2025 (6) TMI 1 - SC - Indian Laws

ISKCON Bangalore management dispute ends as appeals dismissed for lack of evidence after 20+ years

PRASANNATMA DAS Versus K.N. HARIDASAN NAMBIAR (DEAD) AND OTHERS

SC dismissed appeals concerning ISKCON Bangalore management dispute. Court found plaintiffs failed to prove their case regarding governing body ... Suit filled for right to manage or control ISKCON Bangalore - BDA allotted property in Schedule ‘A’ to ISKCON Mumbai through its Bangalore branch - absolute owner of the immovable and movable properties described in Schedules 'A', 'B', and 'C - failure of Madhu Pandit to enter the witness box - Rules and Regulations of ISKCON Bangalore are riddled with inconsistencies - suit barred by limitation - terms ‘Managing Committee’ and ‘Governing Body’ - HELD THAT:- 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 11th to 17th 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. 2nd, 7th and 8th 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 1st to 5th plaintiffs along with 1st to 10th 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 plaintiffs' case that the 1st to 5th plaintiffs and the 1st to 10th defendants were members of the Governing Body. DW-1, who is the 2nd defendant, stated that the original proceedings of the Annual General Body Meeting dated 1st July 1984 (Exhibit D-13) bear the signatures of the 1st to 11th defendants. He stated that from 1st July 1984, the 1st defendant ceased to be the President of ISKCON Bangalore. 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 25th 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 11th to 17th defendants, for which a General Body Meeting was held on 1st July 1984, deserves to be accepted. We may note here that plaintiffs have adduced no evidence to prove their case. Both the Courts have accepted the case of the 11th to 17th defendants, who 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. 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. As we are setting aside the impugned judgment in Regular First Appeal No.423 of 2009, the remaining appeals will not survive. 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 Judgment, the decree passed in Suit No. 7934 of 2001 by the City Civil Court, Bangalore on 17th 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. There will be no orders as to costs. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED- Whether the 1st to 5th plaintiffs and 1st to 10th defendants constitute the Governing Body of ISKCON Bangalore, and whether the 11th to 17th defendants have any right to manage or control ISKCON Bangalore (Suit No. 1758 of 2003).- Whether ISKCON Bangalore or ISKCON Mumbai (through its Bangalore branch) is the absolute owner of the immovable and movable properties described in Schedules 'A', 'B', and 'C' (Suit No. 7934 of 2001).- Whether the Executive Committee or Bureau of ISKCON Mumbai has authority to remove office bearers or control the possession and administration of ISKCON Bangalore's temples and properties.- Whether the application for allotment of Schedule 'A' property by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) was made by ISKCON Bangalore or by ISKCON Mumbai through its Bangalore branch.- Whether ISKCON Bangalore was a defunct society post-registration or whether it continued to function.- Whether the minutes of the Annual General Meeting held on 1st July 1984, wherein the Governing Body was purportedly elected, are valid and whether the 11th to 17th defendants were duly elected members.- Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation.- Whether allegations of fraud and manipulation of documents by Madhu Pandit and others are substantiated.- Whether the committee appointed by the Supreme Court to oversee management of the Bangalore temple and properties should continue or be dissolved.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Composition and Control of ISKCON Bangalore's Governing Body (Suit No. 1758 of 2003)Legal Framework and Precedents: The governance of a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act is determined by its Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations, and duly held General Body Meetings. Membership and election to the Governing Body require compliance with the society's rules.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Trial Court and High Court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the 1st to 5th plaintiffs and 1st to 10th defendants constituted the Governing Body. The 11th to 17th defendants demonstrated that they were elected as members of the Governing Body in the Annual General Meeting held on 1st July 1984. The courts accepted the minutes of this meeting, despite allegations of discrepancies and late production.Key Evidence and Findings: The plaintiffs admitted that ISKCON Bangalore became defunct shortly after registration and did not hold general meetings or elections. The 11th to 17th defendants produced minutes of the 1984 General Body Meeting showing their election. The plaintiffs' witnesses failed to provide documentary evidence supporting their claim to the Governing Body.Application of Law to Facts: Since the plaintiffs could not prove their membership or control and the 11th to 17th