Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1183 (TS)

M. Sai meditation Centre v. T. Narender Rao

2025-10-08

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

body2025
JUDGMENT : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Heard Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of appellants and Sri D.V. Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Respondents 7 to11. 2. Appellants are defendants 3 to 10 in O.S.No. 22 of 2000 on the file of the III Additional District Judge’s Court, Warangal. The suit was filed seeking the relief of declaration, eviction/restoration of possession, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction in favour of defendant No. 1 - Trust for which defendant No. 2 is the sole Trustee and against Defendant No. 3 - Society and Defendants No. 4 to 10. The suit was decreed on 05.09.2003 against which the appellants are before this Court. 3. The parties are arrayed as they are shown in the suit, for easy reference. 4. The case of plaintiffs – respondents, in brief, is that they are disciples of defendant No. 2 who is a Yogi who is disseminating the knowledge and practice of Yoga, Meditation and treating and healing the people with Yogic Therapy and medicines and since his child hood, he evinced unusual and extraordinary interest and used to attend on Sadhus and Sanyasis to acquire spiritual knowledge from them and that he accompanied them and spent several months in Rishikesh when he was 12-year-old and acquired knowledge of yoga, training himself with yogic practices and Yogic healing of the sick and suffering; he acquired this knowledge from famous Yogi Kali Kambal who had a big Ashram at Himalayan foothills and learnt healing properties of various plants, leaves, herbs, etcetera available at Himalayan foothills and later, returned to Hanamkonda and established a center for teaching Yoga at Wardhannapet Village, Warangal District in 1984 under the name and style of Mathaatheetha Sai Meditation Center. It is a Public Charitable Trust and that in appreciation of his services giving Yoga meditation with well-known tantric mode of Kundalini, land owners namely Goli Bakki Reddy and Goli Narsimha Reddy had donated, adjacent two pieces of land each admeasuring Ac.1.00 gts. It is a Public Charitable Trust and that in appreciation of his services giving Yoga meditation with well-known tantric mode of Kundalini, land owners namely Goli Bakki Reddy and Goli Narsimha Reddy had donated, adjacent two pieces of land each admeasuring Ac.1.00 gts. at Wardhannpet in October, 1984 enabling defendant No. 2 specifically to make use of the same for his services; Goli Narsimha Reddy executed gift settlement deed on 21.04.1988 and registered the same and gift made by his brother Goli Bakki Reddy in October, 1984 is yet to be formalized and said total land of Ac.2.00 gts donated in favour of defendant No. 2 is on behalf of Public Charitable Trust. The said Charitable Trust at Wardhanpet was put on an even keel and is being carried on regularly and defendant No. 2 started another center near Bhadrakali Temple in Warangal. He also started another center in the Housing Board Colony at Hanamakonda 11 years thereafter at the request of residents of said colony. 4.1. It is also the case of plaintiffs, defendants 4 to 10 are among those who joined in the above Yoga Center and very early seemed to have realized the efficacy and potentialities of Yoga Center and earned the confidence of Trust and Defendant No. 2 and began advising him stating it is better to systemize the center's activities and organize disciples and ensure discipline in the conduct of activities and affairs of the center. In that connection, defendant No. 2 being illiterate allowed defendants 4 to 10 being highly-educated and well-placed, to do whatever they wish and signed several papers blank and typed ones, since, they said that in case of need without having to return to Warangal, they would use the papers at Hyderabad in connection with registration of center and later defendant No. 4 to 10 managed to get registered a Society i.e. 3 rd defendant. 4.2. It is also the case of the plaintiffs, because of the of services of defendant No. 2, one Nallela Rama Swamy and his sister-in-law Smt. Lachamma had endowed to the Yogashram Ac.0.12 gts. of land in Survey No. 757 on the way to and in the vicinity of Bhadrakali Temple, Warangal in December, 1984. 