SHREE BHAVANARUSHI PADMAPEETHA MAHASAMSTHANA (R) vs SHRI N GANESH

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 462 OF 2026 (M)

BETWEEN:

1. SHREE BHAVANARUSHI
PADMAPEETHA MAHASAMSTHANA (R)
NO. 16, 5TH MAIN,
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 079
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GEN. SECRETARY,
MR. B. P. GOPIKRISHNA
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
NO. 87/1, 5TH CROSS,
RAMADASA LAYOUT,
JAVAREGOWDA NAGARA,
R.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU-560 098

2. SHRI D. KRISHNIAH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
PRESIDENT SREE BHAVABARUSHI
PADMAPEETHA MAHASAMSTHANA(R),
NO. 16, 5TH MAIN, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 079

CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
NO. 87/1, 5TH CROSS,
RAMADASA LAYOUT,
JAVAREGOWDA NAGARA,
R.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH,











Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


BENGALURU-560 098
3. SHRI D. SRIIVASAMURTHY
S/O LATE DASAPPA,
TRUSTEE OF SHREE KALYANA
VENKATESHWARASWAMY
TEMPLE TRUST (SKVVT)
NO. 24, 8TH CROSS,
AGED 77 YEARS,
NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 023

4. SHRI D. HARISH
S/O LATE R. DASAPPA,
AGED 53 YEARS,
TRUSTEE OF SHREE KALYANA
VENKATESHWARASWAMY
TEMPLE TRUST(SKVVT)
NO. 11, 2ND CROSS,
PS. LANE, COTTONPETE,
BENGALURU-560 053
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DANAPPA P PANIBHATE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI N GANESH
S/O LATE K. P. M. NANJAPPA
AGED 61 YEARS
NO. 1350, 10TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 040

2. SHRI PRAKASH K.
S/O KODANDARAMAIAH
AGED 65 YEARS
NO. 552, 6TH CROSS,
9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 072

3. SHRI V. R. SRIDHARA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


S/O RAMAIAH VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED71 YEARS NO 366,
MATHRUSHREE NILAYA,
TH
57 C CROSS, NEAR RAMAMANDIR TEMPLE,
RAJAJINAGAR, 3RD BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 010

4. SHRI. GOVARDHANA
S/O U. L. SRINIVASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
NO. 259/A, 3RD MAIN,
TH ST
5 CROSS, 1 STAGE,
6TH PHASE, WOC ROAD,
MAHAGANAPATHINAGAR,
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010

5. SHRI T. NARAYANA MURTHY
S/O THIMMARAYAPPA H.
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
ND
NO. 342, 2 FLOOR,
TH
6 MAIN, KHB COLONY,
ST
1 STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 079
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.R.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ANAND P., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRP FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2026, PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, IN MISC. PET NO. 148/2025 ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS AS BEING
WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND NOT MAINTAINABLE IN LAW
AND DISMISS THE SUIT OS NO. 5/25.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
31.08.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026



CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CAV ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by
the order dated 29.04.2026 passed in Civil Misc.No.148/2025
by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District, Bengaluru, whereby the Court had granted permission
under Section 92 of the CPC.
2. The respondents herein have filed the suit against
the petitioners herein seeking the relief of declaration that the
cancellation of the Lease Deed dated 22.09.2025 executed by
respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Nagarabhavi, thereby cancelling the lease deed dated
29.03.2023 as null and void and non-est document and the
same is not binding on the petitioner and also for declaration of
registered amended Trust Deed dated 28.10.2025 inserting
certain amendments and clause No.C (d) of the Trust Deed
dated 02.12.2022, expelling/removing petitioner Nos.1 to 5
from the Trust and nominating/appointing respondent Nos.1, 2
and 4 as Trustees as illegal, null and void and not binding on