defendants showed valid election, the courts held that the latter had the right to manage ISKCON Bangalore.Treatment of Competing Arguments: Plaintiffs argued that the minutes were fabricated and that the 11th to 17th defendants were never admitted members. The defendants countered with documentary evidence and consistent conduct. The courts favored the defendants' position due to lack of evidence from plaintiffs and acceptance of the minutes.Conclusion: The 11th to 17th defendants constitute the Governing Body of ISKCON Bangalore, and plaintiffs' claims to management were rejected.Issue 2: Ownership of Schedule 'A', 'B', and 'C' Properties (Suit No. 7934 of 2001)Legal Framework and Precedents: Ownership of property by a registered society is governed by the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (for ISKCON Mumbai). The Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, specifically Section 38B, governs allotment of bulk land to societies registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act or to charitable trusts.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Trial Court held ISKCON Bangalore as the absolute owner of the Schedule 'A' property, based on the application for allotment, sale deed, and subsequent documents. The High Court reversed this, holding that ISKCON Mumbai, through its Bangalore branch, owned the property. The Supreme Court examined the documentary evidence and found that the application for allotment, sale deed, and exemption under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were all in the name of ISKCON Bangalore, a registered society under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act.Key Evidence and Findings: The application dated 5th February 1987 for allotment was made by ISKCON Bangalore, signed by Madhu Pandit as President of ISKCON Bangalore. The sale deed dated 3rd August 1988 was executed in favor of ISKCON Bangalore. Exemption orders under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were granted to ISKCON Bangalore. No document was produced showing that ISKCON Mumbai or its Bangalore branch made any application for allotment. The High Court's finding of manipulation by Madhu Pandit was not supported by evidence.Application of Law to Facts: Section 38B(v) of the BDA Act allows allotment to societies registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. ISKCON Mumbai, being a public trust under Maharashtra law, was not eligible for allotment under this provision. The absence of registration of the Schedule 'A' property under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act did not affect ownership by ISKCON Bangalore. The Supreme Court emphasized that ownership depends on the registered allottee and not the source of funds.Treatment of Competing Arguments: ISKCON Mumbai contended that the property was acquired through its Bangalore branch and that funds and exemptions under the Income Tax Act were utilized by ISKCON Mumbai. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, noting the lack of documentary proof of branch status and that the application and sale deed were in ISKCON Bangalore's name. The Court also drew adverse inference against ISKCON Mumbai for not examining material witnesses who could have supported their case.Conclusion: ISKCON Bangalore is the absolute owner of the Schedule 'A' property and related movable properties. The High Court's contrary finding was set aside, and the Trial Court's decree restored.Issue 3: Authority of ISKCON Mumbai's Executive Committee over ISKCON BangaloreLegal Framework: Societies registered under different statutes are separate legal entities. The executive committee of one society cannot exercise control over another unless authorized by law or agreement.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Trial Court and Supreme Court held that ISKCON Mumbai's Executive Committee or Bureau has no power to remove office bearers or control the possession or administration of ISKCON Bangalore's properties or temples.Key Evidence and Findings: Despite ISKCON Mumbai's claim of a Bangalore branch, the evidence showed ISKCON Bangalore was a separate registered society with its own governing body. The use of ISKCON Mumbai's tax exemption certificates by Bangalore branch did not confer ownership or control over Bangalore society's properties.Application of Law to Facts: The separate registration and ownership documents established independent management and ownership. No authority was shown to ISKCON Mumbai's Executive Committee to interfere with ISKCON Bangalore's affairs.Conclusion: ISKCON Mumbai's Executive Committee has no authority over ISKCON Bangalore's management or properties.Issue 4: Validity of the Annual General Meeting of 1st July 1984 and Election of Governing BodyLegal Framework: Valid election of a Governing Body requires a duly convened General Body Meeting with proper notice and quorum.