4.2. It is also the case of the plaintiffs, because of the of services of defendant No. 2, one Nallela Rama Swamy and his sister-in-law Smt. Lachamma had endowed to the Yogashram Ac.0.12 gts. of land in Survey No. 757 on the way to and in the vicinity of Bhadrakali Temple, Warangal in December, 1984. Later, Defendant No. 2 got a mediation hall with a separate rest room for Guru, Bathroom etc, were constructed with pakka walls and Zinc sheet roofs with the help of contributions received from the donors who came forward. In due course of time, a mediation hall was constructed for the activities and with the construction of regular building the center received more and more disciples. Thereafter, defendant No. 2 had a wish to install the idol of Shiridi Sai Baba as he does not belong to any religion, defendant No. 2 placed an order for an idol of Shiridi Sai Baba of marble stone and after installation of Idol it was inaugurated. However, in course of time the white collared disciples defendants No. 4 to 10 started treating it as a Sai Baba Temple and installed Hundi and started collecting initially as Guru Dakshina and slowly hijacked the whole building by defeating the aims and objects of the yoga center and converted the yoga center virtually into a Sai Baba Temple and collecting offerings and in that connection demolished the structures of Guru i.e., defendant No. 2 which he was using. In the plaint, it is admitted, a Society was registered and elections were conducted to the said Society etcetera. Hence, the suit was filed for the above said reliefs. 5. Defendants 1 and 2 and 11 remained ex-parte. Defendants 3 and 5 to 10 filed written statement. According to defendants, suit was filed with a mala fide intention by plaintiffs who have no locus standi and the name of the 2 nd defendant was wrongly described. Hence, the suit was filed for the above said reliefs. 5. Defendants 1 and 2 and 11 remained ex-parte. Defendants 3 and 5 to 10 filed written statement. According to defendants, suit was filed with a mala fide intention by plaintiffs who have no locus standi and the name of the 2 nd defendant was wrongly described. The main allegation that these defendants have disrupted the Trust property of defendant No. 1 for which the Defendant No. 2 is the alleged sole Trustee and that they are running Defendant No. 3 Society and Defendant No. 2 is not allowed to conduct the activities of Defendant No. 3 premises which is wrongly described as Trust property and that during May, 2000 having suspected defendant No. 2 and his men were making attempts to obtain some ex-parte orders from the court of law in a suit or original petition filed by them to illegally and forcefully to occupy properties of 3 rd defendant, these defendants filed caveats and to overcome the pending caveats, defendant No. 2 got filed present suit through his agents by making as 2 nd defendant and by bypassing the caveats, plaintiffs obtained ex parte interim orders and tried to take illegal possession of properties belonging to the 3rd defendant which was effectively thwarted by timely intervention by defendants and the 1 st defendant - Trust does not exist at all and the suit filed in respect of non-existing Trust is not maintainable and that in 1984, defendants 2, 4 to 8 and 10 and certain other dharmic-minded persons of Warangal who have faith in Shiridi Sai Baba entertained an idea of developing Shiridi Sai Baba Cult among the people of Warangal and decided to construct mandir for Shiridi Sai Baba and committee was constituted and got it registered on 21.02.1985 with registration No. 353/85 and the 1 st President of the Society was defendants No. 2 and subsequently, Smt. R. Sudheshna Devi was admitted as hereditary member and three others as life members. On 16.02.1987, defendant No. 9 admitted as life member and thereby, the 3 rd defendant Society came into existence and conducting all activities in the Mandir and when the Society is in search of suitable place for construction of Mandir one Nallela Rama Swamy and Nallela Lachamma came forward to donate Ac.0.12 gts. On 16.02.1987, defendant No. 9 admitted as life member and thereby, the 3 rd defendant Society came into existence and conducting all activities in the Mandir and when the Society is in search of suitable place for construction of Mandir one Nallela Rama Swamy and Nallela Lachamma came forward to donate Ac.0.12 gts. of land out of Survey No. 757 of Hanamkonda Revenue Mandal near Bhadrakali Temple and defendant No. 2 on behalf of the 3 rd defendant Society accepted the gift as President of the Managing Committee and as the 2 nd defendant had some knowledge about mediation, he used to conduct mediation classes in the shed for school and college students in order to propagate the teachings of Baba in that context used to be called as Guru and pakka construction of the building commenced in 1989 