GURUSINGH S/O SANGANSINGH HAJERI AND ORS vs SHRI AJIT SINGH S/O SISUPAL SINGH AND ORS

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH


TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200132 OF 2015 (INJ)



BETWEEN:

1. GURUSINGH
S/O SANGANSINGH HAJERI (TONASHYAL)
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS, GAINFULLY EMPLOYED
AS PRESIDENT OF BDRS AND
R/AT BENDIGERI GALLI NEAR GOLGUMBAZ,
BIJAPUR.

2. SHRI. GAPATHSINGH S/O HANUMANTSINGH
RAJAPUT,
AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS, GAINFULLY EMPLOYED
AS AUDITOR/EX- SECRETARY, BDRS, AND
R/AT JUMMA MASJID ROAD, RAJPUT GALLI,
BIJAPUR.

3. SHRI. RAMASINGH S/O RAJARAM SINGH RAJAPUT,
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, GAINFULLY EMPLOYED
AS EX-SECRETARY, BDRS AND
R/AT THREE ‘R’ GARMENTS, APTE BUILDING,
MEENAXI CHOWK, BIJAPUR.

…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SUDHEER KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI. AJIT SINGH
S/O SHISUPAL SINGH RAJAPUT,









Digitally signed by
B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS,
GAINFULLY EMPLOYED AS PRESIDENT,
BIJAPUR DISTRICT RAJAPUT SAMAJ,
BAGALKOT CROSS,
BIJAPUR AND
R/ AT DR MALAWAD CLINIC,
INDI ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101.

2. SHRI. BHIMA SINGH
S/O RAMASINGH HAJERI,
AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS,
GAINFULLY EMPLOYED
AS SECRETARY, BDRS,
R/ AT K K BADAVANE,
MANAGULI ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101.

3. THE SUB-REGISTRAR,
K.H.B. SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NH 13, SOLAPUR ROAD, BIJAPUR-586101.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
R3 IS SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.109/2006 ON
DATED 12.4.2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE, BIJAPUR AND R.A.NO.53/2013 DATED 31.1.2015 ON
THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYPUR,
DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 AND
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND GRANT SUCH OTHER OR FURTHER
RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015



ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellants filed this regular second appeal
challenging the judgment and decree dated
31.01.2015 passed in R.A. No.53 of 2013 by the III
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapur (for short,
‘ the First Appellate Court ’), confirming the
judgment and decree dated 12.04.2013 passed in
O.S. No.109 of 2006 by the learned Principal Civil
Judge, Vijayapur (for short, ‘ the Trial Court ’).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to based on their ranking before the Trial Court: the
appellants were defendant Nos.1 to 3; respondent
Nos.1 and 2 were the plaintiffs, and respondent No.3
was defendant No.4.
3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are

as follows:

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


4. The plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction and
also sought for the accounts. It is the case of the
plaintiffs that Bijapur District Rajaputh Samaj,
Bijapur (for short, ‘ the BDRS ’) is a Society
registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration
Act, 1960 (for short, ‘ the Act ’) and defendant No.1
was the previous President for the year 2004-05. On
05.01.2006, a annual general body meeting was
called for and in the said meeting defendant No.1
and his previous body was changed accordingly. Both
plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were elected under the general
body meeting held on 26.01.2006. In the general
body meeting held on 26.01.2006, defendant No.1
was absent, therefore, the Chairman of the meeting
by name one Ashoksingh Narasingh Hajeri (Devi)
presided over the meeting and thereby, elected
plaintiff No.1 as the President and plaintiff No.2 as
the Secretary and others were elected under the
resolution. Defendant No.1 was asked to hand-over

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


the charge to the newly elected body, but the oral
and written requests by way of notices were not
considered by defendant No.1. He has not handed
over the accounts of the BDRS and the Deputy
Commissioner granted the land bearing R.S.
No.680/D measuring 5 acres situated in
Mahalbagayath in favour of the BDRS and defendant
No.1 is misusing the power by executing a registered
sale deeds of plots without prior permission of the
management. It is resolved on 03.04.2006 to file a
suit against defendant No.1.
5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the
averments made in the plaint and also denied that a
general body meeting was held on 21.01.2006. It is
contended that a general body meeting was held on
26.08.2005. In the said meeting, defendant No.1 and
defendant No.3 were elected as the President and
Secretary for a stipulated period of 3 years
commencing from 2005-06 to 2007-08. In the said

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


meeting, the Executive Committee members were
elected as per Subject No.2 of the Resolution, on the
very same day which was headed by defendant No.1.
Hence, the subsequent general body meeting for
electing new Executive Committee in 2006 did not
arise.
6. Plaintiff No.2 was not a member of the Institution.

