounted for in ISKCON

Mumbai's income tax returns. Pursuant to a query made

by this Court during the final hearing to show that

payment has been made by the Bangalore society, only a

ledger account showing payment of cash was relied upon,

and the High Court had already discarded the ledger.

Learned counsel pointed out that the title documents,

including the possession certificate, were manipulated.

He submitted that the application dated 5th February

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 24 of 56

1987 is forged and fabricated. Moreover, Madhu Pandit

did not step into the witness box to prove it. He also

submitted that the BDA note sheets, as produced on

record, show that they have been manipulated. He

submitted that merely because Schedule ‘A’ property is

not registered under the provisions of the MPT Act as the

property of ISKCON Mumbai its title is not taken away.

He submitted that under clause (vi) of Section 38B of the

BDA Act, bulk allotment could also be made to a Trust

formed only for charitable, educational and religious

purposes. ISKCON Mumbai was registered as a charitable

Trust under the MPT Act. Learned counsel pointed out

that there is no reason to disturb findings of fact recorded

by the High Court. He submitted that now the Bangalore

temple is under the management of the Oversight

Committee appointed by this Court. He pointed out that

Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendaran, a retired Judge of

this Court, has stopped taking any remuneration since

the year 2020, and the number of meetings of the

Oversight Committee have been reduced to three to four

in a year. He would, therefore, submit that no interference

is called for.

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 25 of 56

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS (IN CIVIL APPEAL

NO.9313 OF 2014)

33.One of the main issues that arises for consideration

is whether the property mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ of Suit

No. 7934 of 2001 was allotted by the BDA to ISKCON

Mumbai through its branch in Bangalore or to ISKCON

Bangalore. Schedule ‘A’ property is a land bearing Survey

Nos. 174 and 175 in Stage II, Rajajinagar Extension,

Bangalore, admeasuring 6 acres 8 guntas.

34.There is no dispute that the plaintiff-ISKCON

Bangalore is a society registered under the Karnataka

Societies Registration Act. It was registered in the year

1978. In the plaint, the averments regarding the

acquisition of Schedule ‘A’ property have been made. It is

alleged in the plaint that an application was made for the

allotment of Schedule ‘A’ property on behalf of ISKCON

Bangalore and that ISKCON Bangalore is the owner of

Schedule ‘A’ property. In the written statement filed by

ISKCON Mumbai, it was contended that there was a

Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai, with Madhu

Pandit serving as its Chairman. Reliance was placed on

suits bearing O.S. Nos. 2180 of 1999 and 1483 of 2001,

filed by Madhu Pandit, who claimed to be the President of

the Bangalore Branch of ISKCON Mumbai. It is alleged

that the Bangalore branch was responsible for collecting

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 26 of 56

donations by utilising exemptions under Section 80 G of

the Income Tax Act granted to ISKCON Mumbai. Apart

from denying the averments made in the plaint, a specific

contention was raised that Schedule ‘A’ property was

acquired by ISKCON Mumbai through its Bangalore

branch.

35.The Trial Court framed seven issues, which read

thus:

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that

the 1

st

defendant has no power or

authority to exercise control over the

possession of the property by the

plaintiff?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that it is

the absolute owner in possession of the

1

st

item of 'A' schedule and 'B' & 'C'

schedule properties?

2A. whether the additional written

statement filed by the defendants

beyond the amendment carried out to

the plaint is liable to be rejected?

2B. Whether the defendants prove that

the 1

st

defendant acquired the schedule

properties out of the funds of its

branch of Bangalore and the said

branch is in possession of them?

2C. Whether the counter-claim is

maintainable on the face of

OS.No.1758/2003?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to

declarations sought for?

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 27 of 56

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to

the permanent injunction sought for?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to

mandatory injunction sought for?

6. Whether the valuation of the suit is

proper and the court fee paid thereon

is correct and adequate? 6A. whether

the 1

st

defendant is entitled to

permanent injunction sought for in its

counter claim?

7.To what order or decree?

36.After the appeal was heard, the High Court

proceeded to recast the issues by the order dated 29

th

October 2010 by consent of the parties and directed that

the same would be treated as points for consideration in

the appeal in accordance with Rule 31 of Order XLI of the

Code of Civil Procedure (the CPC). The recast issues read

thus:

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that

after its registration in 1978 it

continued to function or became

defunct as contended by the

defendants?

2. Whether defendants prove that they

are having a branch at Bangalore by

name ISKCON Bangalore?

3. Whether Madhu Pandit Das

functioned as President of plaintiff

society or of ISKCON Bangalore?