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


the petitioner as the same is contrary to the provisions of the
Trust Deed dated 02.12.2022 and for consequential relief of
permanent injunction against the respondents therein and they
have sought for leave of the trial Court.
3. The trial Court by order impugned had granted
leave. While granting the leave, the trial court had observed
that a plain reading of the section made it clear that the
petition can be filed only if the following conditions exist:

i) There should be a Trust for public purpose either of
religious or charitable nature;

ii) Suit should be of a representative character seeking
to enforce public rights and not individual rights;

iii) Minimum number of persons to join as plaintiffs is
two;

iv) The suit must rest on an alleged breach of
circumstances insisting to issue of direction of the
court for proper administration of the Trust;

v) Relief sought must fall within one or more clauses
enumerated under Section 92(1) of the CPC.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


4. In the case, the allegation of the petitioner is that
the respondents Trust had amended the Trust Deed and
removed the petitioners from membership illegally. However, it
is the contention of the respondents that they have removed
legally. To strengthen their contention, they relied upon the
letter dated 24.03.2025, which shows that the complaint was
signed by 180 members making allegations against the
petitioners. Another document is dated 08.05.2025, which is
the notice given to Ganesh, Prakash, Sridhar, Govardhan, and
Narayanamurthy, stating that their membership is going to be
suspended as there is a misuse of their trust. Another
document is the letter written to the Chairman regarding
amendment to the trust deed issued by Ganesh dated
12.06.2025. Another notice was sent to the petitioners. The
cancellation of the lease deed is also produced. The
proceedings of the committee amending the trust deed and the
order passed in the writ petition are produced. In this case, on
perusal of the material available on record, even though the
respondents have produced the notices regarding intimation
towards termination of the lease, but these aspects have to be

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


decided before the Court. There is a mistake crept in that
without disposing of the petition, the suit came to be
registered. However, there is a direction by the High Court of
Karnataka to dispose of the application first, since there is
material to show that these Trustees were removed by the
respondents from the trusteeship. Whether that removal is
legal or not, whether the amendment is properly done or not
are all to be decided in a full fledged trial. Hence, it is just and
necessary to give permission to sue as per Section 92 of the
CPC, since it is a public trust. The provisions of Section 92 of
the CPC are to be invoked; hence, the petition is to be allowed,
and accordingly the trial Court had granted permission.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that there is a jurisdictional error in granting of leave
under Section 92 of CPC. It is submitted that the impugned
order dated 29.04.2026 is vitiated by a fundamental
jurisdictional error, as the learned judge has exercised
jurisdiction not vested in it by law by granting leave under
Section 92 of CPC without recording satisfaction of the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


mandatory statutory conditions. The jurisdiction under Section
92 of CPC arises only upon the Court being satisfied that the
suit relates to a public trust, that there exists a breach of trust
or necessity for court intervention and the proceedings are
representative in nature. The Court has failed to follow the
procedure. He relied on the judgment of the High Court in S.
1
Panchalingu & Others v. People’s Education Trust & Others . It is
submitted that the Court has exercised the jurisdiction
mechanically and passed a non-speaking order, and that the
suit falls under Section 92 of the CPC, and there is a
misapplication of Section 92 of CPC to the private dispute. The
learned counsel submits that this order of the trial Court is
contrary to the settled law. Hence, the relief as sought does not
fall under Section 92 of the CPC and the same needs to be set
aside.
6. Learned Senior counsel representing learned
counsel for the respondents had argued at length and also
placed before the Court their written submissions and it is
stated that, admittedly, the plaintiffs and defendants are the

1
WP No.16971/2025

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


trustees. In the Trust Deed at Sl.No.1 to 6 are plaintiff Nos.1 to
6 in the suit and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are also the parties in
the original trust deed. In the trust deed, at Chapter 8 sub para
6, a caption known as cessation of trusteeship is provided.
Then Chapter 9 deals with expulsion. At Chapter 13, the
dissolution of trust and the manner followed for amendment of
the trust is provided. All these captions are provided. It is
submitted that defendant No.1 is a registered society under the
Societies Registration Act. The society was established or
composed with an object of bringing the members of the
community by the name Padhmashaali Community to the
mainstream of society economically, socially, educationally,
culturally, and in public employment. By the amended trust
deed, certain overreaching acts have been culminated which on
its looking, both on its face as well as in depth amounts to
breach of the trust. It is submitted that the law is well settled
as to what is required to be followed and what essential
requirements to be noticed for the purpose of granting leave by
the courts in a suit under Section 92 of CPC, time and again