The persons claimed by the plaintiffs, who are said to
be the Executive Committee members were not even
primary members of the Institution. It is contended
that the plaintiffs have created a false and bogus
documents for conducting annual general body
meeting on 21.01.2006 and they got printed another
letter only to suit the ill-designs of the plaintiffs. It is
contended that defendant No.1 was never removed
from the post and hence, on these grounds, he prays
to dismiss the suit.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


7. The Trial Court based on the rival pleadings of the
parties framed the following issues:
st
“(i) Whether plaintiffs prove that 1
defendant is illegally trying to
alienate ‘suit’ property?
(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for
accounts as prayed for?
(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief
of permanent injunction as prayed?
(iv) What order or decree?”
8. The plaintiffs in order to substantiate their case,
plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW1, examined 2
witnesses as PW2 and PW3; and marked 46
documents as Exhibits P1 to P46.
9. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 examined himself as
DW1 and marked 4 documents as Exhibits D1 to D4.
10. The Trial Court after recording the evidence, hearing
both sides and assessing the verbal and
documentary evidence, decreed the suit in part.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


Defendant No.1 has been restrained by order of
perpetual injunction from alienating R.S. No.680/D
measuring to the extent of 5 acres of the suit
Institution to anybody. Defendant No.1 was directed
to furnish the books of accounts of the said
Institution (Society) to the plaintiffs within 2 months
from the date of the judgment dated 12.04.2013.
11. The defendants aggrieved by the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court, preferred an appeal
in R.A. No.53 of 2013 on the file of III Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapur.
12. The First Appellate Court after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties framed the following points
for consideration:
“(i) Whether the plaintiff has made
sufficient grounds to show that, the
judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court is perverse and
capricious?

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


(ii) Whether the judgment and decree
of the Trial Court required for
interference?
(iii) What order?”
13. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties, answered Point Nos.1 and 2
in Negative and Point No.3 as per the final order.
The appeal was dismissed by judgment dated
31.01.2015.
14. The defendants aggrieved by the said judgments
passed by the Courts below have filed this regular
second appeal.
15. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants and
learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
16. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the
suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and that
if the plaintiffs have got any grievance, they have to
approach the Registrar of the Societies under Section

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. The
plaintiffs without exhausting the said remedy, have
filed this suit. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.
17. Per contra , learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits
that the suit filed by the plaintiffsis maintainable
under the provisions of Sections13 and 15 of the
Karnataka Societies Registration Act. Both the Courts
below have rightly held that the suit is maintainable
and hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.
18. This Court, vide order dated 25.04.2015 admitted
the appeal to consider the following substantial
questions of law:
“(i) Whether the Courts below have
committed any legal error in
decreeing the suit without
Bijapur District Rajaputh Samaj,
Bijapur (BDRS), a registered
society, being made as a party
to the proceedings?

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


(ii) Whether Section 25 of the
Karnataka Societies Registration
Act is a bar for adjudicating the
dispute between the parties by
the Civil Court?”
Reg. Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1 and 2 :
19. Substantial question of law Nos.1 and 2 are

interlinked and they are taken together for common
discussion to avoid the repetition of facts.
20. It is an undisputed fact that, the plaintiffs have filed

a suit for injunction by the individuals who claims to
be the members of the Bijapur District Rajaputh
Samaj, Bijapur. The said Society was constituted and
registered. Admittedly, the society is still running.
The plaintiffs are claiming to be the members of the
Executive Committee and contended that defendant
No.1 has misused his position as a President and it is
contended that in the annual general body meeting,
defendant No.1 has been elected as the President
and defendant No.2 as the Secretary of the society

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


and other executive committee members have also
been elected and defendant No.1 is trying to alienate
the properties of the society is without recourse to
the appropriate proceedings before the Registrar the
Societies.
21. It is settled that as per the provisions of the
Karnataka Societies Registration Act, whoever
supervises the affairs of the Society registered under
the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, but
privately, it would clearly be illegal and
impermissible.
22. In order to consider the case on hand, it is necessary
to examine Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies
Registration Act, which reads thus:
“25. Enquiry by the Registrar, etc.- (1)
The Registrar may on his own motion and
shall on the application of the majority of
the members of the governing body or of
not less than one-third of the members of