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 28 of 56

4. Whether plaintiff proves that they

are the owners in possession of plaint

schedule property?

5. Whether the defendants prove that

they are the owners in possession of

plaint schedule properties through

their branch, ISKCON Bangalore?

6. Whether the defendants prove that

plaintiff society, by taking advantage of

1

st

defendant's branch name ISKCON

Bangalore is claiming illegally and

fraudulently the schedule property as

its property?

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a

decree of declaration of title and

injunction?

8. Whether the defendants are entitled

to a decree of permanent injunction as

claimed in their counter claim?

9. What order or Decree?”

37.The most important issue in both sets of issues is

whether ISKCON Mumbai acquired Schedule ‘A’ property

through its branch in Bangalore, or ISKCON Bangalore

acquired it. The Trial Court decreed the suit. In a very

lengthy judgment written by the Trial Court, it was held

that the plaintiff-ISKCON Bangalore, was the absolute

owner of the scheduled properties. Consequently, the

injunction, as prayed, was granted.

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 29 of 56

38.There is no dispute that the plaintiff - ISKCON

Bangalore was registered in the year 1978 under the

Karnataka Societies Registration Act. At this stage, we

must note that Suit No.1758 of 2003 was filed in which

ISKCON Bangalore was the 6

th

plaintiff. In the said suit,

specific averments have been made in paragraph 11 that

within a few months of its registration, ISKCON

Bangalore stopped functioning.

39.On this aspect, it must be noted here that the

plaintiff-ISKCON Bangalore, for the first time after its

registration, by a letter dated 20th June 1989, informed

the Registrar of the Societies, Bangalore, of the names of

the members of the governing body for the year 1987-88.

Moreover, the High Court, as a finding of fact, held that

the plaintiff - ISKCON Bangalore did not file the return of

income with the Income Tax Department and that the

returns were filed for the first time in March 2002 for the

assessment year 2000-01. This was done during the

pendency of the suit. The High Court has held that

ISKCON Bangalore was having a certificate under Section

12A of the Income Tax Act. There is nothing placed on

record to show that from 1988, when the certificate was

granted, till 2001, the certificate was used by ISKCON

Bangalore. The High Court has commented upon the

evidence of PW-1 who claimed that ISKCON Bangalore

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 30 of 56

had opened accounts with Vijaya Bank, Bank of Baroda,

Indian Bank etc. However, the pass books of accounts

were not produced. Therefore, the High Court has

concluded that at least till 1988-89, the society was

defunct.

40.The High Court has recorded a finding that Madhu

Pandit, in the earlier suits filed, which are mentioned in

paragraph 39 of the judgment, had categorically admitted

the existence of a branch of ISKCON Mumbai at Delhi. As

far as the existence of the Bangalore branch of ISKCON

Mumbai is concerned, the High Court has referred to a

Resolution dated 9

th

February 1990 passed by ISKCON

Bangalore. A copy of the resolution is at Exh.P.205. It

reads thus:

"We record our gratitude to the Bombay

society for handing over the state of

affairs of Bangalore branch of Bombay

to our society conveyed through and

again by his holiness Jai Pataka

Swamy formed on behalf of the bureau.

I like to acknowledge with gratitude

that the donors and the devotees at

Bangalore have aided the development

of the Centre into autonomous centre.

Thus, the procurement of its own land

last year has opened a new chapter for

ISKCON movement in Karnataka "

(underline supplied)

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 31 of 56

Therefore, even the plaintiff-ISKCON Bangalore accepted

that there was a branch of ISKCON Mumbai in

Bangalore. However, it also records that the affairs of the

Bangalore branch were handed over to ISKCON

Bangalore. The last sentence indicates that ISKCON

Bangalore acquired Schedule ‘A’ property.

41.Now, we come to the acquisition of Schedule ‘A’

property. In the plaint, paragraph 3 contains a specific

averment regarding the acquisition of Schedule ‘A’

property by ISKCON Bangalore. The specific pleading is

that, by a deed of conveyance dated 3

rd

August 1988, the

BDA conveyed the Schedule ‘A’ property to ISKCON

Bangalore, which was duly registered. In the plaint,

reliance is specifically placed on the order dated 27

th

May

1989 by the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner,

Urban Land Ceiling, Bangalore. By the order dated 27

th

May 1989, the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner,

Urban Land Ceiling, Bangalore accepted the declaration

filed by ISKCON Bangalore under the ULC Act in respect

of Schedule ‘A’ property.