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


explained by the Apex Court through consistent
pronouncements.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents had relied on
the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court:
i. R.M.Narayana Chettiar and Anr Vs. N Lakshman
2
Chettiar and others , he relied on paragraph Nos.6, 11 to 17.
3
ii. Operation Asha Vs. Shelly Batra and Others , he
relied on paragraph Nos.18, 141, 142, 158, 144 to 157, 158.1,
158.19, 158.20.
iii. Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Anr. Kattukandi Edathil
4
Valsan & ors.
Relying on this, it is submitted that the trial Court had
rightly considered and granted leave, and no interference is
called for from this Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned Senior Counsel representing the learned counsel

2
(1991) 1 SCC page 48
3
(2026) 1 SCC 569
4
(2022) 16 SCC 71 para 75

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


for the respondents, perused the entire material on record. The
question that arises for consideration is:
“Whether the suit seeking a declaration
concerning the validity of a lease deed and an
amendment to the Trust Deed, together with a
permanent injunction, can be treated as a
representative suit concerning the
administration of a public trust so as to attract
Section 92 of CPC?”
9. Section 92 of CPC is a special provision intended to
protect public charitable and religious trusts. It enables the
court to grant specified reliefs in cases of alleged breach of an
express or constructive trust created for a public charitable or
religious purpose, or where the court's directions are
considered necessary for the administration of such a trust. The
provision does not confer a general jurisdiction to entertain
every dispute arising in relation to a trust. Its application is
subject to certain essential requirements. A trust must be one
created for a public charitable or religious purpose. The suit
must concern an alleged breach of trust or directions regarding
its administration. It must be instituted in the manner
prescribed by the provision, and the relief claimed must fall
within the scope of Section 92.1 of CPC. These requirements
are not merely procedural. They determine whether the suit is

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


of the special representative character contemplated by Section
92 of CPC. The fact that the dispute involves the trust, its
trustees, or its property does not, by itself, attract the
provision. Section 92.1 of CPC specifies the reliefs which may
be granted, including removal of a trustee, appointment of a
new trustee, vesting of property in a trust, directions
concerning accounts and inquiries, declaration of the proportion
of trust property or income to be allocated to particular objects,
authorization of sale, mortgage, exchange, or lease of trust
property, and settlement of a scheme, and such further or
other reliefs as the nature of the case may be. The expression
such further or other reliefs occurring in clause-H cannot be
read independently of the preceding clauses. It must be
understood in the context of the purpose of Section 92 of CPC
and the nature of the reliefs specifically enumerated. The
provision cannot be expanded to include every declaration or
injunction merely because it concerns the affairs of a trust. The
distinction between a suit brought for the administration of a
public trust and a suit brought to enforce an individual right has
been consistently recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


10. In Swami Parmatmanand Saraswath Vs. Ramji
5
Tripathi , the Supreme Court explained that a suit indicating
the personal rights of an individual does not fall within Section
92 of CPC, even though the dispute may relate to a public
trust. The Court emphasizes that the substance of the relief
claimed and the purpose of the proceedings are determinable.
6
In Vidyodaya Trust Vs. Mohan Prasad R & Ors , the
Supreme Court reiterated that the Court must examine the real
object of the suit, not merely the language employed in the
plaint, where the primary purpose is to enforce a personal or
individual right. These decisions established that jurisdiction
under Section 92 of CPC is not attracted merely because
allegations of illegality, mismanagement, or irregularity are
made against trustees. Such allegations must be connected
with a suit genuinely instituted for the protection or
administration of the public trust and seeking relief
contemplated by the provisions. The principal relief sought by
the plaintiff is a declaration that the amendment to the
registration trustee, by which they were expelled from the