and the present hall is known as Dwaraka Mai Hall and management of defendant No. 3 Society gained confidence of general public of Warangal and the idol of Shiridi Sai Baba was installed during 1993. Two persons namely G. Dayakar Reddy and Chirra Janardhan filed OP No. 367 of 1990 and OP No. 653 of 1993 on the file of the 1 st Additional District Judge, Warangal on false grounds and the said Ops. were dismissed. In those Ops., the 2 nd defendant was respondent and he along with other respondents gave joint vakalat to the advocate and that when accounts were checked in September, 1994 the Managing Committee found illegalities and misappropriation of funds committed by the then President at the instance of the 2 nd defendant and when the same was questioned, the 2 nd defendant and his men started propagating that these defendants have resigned from the membership and the 2 nd defendant tried to induct his wife, son and daughter and one T. Yellaiah as members of the Society, but, the Managing Committee, after discussion refused to grant membership to them and these defendants have given the details of members of managing committee who was running the Society, etcetera. with these allegations the defendants have seriously opposed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 8. The Court below re-casted the issues for consideration which are as follows: 1. Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to maintain the suit? Whether suit is collusive? 2. with these allegations the defendants have seriously opposed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 8. The Court below re-casted the issues for consideration which are as follows: 1. Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to maintain the suit? Whether suit is collusive? 2. Whether the suit is hit by lack of leave under section 92 CPC and O. 1 R. 9 of CPC? 3. Whether the suit comes within the purview of A. P Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987)? 4. Whether Defendant No. 1 and 3 are one and the same or different institutions on facts or in law? 5. Whether defendant No. 1 is the Trust and in existence? 6. Whether defendant No.2 is the sole Trustee of Defendant No. 1? 7. Whether the suit schedule property belongs to and vested in defendants No. 1 and 3? 8. Whether the conduct of defendant No. 2. Sole Trustee of defendant No. 1 remaining silent and inactive at the time of formation and registration of defendant No. 3 and in signing the documents thereof, amounts to acquiescence or waiver? 9. Whether defendant No. 2 being Honorary President of defendant no. 3 graph or idol in 1993 would alter the character of the trust property and the aims and objects and purpose of the Defendant No. 1 Trust or transfer the defendant No. 1 Trust property in favour of defendant No.3 Society? 10. Whether the installation of Sai Baba photograph or idol in 1993 would alter the character of the Trust property and the aims and objects and purpose of the defendant No. 1 Trust or transfer the defendant No. 1 Trust property in favour of defendant No. 3 Society? 11. Whether the attempt on the part of defendant No. 1 to induct his family members in defendant No. 3 Society is the misconduct on his part? 12. Whether Hundi collections and donations from the public to go to defendant No. 1 Trust or defendant No. 3 Society? 13. Whether the Sai Baba idol was purchased from the funds of defendant No. 1 Trust or Defendant No. 3 Society? If so, to whom the idol belongs? 14. Whether the zinc sheets and constructions expenses / investment are made out of funds of defendant No. 1 Trust or defendant No. 3 Society? If so, to whom the said constructions belong? 15. If so, to whom the idol belongs? 14. Whether the zinc sheets and constructions expenses / investment are made out of funds of defendant No. 1 Trust or defendant No. 3 Society? If so, to whom the said constructions belong? 15. Whether there is any attempt for misappropriation of funds of defendant No. 1 Trust or defendant No. 3 Society by defendant No. 2 or his men? 16. Whether defendant No. 4 to defendants No. 10 have acted against the interest of defendant No. 1 Trust, Defendant No. 2 sole trustee and defendant No. 3 Society, contrary to the intention of the donors and the objects of the Trust? 17. Whether the conduct of defendant No. 2 in giving joint vakalath in favour of advocate for defendant NO. 3 to 10 herein, while defending O. P. Nos. 367/1990 and 653/1993 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Warangal filed by one G. Dayaker Reddy and Chirra Janardhan, would affect the rights of defendant No. 1 and 2 over the suit schedule property? Would it mean that defendant No. 1 Trust property is vested in defendant No.3 Society? 