42.In the written statement filed by ISKCON Mumbai,

while dealing with paragraph 3 of the plaint, it is alleged

that BDA allotted Schedule ‘A’ property to ISKCON

Mumbai through its Bangalore branch. It is claimed that

the acquisition was made possible through donations

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 32 of 56

acquired by ISKCON Mumbai, which utilised its

certificate of exemption under Section 80 G of the Income

Tax Act. It is contended that the alleged exemption under

the ULC Act will not determine the title of the property.

43.ISKCON Mumbai filed an additional written

statement for incorporating a counter-claim. It is pleaded

in the additional written statement that ISKCON

Bangalore is a fiction created by the said Madhu Pandit.

It is also claimed that Madhu Pandit was the President of

the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai. As stated

earlier, by counter-claim, it was claimed that scheduled

properties were acquired by ISKCON Mumbai through its

Bangalore branch.

44.The plaintiff examined three witnesses, Jai

Chaitanya Dasa, K.N. Haridasan Nambiar and M.R.

Ramakrishna. Evidence of PW-1 Jai Chaitanya Dasa is

very relevant. He claimed that the application for

allotment of Schedule ‘A’ land was made by the then

President of ISKCON Bangalore, Sh.Madhu Pandit, on 5th

February 1987. He stated that according to the decision

of the BDA to allot Schedule ‘A’ property, on 31st May

1988, a demand was raised by BDA for payment of

Rs.7,75,000/- towards the value of the land. He claimed

that the cash amount was utilised to purchase pay orders

amounting to Rs. 2,75,000/-. He stated that a cash

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 33 of 56

amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was deposited in the Canara

Bank account of the BDA. Therefore, the entire

consideration for Schedule ‘A’ property was paid by cash.

The payments of Rs.2,75,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- are

evidenced by challans issued by the BDA at exhibits P55

and P56, respectively.

45.We may note here that the letter dated 5th February

1987 was marked as Exh.P-51 in the deposition of PW-1

without any objection. In the cross-examination made by

the advocate for ISKCON Mumbai, the witness stated that

Madhu Pandit, as the President of ISKCON Bangalore,

had made the application for allotment of Schedule ‘A’

property. Even the second witness, examined by ISKCON

Bangalore, K.N. Haridasan Nambiar, stated in his

examination-in-chief that Madhu Pandit had made an

application to the BDA for the allotment of a site.

46.One Dayaram Dasa was examined as the first

witness on behalf of ISKCON Mumbai. The stand taken

in the examination-in-chief is very peculiar. It is stated

that the then Chief Minister of Karnataka, Shri

Ramakrishna Hegde, visited the ISKCON temple at Juhu

of ISKCON Mumbai. During the visit, Shri Hegde

assured that a sufficiently large plot of land would be

allotted in Bangalore. It is further stated that the then

Members of the Bureau supervising the Mumbai branch

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 34 of 56

of ISKCON Mumbai instructed Madhu Pandit to apply in

the name of the first defendant (ISKCON Mumbai)

seeking allotment of a land. It is alleged that Madhu

Pandit was the President of the Bangalore branch of

ISKCON Mumbai at the time, and in his capacity, he

made an application to the BDA. He never acted on

behalf of the ISKCON Bangalore. In the examination-in-

chief, the witness further stated that one Stoka Krishna

Dasa, the alleged Secretary of ISKCON Bangalore,

informed him that at the instance of Sh.Madhu Pandit,

the documents with the BDA had been manipulated, and

therefore, ISKCON Mumbai could never get its temple and

properties in Bangalore. We may note here that ISKCON

Mumbai did not examine the said Stoka Krishna Dasa as

a witness. As Stoka Krishna Dasa had the knowledge of

alleged manipulations, ISKCON Mumbai ought to have

examined him as a witness. Therefore, an adverse

inference will have to be drawn against ISKCON Mumbai,

due to its failure to examine the material witness.

47.The first witness examined by ISKCON Mumbai was

cross-examined by the advocate for ISKCON Bangalore.

During the cross-examination, the witness stated that

the application to BDA for the allotment of land was

made by ISKCON Mumbai, and all correspondence was

handled by ISKCON Mumbai. He stated that the

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 35 of 56

President of the Bangalore branch, Madhu Pandit, had

signed the application made to the BDA. Importantly, the

witness admitted that ISKCON Mumbai has registered

some properties with the Charity Commissioner.

However, the property in Bangalore (Schedule ‘A’

property) was not registered with the Charity

Commissioner.

