TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Schedule 'A' property was allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority to ISKCON Mumbai through its Bangalore branch or to ISKCON Bangalore. (ii) Whether the plaintiffs proved that they constituted the governing body of ISKCON Bangalore and that the defendants had no right to manage or control it.
Issue (i): Whether Schedule 'A' property was allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority to ISKCON Mumbai through its Bangalore branch or to ISKCON Bangalore.
Analysis: The allotment papers, the correspondence with the Bangalore Development Authority, and the registered sale deed consistently described the applicant as ISKCON Bangalore, a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The application for allotment enclosed the registration certificate and memorandum of association of ISKCON Bangalore, and no document showed an application by ISKCON Mumbai or by any legally separate Bangalore branch in its own name. The mere assertion that funds came from ISKCON Mumbai, or that a Bangalore branch existed, did not establish title in ISKCON Mumbai. The relevant statutory framework also supported the view that a bulk allotment under Section 38B of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 could be made to a society registered under the Karnataka Act, which ISKCON Bangalore was. The failure of ISKCON Mumbai to get the property entered in its name under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 further weakened its claim.
Conclusion: The property was allotted to ISKCON Bangalore, and the contrary finding was set aside; the decree of the trial court in the suit concerning Schedule 'A' property was restored, in favour of the appellant in that appeal.
Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs proved that they constituted the governing body of ISKCON Bangalore and that the defendants had no right to manage or control it.
Analysis: The pleadings themselves proceeded on the footing that the society had become inactive, but the plaintiffs failed to prove by reliable evidence that the named plaintiffs and supporting defendants formed the governing body. On the other hand, the defendants produced the proceedings and notice of the Annual General Body Meeting held on 1 July 1984 and established that office-bearers were elected in that meeting. The plaintiffs did not adduce convincing evidence to dislodge that case, and the trial court and High Court had returned concurrent findings against them on the core issues.
Conclusion: The plaintiffs failed to establish their claimed governing body or their control rights, and the dismissal of that suit was affirmed.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by sustaining the title of ISKCON Bangalore to Schedule 'A' property, while also upholding the rejection of the challenge to the management of the society.
Ratio Decidendi: In a property dispute, the party shown in the allotment documents and registered conveyance as the applicant and transferee is the owner, and an asserted source of funds or existence of another branch does not displace that title unless supported by clear legal and documentary proof; similarly, a claimed governing body must be proved by credible evidence, especially where a prior election is established by contemporaneous records.
TaxTMI 