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Trial Court and High Court accepted the minutes of the Annual General Meeting held on 1st July 1984, despite allegations of discrepancies and late production. The Supreme Court found no error in this acceptance, noting the plaintiffs' failure to impeach the minutes or produce contrary evidence.Key Evidence and Findings: Certified copies of the meeting proceedings and notice were produced. The 11th to 17th defendants were shown to have been elected in this meeting. Plaintiffs' witnesses admitted lack of knowledge or participation in ISKCON Bangalore's affairs during this period.Application of Law to Facts: The evidence supported the validity of the 1984 meeting and election of the Governing Body comprising the 11th to 17th defendants.Conclusion: The 11th to 17th defendants were validly elected to the Governing Body in 1984, and plaintiffs' claims to the contrary failed.Issue 5: Whether ISKCON Bangalore was Defunct Post-RegistrationCourt's Interpretation and Reasoning: The plaint itself admitted that ISKCON Bangalore became defunct shortly after registration. The High Court found that ISKCON Bangalore did not file income tax returns until 2002 and was largely inactive till then. However, the Trial Court found that ISKCON Bangalore revived and functioned, especially in relation to acquiring and managing Schedule 'A' property.Key Evidence and Findings: Letters filed with the Registrar of Societies, bank accounts, and applications to BDA showed some activity. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff society filed statutory accounts and conducted activities, including property acquisition.Conclusion: ISKCON Bangalore was dormant for a period but revived and functioned sufficiently to acquire property and manage affairs.Issue 6: Allegations of Fraud and Document ManipulationCourt's Interpretation and Reasoning: ISKCON Mumbai alleged that documents submitted by ISKCON Bangalore, including applications to BDA, were forged or manipulated. The Supreme Court held that fraud must be specifically pleaded with material facts and proved. No convincing evidence of fraud was produced. The Court also drew adverse inference against ISKCON Mumbai for failure to examine material witnesses who could have supported the fraud allegations.Conclusion: Allegations of fraud and manipulation were unsubstantiated and did not affect the validity of ISKCON Bangalore's ownership.Issue 7: Limitation and Locus Standi of AppellantsCourt's Interpretation and Reasoning: The 5th defendant appellant in Suit No. 1758 of 2003 was allowed to be transposed as appellant after the original plaintiff withdrew. The respondents contended this gave no locus to prosecute the appeal and alleged lack of bona fide. The Supreme Court did not find merit in this objection and proceeded to adjudicate on the merits.Limitation: The suit was filed after a long period, but the Court did not specifically hold the suit barred by limitation, focusing instead on merits and evidence.Issue 8: Dissolution of Oversight CommitteeCourt's Reasoning: The Supreme Court noted that the committee headed by a retired Justice was appointed to oversee management of the Bangalore temple and properties. Given the resolution of disputes and passage of time, the Court ordered dissolution of the committee one month after the judgment.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The application dated 5th February 1987 was made by ISKCON Bangalore, a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, and the sale deed dated 3rd August 1988 was executed in its favour. There is nothing on record to show that the application was manipulated or fabricated.''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.''The Executive Committee or Bureau of ISKCON Mumbai has no power or authority to remove the President or office bearers of ISKCON Bangalore or to exercise control over the possession of the property or administration of affairs of ISKCON Bangalore.''The 11th to 17th defendants were duly elected as members of the Governing Body of ISKCON Bangalore in the Annual General Meeting held on 1st July 1984. The plaintiffs have failed to prove otherwise.''Fraud must always be specifically pleaded with material facts and proved. In the absence of such evidence, the allegations of fraud and manipulation are rejected.''The committee appointed by this Court to oversee management of the Bangalore temple and properties shall stand dissolved on expiry of one month from the date of this judgment.'Core principles established include the primacy of documentary evidence in determining ownership and governance of societies, the requirement of proper membership and elections for governing body claims, and the necessity of specific pleading and proof of fraud. The judgment underscores that a society registered under a particular statute holds ownership of property allotted to it, notwithstanding the source of funds, and that branches of societies do not have independent legal status unless separately registered.Final determinations:- The decree of the Trial Court in Suit No. 7934 of 2001, holding ISKCON Bangalore as owner of Schedule 'A' property, is restored.- The High Court's judgment in Regular First Appeal No. 421 of 2009 is set aside.- The suit No. 1758 of 2003 is dismissed, confirming the 11th to 17th defendants as the Governing Body of ISKCON Bangalore.- The Executive Committee of ISKCON Mumbai has no authority over ISKCON Bangalore's management or properties.- The oversight committee appointed by the Supreme Court is dissolved.