48.We have perused the application dated 5th February

1987 at Exh.P-51. It is crystal clear that the application

was made by ISKCON Bangalore, as in the first

paragraph itself, it is claimed that the applicant,

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, has

been registered under the Karnataka Societies

Registration Act, and its registration number (49/78-79)

is also mentioned. The application also mentions the

activities of ISKCON Bangalore. A copy of the certificate

of registration under the Karnataka Societies Registration

Act of ISKCON Bangalore was enclosed along with the

application, along with a copy of the Memorandum of

Association of ISKCON Bangalore. The application is

signed by Madhu Pandit. Upon a plain reading of the

application and the accompanying documents, it appears

that the same was submitted by ISKCON Bangalore, a

registered society under the Karnataka Societies

Registration Act. There is nothing on record to show that

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 36 of 56

the application (Exh.P-51) was manipulated or fabricated.

That is not the case of ISKCON Mumbai. There is no

indication in the application that it was signed by Madhu

Pandit in his capacity as the President of the Bangalore

branch of ISKCON Mumbai. Though in the evidence, a

case was made out by ISKCON Mumbai that Madhu

Pandit was authorised to apply for allotment on behalf of

ISKCON Mumbai in his capacity as the Chairman of the

Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai, there is no

document produced on record showing authorisation

given to Madhu Pandit. Exh.P-53 is a letter dated 1st

August 1987 addressed to the Chairman of the BDA by

the International Society for Krishna Consciousness,

signed by the President of ISKCON Bangalore. The

subject of the letter is the allotment of Schedule A land.

In the first paragraph of the letter, it is stated that the

applicant Society was registered in Karnataka. There is

no allegation of manipulation or fabrication of this letter.

By letter at Exh.P-54, the Commissioner of BDA called

upon ISKCON Bangalore to deposit a sum of Rs.

7,75,000/-. The letter at Exh.P-57 dated 29th July 1987,

addressed by Madhu Pandit in his capacity as ISKCON

Bangalore, records that the amount of Rs.7,75,000/- has

been deposited. Another letter of 2nd August 1988,

addressed by Madhu Pandit as President of ISKCON

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 37 of 56

Bangalore to the Deputy Director, Town Planning, records

that the sale deed has been duly engrossed after paying

the stamp duty of Rs.93,000/-. The sale deed dated 3rd

August 1988 was executed by BDA in favour of the

President of ISKCON residing at 210, Bellary Road, Upper

Palace Orchards, Bangalore. A recital in the sale deed

refers to an application made by ISKCON to the BDA for

the allotment of bulk land. The first application was

made on 5th February 1987, specifically by ISKCON

Bangalore. Any application made by the Bangalore

branch of ISKCON Mumbai has not been filed on record.

A copy of the registered sale deed was submitted under

the signature of Madhu Pandit as President of ISKCON

Bangalore to the Deputy Director, Town Planning,

Bangalore, along with a letter dated 12th August 1988.

Although Madhu Pandit had signed the letter of

possession and the sale deed, there is no document on

record produced by ISKCON Mumbai to show that he was

acting in his capacity as the Chairman of the Bangalore

branch of ISKCON Mumbai.

49.The application for exemption under Section 19(1) of

the ULC Act was made by a letter dated 15th May 1989

(Exh.P-72) by Madhu Pandit as the President of ISKCON

Bangalore. Copies of the registration certificate of

ISKCON Bangalore under the Karnataka Societies

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 38 of 56

Registration Act and the Memorandum of Association of

ISKCON Bangalore were forwarded along with the

application. An affidavit in support filed by Madhu

Pandit records that the possession of the lands has been

handed over to ISKCON Karnataka.

50.None of the documents/letters concerning the

allotment of land indicate that Madhu Pandit acted as the

President of the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai. In

fact, the words “Bangalore Branch” are not found in any

of the material documents. On the contrary, all the

documents, from the application for allotment to the

grant of exemption under the Urban Land Ceiling Act,

indicate that the application for allotment was made on

behalf of ISKCON Bangalore and that allotment was made

to the said Society. There is nothing placed on record to

show that any correspondence was made by ISKCON

Mumbai with any authority or any party claiming that

the allotment of Schedule ‘A’ property was made to

ISKCON Mumbai. No application is shown to have been

made by ISKCON Mumbai or its Bangalore branch.

51.In the entire correspondence in relation to the

allotment of Schedule ‘A’ property, the name of ISKCON

Bangalore appears. At some places, the name of ISKCON

Karnataka appears. The High Court has recorded a

finding that the round rubber seal of ISKCON Bangalore

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 39 of 56

was affixed clandestinely to some of the correspondence

with the BDA and the telephone department. There is a

finding recorded that Madhu Pandit and his associates

are falsely claiming the scheduled properties in the name

of ISKCON Bangalore by taking advantage of the

similarity in the name. The High Court recorded a

finding that Schedule ‘A’ property has been acquired by

ISKCON Mumbai in the name of its branch at Bangalore.

