Prasannatma Das vs. K.N. Haridasan Nambiar (Dead)

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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.05.16
17:50:24 IST
Reason:
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.
th
The 6 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:-
st th st
a) a declaration that the 1 to 5 plaintiffs and 1
th
to 10 defendants constitute the Governing
th
Body of the 6 plaintiff-ISKCON Bangalore,
Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 2 of 56

which was registered under the Karnataka
Societies Registration Act;
th th
a declaration that the 11 to 17 defendants
b)
th
have no right to manage or control the 6
plaintiff-ISKCON Bangalore;
th
c) a mandatory injunction enjoining the 11 to
th
17 defendants to make over to the governing
th st th
body of the 6 plaintiff, comprising the 1 to 5
st th
plaintiff and 1 to 10 defendants, all the
assets, effects, affairs, books of account, and
records of ISKCON Bangalore;
th
d) a perpetual injunction restraining the 11 to
th
17 defendants from interfering with the
management and control of ISKCON Bangalore.
4. The learned judge of the City Civil Court, Bangalore,
th
by his judgment and decree dated 17 April 2009,
dismissed the suit. The learned Judge held that the
st th
plaintiffs have failed to prove that the 1 to 5 plaintiffs
st th
and the 1 to 10 defendants constitute the General Body
of the ISKCON Bangalore. Similarly, it was held that the
th th
plaintiffs failed to prove that the 11 to 17 defendants
have no right to manage or control ISKCON Bangalore.
th th
The Trial Court accepted the contention of the 11 to 17
st
defendants that in the general body meeting held on 1
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.
Being aggrieved by the decree of dismissal of the
5.
th th
suit, the original 4 and 6 plaintiffs had preferred an
appeal before the High Court, being Regular First Appeal
th
No.423 of 2009. Later on, the original 5 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
th
2023 have been preferred by the original 5 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;
There were consequential prayers made for
c.
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,
st th
the 1 to 4 defendants preferred Regular First Appeal
No.421 of 2009. By the impugned judgment and order
rd
dated 23 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.
We find from the order sheets that, by the order
9.
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
th
decisions. Under the order dated 14 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
th
been given in the order of 6 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
th
preferred against the order dated 29 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
His submission is that the learned Single Judge of
11.
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
1
case of K. Karuppuraj v. M. Ganesan . 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
st th st th
names of the 1 to 5 plaintiffs and the 1 to 10
defendants in Suit No. 1758/2003. Learned counsel
th th
pointed out that the 11 to 17 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
th
branch President. One Chanchalpati Das, 12 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
st th
No.1758 of 2003 was for a declaration that the 1 to 5
st th
plaintiffs and 1 to 10 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.
th th
The 11 to 17 defendants were never inducted as
members of the ISKCON Bangalore, and therefore, they
were not the members of the Governing Body. There is no
th th
evidence produced on record to show that the 11 to 17
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
th th
admitting the 11 to 17 defendants as members. In fact,
st
the stand taken by the 1 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.
th th
13. Learned counsel submitted that the 11 to 17
defendants tried to rely upon minutes of the Annual
st
General Meeting held on 1 July 1979. The minutes were
th
belatedly produced on 24 September 2008, eight months
after the evidence was recorded. It is contended that the
st
alleged minutes of the meeting dated 1 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
st
no meeting was held on 1 July 1984. However,
inconsistent with the stand taken in the written
st
statement, the 1 defendant admitted the minutes of the
st
alleged Annual General Meeting held on 1 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
th th
before this Court, the 11 to 17 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.
For proving the alleged minutes of the meeting of
15.
th
the Annual General Meeting of 1st July 1984, the 11 to
th
17 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
rd
2001 was decided by the High Court on 23 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
th th
submitted that the 11 to 17 defendants have no right
to manage or control ISKCON Bangalore.
th th
Submissions of 9 to 12 Respondents
th th
18. Learned counsel appearing for 9 to 12
th th
Respondents (11 to 14 defendants in Suit no.1758 of
2003) pointed out that the appeal at the instance of the
th
present appellant (5 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
th th
the 4 plaintiff. When the original 4 plaintiff sought to
Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 12 of 56

th
withdraw the appeal, the present appellant (5 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
st th st th
comprises of the 1 to 5 plaintiffs and the 1 to 10
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.
st th st th
Therefore, the 1 to 5 plaintiffs and 1 to 10
Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 13 of 56

defendants could not have been members of the
Governing Body.
Learned counsel referred to documentary evidence
20.
th
on record in the form of a letter dated 6 September 1996
rd th
issued by the 3 plaintiff to the 6 plaintiff. Learned
nd
counsel pointed out that even the 2 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
st th
as on 31 March 1987 was filed on 24 September 1987.
It is submitted that the documents produced by the
plaintiffs themselves demolish the theory that the 1st to
st th
5th plaintiffs and the 1 to 10 defendants constituted
st
the Governing Body. He submitted that the 1 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
st
for challenging the validity of the minutes of the 1 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.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 9th
21.
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
st
the resolution of 1 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
Our attention was invited to pleadings. The issue
22.
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
rd
BDA. In fact, on 3 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’).
Thereafter, he invited our attention to various
23.
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
st
of 1 August 1987 was also on behalf of ISKCON
Bangalore. These two applications were marked as
exhibits without any objection from the defendants.
st
Learned counsel pointed out that the 1 defendant in the
suit alleged that the seal of ISKCON Bangalore was
Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 16 of 56