18. Whether the court fee paid is in accordance with the provisions of A. P. court Fees and Suits Valuation Act? If not, what are the legal consequences and remedy? 19. Whether defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 are entitled to the relief of declaration over the suit schedule property, as claimed in the plaint? 20. Whether defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 are entitled to the consequential relief of eviction of defendants No. 4 to 10, their representatives, agents, proxies and all other persons from the suit schedule property? 21. Whether defendants No. 1 and 2 are entitled to restoration of the suit property, in case defendants No. 4 to 10 were found in possession of the suit properties with requisite animus? 22. Whether defendant No. 1 and 2 are entitled to rendition of accounts by defendants No. 4 to 10 to the defendant No. 1? 23. 21. Whether defendants No. 1 and 2 are entitled to restoration of the suit property, in case defendants No. 4 to 10 were found in possession of the suit properties with requisite animus? 22. Whether defendant No. 1 and 2 are entitled to rendition of accounts by defendants No. 4 to 10 to the defendant No. 1? 23. Whether defendants No. 1 and 2 are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 4 to 10, their representatives, agents, proxies and all persons from projecting the meditation hall as Sai Baba Temple or otherwise interfering or invading the rights of defendant No. 1 Trust to continue and carry on yoga teaching, training and practice and also yogic healing of sick and ailing? 24. Whether this court can grant any other such and further relief to the plaintiffs? If so, to what relief? 9. The trial Court examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A1 on behalf of plaintiffs and DWs. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs. B-1 and B-2 on behalf of defendants. 10. The point that arise for consideration is whether the decree and judgment of the trial Court can be sustained in law and whether the evidence on record is sufficient to grant leave. 11. Upon considering the case of plaintiffs and defendants and considering the documents filed, the Court below decreed the suit. The Court took pains in writing a lengthy judgment consisting of 295 paragraphs when the plaintiffs have filed only one document i.e. gift deed dated 28.03.1987. In a suit for declaration, burden is heavy on plaintiffs to establish their case. In this case, plaintiffs seek declaratory relief in favour of defendants 1 and 2, which is unusual. Added to that, the case of plaintiffs is that they are disciples of defendant No. 2. The question is whether the disciples can maintain the suit of declaration for defendants 1 and 2. In the absence of any documentary evidence believing the oral evidence of the 2 nd plaintiff as PWs.1 and 2, the reliefs sought for cannot be granted. Any amount of discussion on all the issues in the lengthy Judgment in the absence of documentary evidence by believing the oral evidence is not permissible in law. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Court below did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in it properly. 12. Any amount of discussion on all the issues in the lengthy Judgment in the absence of documentary evidence by believing the oral evidence is not permissible in law. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Court below did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in it properly. 12. The Court below held that, plaintiffs have locus standi to file the suit. The reasons given by it cannot be sustained for the reason, on the one hand, it is the case of plaintiffs that the 1st defendant is a public charitable Trust and it is not their case they are the Trustees of the 1 st defendant Trust and it is their admitted case they are the disciples of Defendant No. 2. Admittedly, the 1 st defendant is a private charitable Trust and it is governed by the provisions of the Indian TRUSTS ACT , 1882. If it is a Trust, there must be a Trust deed and the gift deed cannot be equated with a Trust deed and what are the properties of Trust should be mentioned in the said deed. The person, who reposes or declares confidence is called ‘author of the Trust’. The person who accepts the confidence is called ‘Trustee’. The person in whose benefit the confidence is accepted is called ‘beneficiary’. Subject matter of Trust is called ‘Trust property’ or ‘Trust money’. Under Section 5, no Trust in relation to immovable property is valid unless declared by a non-testamentary instrument