The record of the BDA in support of this theory was not

placed on record by ISKCON Mumbai. As stated earlier,

from the application for allotment to the sale deed and

subsequent correspondence, all documents are made in

the name of ISKCON, Bangalore. As stated earlier along

with the first application dated 1st February 1987

(Exh.P-51) a copy of the registration certificate of ISKCON

Bangalore was produced and in the application, there is a

specific averment made that the applicant International

Society for Krishna Consciousness has been registered

under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and even

registration number has been mentioned in the said

letter. The Memorandum of Association of ISKCON

Bangalore was relied upon in the said letter and was

forwarded along with it. The genuineness of this letter is

not disputed by any party. It has been marked as an

exhibit without objection. Even the letter dated 1st

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 40 of 56

August 1987 addressed by ISKCON Bangalore records

that the said Society has been registered in Bangalore. It

is pertinent to note that it is not the case of ISKCON

Mumbai that Schedule ‘A’ property was purchased

benami by it in the name of ISKCON Bangalore. As the

application for allotment is specifically made by ISKCON

Bangalore, registered under the Karnataka Societies

Registration Act, the High Court could not have held that

the allotment was to ISKCON Mumbai through its branch

in Bangalore. In fact, the sale deed dated 3rd August

1988 refers to an application for allotment made to the

BDA. Except for the application dated 5th February 1987

made by ISKCON Bangalore, no other application for

allotment has been brought to record. Therefore, the

application for allotment referred to in the sale deed is

the application for the allotment made by ISKCON

Bangalore. The record is consistent, which shows that the

allotment sought by ISKCON Bangalore was made to

ISKCON Bangalore. From the date of the sale deed, no

application was made by ISKCON Mumbai to correct the

BDA record. The stand that the property was acquired by

ISKCON Mumbai in the name of its Bangalore branch

was taken for the first time while filing a written

statement on 2nd November 2002. The Counter-claim

was made on 28th June 2004.

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 41 of 56

52.There is another aspect of the case which needs

consideration. Section 38B of the Bangalore

Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short ‘BDA’) reads

thus:

“38B. Power of authority to make

bulk allotment.- Notwithstanding

anything contained in this Act or

development scheme sanctioned under

this Act, the Authority may, subject to

any restriction, condition and

limitation as may be prescribed, make

bulk allotment by way of sale, lease or

otherwise of any land which belongs to

it or is vested in it or acquired by it for

the purpose of any development

scheme,-

(i)to the State Government; or

(ii)to the Central Government; or

(iii)to any corporation, body or

organisation owned or controlled

by the Central Government or the

State Government; or

(iv)to any housing co-operative

society registered under the

Karnataka Co-operative Societies

Act, 1959 (Karnataka Act 11 of

1959); or

(v)to any society registered under

the Karnataka Societies

Registration Act, 1960 (Karnataka

Act 17 of 1960); or

(vi)to a trust created wholly for

charitable, educational or

religious purpose:

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 42 of 56

Provided that prior approval of the

Government shall be obtained for

allotment of land to any category

listed above.”

(underline supplied)

53.In view of clause (v) of Section 38B, an application

was made by ISKCON Bangalore for allotment. It is true

that ISKCON Mumbai was also registered as a Public

Trust under the MPT Act. However, the application dated

5

th

February 1987 and subsequent correspondence for

allotment of Schedule ‘A’ property shows that it was

always pleaded that the applicant was a Society

registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration

Act. If the application for allotment was made on behalf of

ISKCON Mumbai, the pleading would have been that it is

a charitable Trust which will be covered by clause (vi) of

Section 38 B. Under the Karnataka Societies

Registration Act, under Section 14, it is provided that the

property, movable and immovable, belonging to a society

registered under the said Act, if not vested in trustees,

shall be deemed to be vested in the governing body of the

Society.

54.We must also refer to the provisions of the MPT Act.

Section 17 provides for the office of the Deputy Charity

Commissioner and the Assistant Charity Commissioner

maintaining registers. Under sub-section (1) of Section

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 43 of 56

22B, there is a mandatory requirement of making

registration of a property of a Public Trust in the name of

such Trust. No such application was admittedly made by

ISKCON Mumbai for entering Schedule ‘A’ property as the

property of ISKCON Mumbai.