5
(1974) 2 SCC 695
6
(2008) 4 SCC 115

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


trust, and the appointment of the defendants as trustees are
null and void and not binding upon them. The nature of this
relief requires careful consideration. The plaintiff does not seek
an order removing the defendants as trustees on the ground
that their continuation is detrimental to the administration of
the trust, nor does the plaintiff seek the court's appointment of
trustees for the proper management of the institution. The
challenge is directed against the amendment already effected
to the trust deed on the ground that it will unlawfully deprive
the plaintiff of their position in the trust. The distinction is
fundamental. Section 92(1)(a) of CPC empowers the court to
remove a trustee in proceedings properly instituted for the
protection or administration of a public trust. Section 92(1)(b)
of CPC similarly provides for the appointment of a new trustee.
11. A suit seeking a declaration that an amendment to
the trust deed is invalid because it resulted in the plaintiff's
expulsion is not equivalent to a suit seeking the removal or
appointment of a trustee under these provisions. The relief
must be understood with reference to the right the plaintiff
seeks to enforce. If the amendment is declared invalid, the

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


consequences may be that the plaintiff's claim to possession in
the trust is restored and the appointment of the defendants
under that amendment is effected. However, the legal
consequences of a declaration cannot be substituted for the
actual relief sought to bring the suit within Section 92 of CPC. A
person who asserts that he has been unlawfully removed from
the office of trustee may have a right to challenge such
removal before a competent civil court. Whether the
amendment was authorized by the original trustee, whether the
prescribed procedure was followed, and whether the defendants
were validly appointed are matters capable of adjudication. But
the availability of such questions for adjudication does not
necessarily mean the proceedings are representative
proceedings under Section 92 of CPC. The trial court went
wrong in deciding this and holding that it is a public trust and
the defendants are entitled to permission to prosecute the suit
in representative capacity. The words ‘null and void and not
binding on the plaintiffs’ are significant. They indicate that the
declaration is sought with reference to the legal rights claimed
by the plaintiffs themselves. The grievance is not that the Court

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


must intervene to reorganize the administration of the trust for
the benefit of its beneficiaries, but the defendants have,
through an amendment, deprived the plaintiffs of their claimed
possession. The mere fact that the amendment concerns the
composition of the trust does not alter the character of the
claim. Hence, it will not fall under Section 92 of CPC.
12. The plaintiffs have also sought a declaration that
the lease deed executed by the defendant is null and void. Even
that will not fall under Section 92 of CPC. A transaction
involving trust property may undoubtedly be questioned where
it is alleged to constitute a breach of trust. In a properly
constituted suit under Section 92 of CPC, a declaration
concerning such a transaction may, depending on the current
circumstances, be considered ancillary relief necessary for the
effective administration of the trust. However, a standard
prayer declaring a particular lease deed void does not
automatically bring the suit within the ambit of Section 92 of
CPC.
13. The plaintiff has also sought for a permanent
injunction. When deciding an application for leave, the Court is

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


not required to determine whether the impugned amendment is
valid, whether the plaintiffs were properly expelled, or whether
the defendants were competent to execute the lease deed.
Those questions belong to the merits of the dispute. The Court
is required to examine the averments in the plaint and whether
the nature of the rights asserted falls under Section 92 of the
CPC.
14. In the present case, as discussed in the preceding
paragraphs, the suit does not fall within the ambit of Section 92
of the CPC. The trial Court, while granting leave, failed to give
due effect to the distinction between a suit seeking protection
of the public trust and a suit seeking enforcement of the
plaintiff's individual rights arising from the trust deed. The
nature of the leave claimed does not justify treating the
proceedings as a representative suit under Section 92 of the
CPC. Accordingly, this court is passing the following:
ORDER

i. The order dated 29.04.2026 passed in Civil
Misc.No.148/2025 by the Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61117
CRP No. 462 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010329392026


Bengaluru, is set aside , and the Civil
Revision Petition is allowed .


ii. It is made clear that this court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the
matter and all the questions are left open for
determination in appropriate proceedings in
accordance with law.


iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.



SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
PKN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
*MR