th
affixed on the application dated 5 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
rd
Bangalore by the BDA on 23 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.
Learned counsel submitted that the execution of the
24.
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
2
Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana . 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
th
allotment application dated 5 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
th
Registration Act on 24 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
st
Tax Act, 1961, issued to the 1 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.
st
25. On the allegation of fraud made by the 1 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

st
made by the 1 defendant (ISKCON Mumbai) was purely
speculative, and there was no evidence in support of the
plea of fraud. Learned counsel also dealt with allegations
st
of tampering with BDA files made by the 1 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
st
exhibits without any objection from the 1 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.
st
Submissions of the 1 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.
He pointed out three earlier suits filed by Madhu
29.
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)
One of the main issues that arises for consideration
33.
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
st
the 1 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
st
1 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
st
the 1 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
st
the 1 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
th
proceeded to recast the issues by the order dated 29
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
st
1 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
th
ISKCON Bangalore was the 6 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
th
Resolution dated 9 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
rd
that, by a deed of conveyance dated 3 August 1988, the
BDA conveyed the Schedule ‘A’ property to ISKCON
Bangalore, which was duly registered. In the plaint,
th
reliance is specifically placed on the order dated 27 May
1989 by the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner,
th
Urban Land Ceiling, Bangalore. By the order dated 27
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.
We have perused the application dated 5th February
48.
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
th
5 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.
Now, regarding the judgment of the Trial Court, a
56.
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.
We are of the view that as the application for
57.
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,
th
ISKCON Bangalore is the 6 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
st
claimed in the plaint that the 1 defendant was the
st
President of ISKCON Bangalore, the 1 plaintiff was the
nd rd
Secretary, the 2 plaintiff was the Vice President, the 3
rd th
defendant was the treasurer and 3 to 5 plaintiff as well
nd th th
as 2 and 4 to 10 defendant are the members of the
Governing Body of ISKCON Bangalore. It is alleged that
th
the 11 defendant started claiming to be the President,
Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 46 of 56

th
the 12 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
st th
defendants and the 1 to 5 plaintiffs were inactive. They
also took advantage of the fact that seven members of the
governing body had died. Therefore, a declaration was
st th st th
claimed that the 1 to 5 plaintiffs and 1 to 10
defendants constituted a Governing Body of ISKCON
th th
Bangalore, and the 11 to 17 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
st th
Body to the 1st to 5th plaintiffs and to the 1 to 10
defendants. Different written statements were filed. The
st th
1 defendant and the 10 defendant filed a written
nd
statement in support of the plaintiffs. The 2 defendant
filed a written statement opposing the suit by contending
th
that ISKCON Bangalore was never inactive. The 7
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
th th th th
statements filed by the 12 , 13 , 15 to 17 defendants.
rd
The 3 defendant filed a written statement supporting
the plaintiffs.
61. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The Trial Court
framed the following seven issues:
st th
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 1 to 5
st th
plaintiff and 1 to 10 Defendant constitute the
th
general body of the 6 plaintiff?
Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 48 of 56

th th
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 11 to 17
Defendants have no right to manage or control
th
the 6 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
st
1 witness examined by the plaintiffs is S.R.
rd
Ramakrishna (the 3 plaintiff). He claimed that after
society was registered, he never received any notice of the
st
Governing Body or General Body Meeting. 1 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
rd
that a General Body Meeting was held in 1979. The 3
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.
nd
65. Haridasan Nambiar, the 2 defendant was examined
as a witness. He stated that the Annual General Body
st
Meeting of ISKCON Bangalore was held on 1 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
st
anything about the 1 Annual General meeting in his
written statement. He claimed that in the meeting held on
st
1 July 1984, the audited accounts were accepted.
66. Now, we turn to the findings recorded by the High
th
Court. The High Court notes that on 10 December 2008,
st
the 1 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
nd
suit by him. Even the 2 plaintiff filed a memo seeking
Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 51 of 56

th
permission to withdraw the suit. On 19 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
th th
time. The allegation in the plaint is that the 11 to 17
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
nd th th
plaintiffs' case. 2 , 7 and 8 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
st th st th
show that 1 to 5 plaintiffs along with 1 to 10
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

st
plaintiffs' case that the 1st to 5th plaintiffs and the 1 to
th
10 defendants were members of the Governing Body.
nd
DW-1, who is the 2 defendant, stated that the
68.
original proceedings of the Annual General Body Meeting
st
dated 1 July 1984 (Exhibit D-13) bear the signatures of
st th st
the 1 to 11 defendants. He stated that from 1 July
st
1984, the 1 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
th
dated 25 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
th th
the 11 to 17 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
th th
accepted the case of the 11 to 17 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
th
2001 by the City Civil Court, Bangalore on 17 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