55.Therefore, for the reasons recorded above, the High

Court's finding that ISKCON Mumbai, through its branch

in Bangalore, was the owner of the schedule A property is

completely erroneous and deserves to be set aside. It is

completely contrary to the documentary evidence. Even

assuming that ISKCON Bangalore did not possess funds,

and even if money came from ISKCON Mumbai, it cannot

claim ownership. Only because the existence of the

Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai was proved, one

cannot jump to the conclusion that allotment of Schedule

‘A’ property was to ISKCON Mumbai through the

Bangalore branch.

56.Now, regarding the judgment of the Trial Court, a

finding has been recorded after a detailed consideration

of the evidence that the scheduled properties are owned

by ISKCON Bangalore. The Trial Court also recorded a

finding that no evidence was produced by ISKCON

Mumbai about its possession of the Schedule ‘A’ property.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim.

Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 44 of 56

must be set aside, and the decree passed by the Trial

Court on 17 April 2009 must be restored.

57.We are of the view that as the application for

allotment was made by ISKCON Bangalore and as

pursuant to the application, the sale deed was executed

in favour of ISKCON Bangalore, the entire discussion by

the High Court about so-called manipulations made by

Madhu Pandit, Bhakti Lata Devi Dasi, Chanchalapati

Dasa, Chamari Devi Dasi was not relevant at all. Even

assuming that the rubber stamp of ISKCON Bangalore

was affixed on certain documents subsequently, it is

crystal clear that Schedule ‘A’ property was allotted by

the BDA to ISKCON Bangalore, and ISKCON Bangalore is

an independent society registered under the Karnataka

Societies Registration Act.

58.While going into the question whether the allotment

was to ISKCON Mumbai in the name of the Bangalore

branch, the High Court has recorded findings against

various individuals which were not warranted at all. As

we are setting aside the judgment in Regular First Appeal

No.421 of 2009, Civil Appeal Nos.9311-9312 of 2014,

Civil Appeal Nos.9307-9308 of 2014, Civil Appeal

Nos.9305-9306 of 2014 and Civil Appeal Nos.9309-9310

of 2014 will not survive as the same are for expunging

the remarks in the judgment in the High Court. The

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 45 of 56

challenge in Civil Appeal Nos.9314 and 9315 of 2024 was

to an order recasting the issues passed by the High

Court. However, we find that the order of recasting

issues was passed with the consent of all the parties as

noted in paragraph 18 of the impugned Judgment in Civil

Appeal No.9313 of 2014. Even Civil Appeal No.9316 of

2014 will not survive in view of the setting aside of the

judgment in RFA No.421 of 2009.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS (IN CIVIL APPEAL

NOS.3821-3822 OF 2023)

59.Now, we come to Civil Appeal Nos.3821-22 of 2023.

Firstly, we will refer to the pleadings. As stated earlier,

ISKCON Bangalore is the 6

th

plaintiff in Suit No. 1758 of

2003, which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal Nos.

3821-3822 of 2023. In the plaint it is accepted in

paragraph 11 that within few months of its registration,

ISKCON Bangalore stopped functioning. The bodies under

the Rules and Regulations were not constituted. It is

claimed in the plaint that the 1

st

defendant was the

President of ISKCON Bangalore, the 1

st

plaintiff was the

Secretary, the 2

nd

plaintiff was the Vice President, the 3

rd

defendant was the treasurer and 3

rd

to 5

th

plaintiff as well

as 2

nd

and 4

th

to 10

th

defendant are the members of the

Governing Body of ISKCON Bangalore. It is alleged that

the 11

th

defendant started claiming to be the President,

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 46 of 56

the 12

th

defendant to be the Vice President, the 13th

defendant to be the Secretary, the 14th defendant to be

the Treasurer, and the 15th to 17th defendants to be the

members of the Governing Body of ISKCON Bangalore. It

is submitted in the plaint that the 11th to 17th

defendants took advantage of the fact that the 1st to 10th

defendants and the 1

st

to 5

th

plaintiffs were inactive. They

also took advantage of the fact that seven members of the

governing body had died. Therefore, a declaration was

claimed that the 1

st

to 5

th

plaintiffs and 1

st

to 10

th

defendants constituted a Governing Body of ISKCON

Bangalore, and the 11

th

to 17

th

defendants have no right

to manage or control ISKCON Bangalore. A mandatory

injunction was also prayed for directing the 11th to 17th

defendants to hand over management of the Governing

Body to the 1st to 5th plaintiffs and to the 1

st

to 10

th

defendants. Different written statements were filed. The

1

st

defendant and the 10

th

defendant filed a written

statement in support of the plaintiffs. The 2

nd

defendant

filed a written statement opposing the suit by contending

that ISKCON Bangalore was never inactive. The 7

th

defendant filed a written statement opposing the plaintiffs

by contending that the ISKCON Bangalore was always

active.