in writing signed by the author of the Trust or the Trustee and registered or by the will of the author of the Trust. Section 6 deals with creation of Trust. Under Section 13, a Trustee can protect the title of Trust property. When, admittedly, the 1 st defendant is a Trust, it is governed by the provisions of the TRUSTS ACT . In such an event, an Application under Section 34 to the Principal Court of Original Jurisdiction is the remedy available under the Act by filing a petition, but not by way of a suit. That apart, in this case, plaintiffs themselves declared as disciples of the 2 nd defendant, but not as members of the Trust Board or Trustees of the 1 st defendant. If the same is taken into consideration, the suit itself is misconceived and plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. 13. That apart, in this case, plaintiffs themselves declared as disciples of the 2 nd defendant, but not as members of the Trust Board or Trustees of the 1 st defendant. If the same is taken into consideration, the suit itself is misconceived and plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. 13. The Court below framed an issue that defendant No. 2 being a sole Trustee remaining silent and inactive at the time of formation of and registration of the 3 rd defendant amounts to acquiescence and waiver. It is the case of the defendants that the 2nd defendant acted as President of Society and there were elections and plaintiffs also admitted that they signed papers. With this background also, the Court below held issue No. 8 in favour of plaintiffs. Similarly, issue Nos. 9, 14, 17, 19 to 22 also in favour of plaintiffs, in the absence of any material evidence. Therefore, the conclusions reached by the Court below are not in accordance with law and cannot be sustained. 14. The Court below having framed an issue ‘whether leave is necessary under Section 92 CPC’ held in favour of plaintiffs that no leave is required and suit is maintainable and it is not hit by Section 92 of CPC. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.M. Narayana Chettiar v. N. Lakshmanan Chettiar , (1991) 1 SSC 48 held that in a suit of this nature, granting of leave is a pre-condition or a condition of precedent for institution of suit. 15. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the 3 rd defendant is a society and defendant No. 2 signed certain papers at the instance of defendants 1 to 4 and subsequently the 3 rd defendant Society was registered. Whether the Society (1991) 1 SSC 48 was registered with the consent of defendant No. 2 or not is a matter to be considered at the instance of members of the 3rd defendant Society. Admittedly, the Society is in possession and enjoyment of Shirdi Sai Baba Mandir and activities of Mandir are regularly going on and elections were held to the Society. Therefore, whether the activities of the Society can be challenged in a suit of this nature is also an important question for consideration. Admittedly, the Society is in possession and enjoyment of Shirdi Sai Baba Mandir and activities of Mandir are regularly going on and elections were held to the Society. Therefore, whether the activities of the Society can be challenged in a suit of this nature is also an important question for consideration. None of these issues are considered by the Court below, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction and decreed the suit. Therefore, the findings of the Court below are liable to be set- aside. However, in view of the complex issues of law and fact involved, this Court deems it fit and proper to remit the matter to the Court below for fresh consideration on the following points: 1. Whether plaintiffs as disciples of the 2 nd defendant can maintain the suit for declaration against defendants No.1 and 2. II. When admittedly, the 1st defendant is a Trust and it is governed by the TRUSTS ACT , whether the suit is maintainable or an Application under Section 34 of the TRUSTS ACT is the appropriate remedy. III. When the suit schedule property is admittedly, a Shiridi Sai Baba Mandir which is run by the 3 rd defendant Society, whether the activities of the Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act can be called in question by way of a suit. IV. Whether the documents relied on by plaintiffs are sufficient to grant any relief to them. 16. The Appeal is accordingly, allowed. The findings of the Court below are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below for fresh consideration, uninfluenced by the findings of this Court, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. 17. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.