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


the society, hold an enquiry or direct
some person authorised by him by order
in writing in accordance with the rules
made in this behalf to hold an enquiry
into the constitution, working and
financial condition of a registered society.
(2) The Registrar or the person
authorised by him under sub-section (1)
shall have the following powers,
namely,—
(a) he shall, at all reasonable times, have
free access to the books, accounts,
documents, securities, cash and other
properties belonging to or in the custody
of the society and may summon any
person in possession or responsible for
the custody of any such books, accounts,
documents securities, cash or other
properties to produce the same at any
place at the headquarters of the society
or any branch thereof;
(b) he may summon any person who, he
has reason to believe, has knowledge of
any of the affairs of the society to appear
before him at any place at the

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


headquarters of the society or any branch
thereof and may examine such person on
oath;
(c) (i) he may, notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act or in any rule or
regulation prescribing the period of notice
for a general meeting of the society,
require the governing body of the society
to call a general meeting at such time
and place at the headquarters of the
society or any branch thereof and to
determine such matters as may be
directed by him. If the governing body of
the society refuses or fails to call a
meeting, he shall have power to call it
himself;
(ii) any meeting called under sub-clause
(i) shall have all the powers of a general
meeting called under the rules or
regulations of the society and its
proceedings shall be regulated by such
rules or regulations;
(iii) when an enquiry is made under this
section, the Registrar shall communicate

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


the result of the enquiry to the society
concerned.”

23. From a bare reading of Section 25 of the Act, it is
clear that the Registrar, may on his own motion or
on the application of the majority of the members of
rd
the governing body or of not less than 1/3 , hold an
enquiry into the constitution, working and financial
condition of the registered society and the Registrar
or the person authorized by him shall have a free
access to the books, accounts, documents,
securities, cash and other properties belonging to it
or in the custody of the society and hold an enquiry
and communicate the result of the enquiry to the
society concerned.
24. Admittedly, the plaintiffs instead of approaching the
Registrar of Societies under Section 25 of the Act,
the plaintiffs have filed a suit for injunction. As such,
the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable in

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


1
view of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act,
1963, according to which, when an equally
efficacious remedy is available, an order of injunction
cannot be granted.
25. Further, the plaintiffs have not arrayed the Bijapur
District Rajaputh Samaj, Bijapur—a Registered
Society, as a party to the proceedings. Hence, the
suit filed by the individuals against defendant Nos.1
and 2 is not maintainable.
26. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
M.Subbrayappa and another v. Mysore State
Vanhikula Kshathriya (Thigalara) Sangha,
2
Bengaluru and others , has held that a Civil Court
has no jurisdiction to take any further action, apart
from declaring the admitted fact of members of the

1
41. Injunction when refused.- An injunction cannot be granted-
(a) x x x
(h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any
other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust;
2
2013 (5) Kar.L.J .253

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


governing body as illegal. And further held that the
trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit as not
maintainable with the liberty to the plaintiff to seek
enquiry and initiation of appropriate action by the
Registrar under Section 25 of the Act.
27. Considering the proposition laid down by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case referred
supra, the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable.
Thus, without considering Section 25 of the Act, the
Trial Court decreed the suit and confirmed by the
First Appellate Court. As such, the judgment and
decree passed by the Courts below are arbitrary and
erroneous and the same deserves to be set aside.
28. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial
questions of law Nos.1 and 2 in affirmative.
29. In the result, I proceed to file the following order:

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


ORDER
(i) The Regular Second Appeal is
allowed ;
(ii) The impugned judgment and
decree dated 31.01.2015 passed
in R.A. No.53 of 2013 by the III
Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Vijayapur, and the judgment and
decree dated 12.04.2013 passed
in O.S. No.109 of 2006 by the
learned Principal Civil Judge,
Vijayapur are hereby set aside ;
(iii) Consequently, the suit of the
plaintiffs is dismissed;
(iv) Liberty is reserved to the
plaintiffs to approach the
Registrar of Societies and seek
an enquiry and initiation of
appropriate action by the
Registrar under Section 25 of the
Karnataka Societies Registration
Act, 1960, if so desired.

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11281
RSA No. 200132 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030001802015


(v) Pending IAs, if any, stand
disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE



RK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5
Ct:pk