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 47 of 56

60.The 11th defendant filed a detailed written

statement contending that in 1983, the 1st defendant

requested the 11th defendant to take over the activities of

ISKCON Bangalore as its President. Accordingly, at the

Annual General Body Meeting held in 1984, the earlier

office bearers resigned en masse. On 1st July 1984, the

11th defendant was elected as the President of the

Governing Body, and the 12th to 17th defendants were

also elected. The written statement refers to the fact that

ISKCON Bangalore filed suit No. 7934 of 2001 to protect

its properties. It is contended that the plaintiffs started

showing interest in the affairs of ISKCON Bangalore after

the lapse of 23 years, after a temporary injunction was

granted in favour of ISKCON Bangalore for protecting its

properties. Various other contentions were raised on

facts. Similar contentions are raised in the written

statements filed by the 12

th

, 13

th

, 15

th

to 17

th

defendants.

The 3

rd

defendant filed a written statement supporting

the plaintiffs.

61.The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The Trial Court

framed the following seven issues:

1)Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 1

st

to 5

th

plaintiff and 1

st

to 10

th

Defendant constitute the

general body of the 6

th

plaintiff?

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 48 of 56

2)Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 11

th

to 17

th

Defendants have no right to manage or control

the 6

th

plaintiff?

3)Whether the Defendants 11 to 17 prove that in

the general body meeting held on 1.7.1984, a

governing body was elected?

4)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declarations

sought for?

5)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to mandatory

injunction sought for?

6)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent

injunction sought for?

7)To what order or decree?

Issue nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 were answered against the

plaintiffs and issue no.3 was answered in favour of

defendants nos.11 to 17.

62. The High Court in RFA No.423 of 2009 has

confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. The entire

controversy revolves around the question of whether

there was a General Body Meeting held on 1st July 1984

in which the Governing Body was elected. On that aspect,

there is a concurrent finding of fact by the Trial Court

and the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 49 of 56

before the High Court, I.A. was filed for amendment of the

cause title for seeking to describe original appellant no.2

(plaintiff no.6) as International Society for Krishna

Consciousness, a society registered under the Karnataka

Societies Registration Act. The application was rejected by

the High Court while deciding the appeal finally.

63.We have perused the evidence of the witnesses. The

1

st

witness examined by the plaintiffs is S.R.

Ramakrishna (the 3

rd

plaintiff). He claimed that after

society was registered, he never received any notice of the

Governing Body or General Body Meeting. 1

st

plaintiff also

deposed, in which the same stand was taken. During the

cross-examination, he claimed that he had completely

forgotten about ISKCON Bangalore after leaving

Bangalore. He admitted that there was no difficulty for

him if the said entity is wound up. He accepted that he

had come to know that the 11th to 17th defendants had

taken over ISKCON Bangalore. He denied the suggestion

that a General Body Meeting was held in 1979. The 3

rd

witness examined by the plaintiffs is Amrit Chaitanya

Dasa. He claimed that he was raising funds for ISKCON

Mumbai, and to his knowledge, ISKCON Bangalore did

not exist. He claimed that the ISKCON temple at

Bangalore had nothing to do with ISKCON Bangalore. He

stated in his cross-examination that he became aware of

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 50 of 56

the registration of ISKCON Bangalore for the first time in

2004. He was asked to give evidence for the first time in

the year 2008.

64. Another witness examined by the plaintiffs is one

Bhanu Swami. He claimed that according to his

knowledge, the temple at Bangalore was of Bangalore

branch of ISKCON Mumbai. He claimed that he was never

a member or functionary of ISKCON Bangalore.

65.Haridasan Nambiar, the 2

nd

defendant was examined

as a witness. He stated that the Annual General Body

Meeting of ISKCON Bangalore was held on 1

st

September

1979. He claimed that in the said meeting, one Shanka

Brita Das was elected as the President. He claimed that

the next General Body meetings were held in August

1985 and thereafter, in 1986, 1987 and 1988. In the

cross-examination, he accepted that he had not pleaded

anything about the 1

st

Annual General meeting in his

written statement. He claimed that in the meeting held on

1

st

July 1984, the audited accounts were accepted.

66.Now, we turn to the findings recorded by the High

Court. The High Court notes that on 10

th

December 2008,

the 1

st

plaintiff, who was examined as PW-2, filed a memo

stating that he was not pressing the suit. Therefore, he

did not enter the witness box after the withdrawal of the

suit by him. Even the 2

nd

plaintiff filed a memo seeking

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 51 of 56

permission to withdraw the suit. On 19

th

December 2008,

the 3rd defendant filed a memo stating that he had

realised that the 11th to 17th defendants were duly

elected in the meetings held in 1979 and 1984.

