Karnataka HC Sets Aside Injunction Against Alienating 5 Acres Of Rajput Samaj Land, Says Plaintiffs Can Seek Registrar Inquiry

The plaintiffs, claiming to be members of the executive committee of the Bijapur District Rajaputh Samaj (BDRS), sued for a permanent injunction restraining the former president from alienating the Society’s five-acre property and for delivery of the Society’s accounts.

They alleged that a new committee had been elected and that the former president had not handed over charge or accounts.

The Trial Court granted an injunction against alienation and directed the former president to furnish the accounts; the First Appellate Court affirmed that decree.

In second appeal, the High Court considered whether the suit could proceed without the Society as a party and whether Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 affected the Civil Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 empowers the Registrar, on the Registrar’s own motion or on a qualifying application by members, to inquire into a registered society’s constitution, functioning and financial condition, including by accessing its records and communicating the inquiry’s result to the society.

Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that an injunction cannot be granted where an equally efficacious remedy is available through another usual mode of proceeding, except in cases of breach of trust.

The Court also relied on M. Subbrayappa v. Mysore State Vanhikula Kshathriya (Thigalara) Sangha, 2013 (5) Kar. L.J. 253, which it understood to support seeking inquiry and appropriate action by the Registrar under Section 25 rather than pursuing the disputed society-affairs claim in a civil suit.

The plaintiffs’ claims concerned the Society’s management, accounts and property, yet the Society itself was not joined as a party; the action was brought by individuals against office-bearers.

The Court considered the Registrar’s inquiry powers under Section 25 an available remedy and held that the injunction was unavailable under Section 41(h) because an equally efficacious remedy could be pursued through the Registrar.

Applying the cited precedent, it concluded that the suit was not maintainable and that the Courts below erred in granting and affirming relief without addressing the statutory remedy.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, and dismissed the suit.

It reserved liberty to the plaintiffs to approach the Registrar for an inquiry and appropriate action under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.