67.As noted in the plaint itself, according to the

plaintiffs' case, ISKCON Bangalore was dormant for some

time. The allegation in the plaint is that the 11

th

to 17

th

defendants surreptitiously took over the affairs of

ISKCON Bangalore. The High Court, as well as the Trial

Court, noted that although the plaintiffs claimed the 1st

to 10th defendants were members of the Governing Body,

only the 1st, 3rd, and 10th defendants supported the

plaintiffs' case. 2

nd

, 7

th

and 8

th

defendants contended that

11 to 17 defendants were elected as members of the

Governing Body. As the first two plaintiffs withdrew from

the suit, their evidence ceased to be of any significance.

Plaintiff no.3 did not tender any documentary evidence to

show that 1

st

to 5

th

plaintiffs along with 1

st

to 10

th

defendants constituted Governing Body of ISKCON

Bangalore. There is no reference to any such evidence in

his examination-in-chief. Perusal of the examination-in-

chief of PW-4 shows that from 1979 till at least 1984, he

was away from Bangalore. In fact, he pleaded that he was

not aware of the existence of ISKCON Bangalore until

2001. Therefore, his evidence also does not support the

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 52 of 56

plaintiffs' case that the 1st to 5th plaintiffs and the 1

st

to

10

th

defendants were members of the Governing Body.

68.DW-1, who is the 2

nd

defendant, stated that the

original proceedings of the Annual General Body Meeting

dated 1

st

July 1984 (Exhibit D-13) bear the signatures of

the 1

st

to 11

th

defendants. He stated that from 1

st

July

1984, the 1

st

defendant ceased to be the President of

ISKCON Bangalore.

69.The Trial Court has examined (Exhibit D-1), which

is a certified copy of the proceedings of the General Body

Meeting dated 1st July 1984, of which D-13 is the

original. Exhibit D-9 is the certified copy of the notice

dated 25

th

May 1984 of the said meeting. The Trial Court

also examined the other documentary evidence on record.

After considering his cross-examination, the Trial Court

held that the plaintiffs were not in a position to impeach

the testimony of DW-1, insofar as it related to the Annual

General Body Meeting held on July 1, 1984. Ultimately,

the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the case of

the 11

th

to 17

th

defendants, for which a General Body

Meeting was held on 1st July 1984, deserves to be

accepted.

70.We may note here that plaintiffs have adduced no

evidence to prove their case. Both the Courts have

accepted the case of the 11

th

to 17

th

defendants, who

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 53 of 56

claim that they were elected in the July 1984 meeting.

After having perused the pleadings and evidence on

record, we find no error in the view taken by the Trial

Court as well as the High Court.

71.According to the available records, Late

Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada initiated the Hare

Krishna movement. Looking to the case made out

regarding the object of the said movement, in fact, the

dispute between ISKCON Mumbai and ISKCON Bangalore

ought not to have been brought to the Court. However,

they have done so, and in the process, they have litigated

for a span of more than 20 years. Therefore, we need to

bring the dispute to a close, and that is how we are

inclined to quash the FIR. For the same reason, we are

not inclined to proceed further in the contempt petition.

72.As we are setting aside the impugned judgment in

Regular First Appeal No.423 of 2009, the remaining

appeals will not survive.

73.Therefore, we pass the following order:

a)Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023 are hereby

dismissed.

b)Civil Appeal No.9313 of 2014 is allowed by setting

aside the judgment of the High Court in RFA No.421

of 2009. Subject to what we have held in the

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 54 of 56

Judgment, the decree passed in Suit No. 7934 of

2001 by the City Civil Court, Bangalore on 17

th

April

2009 is restored.

c)In view of findings recorded in Civil Appeal No.9313

of 2014, Civil Appeal Nos.9314-9315 of 2014, Civil

Appeal Nos.9311-9312 of 2014, Civil Appeal

Nos.9307-9308 of 2014, Civil Appeal Nos.9305-9306

of 2014, Civil Appeal Nos.9309-9310 of 2014 and

Civil Appeal No.9316 of 2014 stand disposed of as

the same do not survive.

d)The committee headed by Justice R.V. Raveendran,

a former Judge of this Court shall stand dissolved

on expiry of period of one month from the date of

this judgment.

74.There will be no orders as to costs.

…………………………..J.

(Abhay S. Oka)

…………………………..J.

(Augustine George Masih)

New Delhi;

May 16, 2025

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 55 of 56

Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 56 of 56