1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the dismissal of the application i.e., I.A.No.2 filed in O.S.No.8268/2022 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC praying for grant of interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their heirs, henchmen, representatives or any persons claiming under them from interfering with the day today affairs of the Church and Church proceedings in the suit schedule property in any manner till pending disposal of the suit.

3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent injunction, it is contended that the plaintiff is registered Trust in the name and style of Hope Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust having its address as No.260/72, Mission compound, Doddanna Nagar, Kaval Byrasandra, R.T.Nagar Post, Bengaluru vide Trust deed dated 12.09.2008 and the same was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Hebbal, Bengaluru. The plaintiff also relied upon the rectification deed of the said Trust dated 28.03.2011. The plaintiff Trust is represented by its President Kennedy. The Trustee of the plaintiff Trust has appointed the President Mr.Kennedy to authorize to file the above case to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff Trust. It is contended that the property bearing Sy.No.27/3, presently Sy.No.260/72 which is referred above, measuring East by 125 feet, West by 151 feet, North by 280 feet and South by 272 feet totally measuring 38088 square feet, consisting of Church building, old school building and new school building which is morefully described in the schedule. The khata is standing in the name of the plaintiff Trust. The plaintiff Trust is looking after day today affairs of the Church and school. The plaintiff Trust has conducted various programmes such as marriage, prayers in the Church. The plaintiff Trust has appointed Pastor and conducting prayers in the Church. The plaintiff Trust has been paying to the Pastor and workers in the said Church. The records are also maintained to that effect. The plaintiff is a private Trust and not associated with anybody and or any Trust.

4. It is contended that when such being the case, the defendants who are utter strangers to the schedule property are illegally trying to interfere with the day to day affairs of the schedule property and Church activities on 18.12.2022. The plaintiff has resisted the illegal acts of the defendants with the intervention of well wishers, elders and friends. There is a threat and complaint was lodged and the Police have advised the plaintiff to approach the civil Court as the matter is civil in nature. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit and sought the interim relief on the ground that the defendants are very powerful persons in the area and they have got men and money at their back and also having assistance of the antisocial elements and the same is repeated in the affidavit filed in support of the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.

5. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendants have appeared and filed a memo stating to adopt the written statement filed by the defendant No.3 as objections to I.A.No.2. In the written statement, it is contended that the suit itself is not maintainable and also contended that the plaintiff Trust represented by its President Mr.Kennedy and also his own brother claiming President of the Trust on the capacity, who is claiming President of the said Trust filed on 09.12.2022 in O.S.No.26943/2022 for the relief of permanent injunction against these defendants, the suit pending before CCH-20, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru. The said suit was withdrawn by filing withdrawal memo. The plaintiff and his family members are created their own Trust without knowledge and consent of the defendants Church office bearers and the Church members. The said plaintiff and family members are tried by one or other way to knock away the defendant Church property by creating Trust in the same name and style of defendant Church i.e., Hope Lutheran Church and hence, the suit is liable to be rejected and the same is defective. It is also contended that the defendants are the lawfully elected office bearers, who are authorized and looking after the Church activities, administration and property inside the Church premises as per bye laws and its constitutions of the IELC Church. The plaintiff Trust is no way connected to the Church functioning in the name of Hope Lutheran Church at Sy.No.27/3 owned and managed by the defendant Organization, the IELC (India Evangelical Lutheran Church). It is also contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It is contended that with dishonest intentions to trespass, interfere and indulge in the illegal acts to forcibly take over the administration of the Church by Mr.Kennedy and his group and thereby, to knock away the valuable property of the Church, the present suit is filed with an ulterior motive.

6. It is admitted that the plaintiff Trust is a registered Trust, without prejudice to the above contentions and appointment of the Mr.Kennedy as President is created and fabricated. The alleged authorization letter is not issued by the competent authority. The khata obtained by misrepresentation and misleading the BBMP officials as per the report of the Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP, Queen’s Road Office and the katha is ordered for cancellation. The very contention that the plaintiff Trust is looking after the affairs of the Church and school is baseless and allegation that the plaintiff Trust has appointed Pastor and conducting prayers in the Church is denied. The defendants also denied that the defendants are utter strangers to the schedule property and denied entire averments made in the plaint.

7. The defendants contend in the written statement that true facts of the case that the Church is functioning in the name of Hope Evangelical Lutheran Sabe (Church), now known as Hope Lutheran Church (IELC) and the same is functioning under the Constitution and bye laws of the year 1959 and now as amended in the year 2022. The day today affairs of Church and school buildings are carried out by the Church Pastor and the Church elected committee as per Church bye-laws and regulations. The 2nd defendant Edward Gnana Dass is elected as the Secretary and the 1st defendant Nimalan Chakravarthi Dass is appointed as a co-ordinator. That on 04.12.2022 Sunday, the Pastor organized an oath taking ceremony for the newly elected office bearers of the Church and invited all well wishers. The ceremony was organized with the protection of D.J Halli Police Station. At that time, Mr.Kennedy is an ex-office bearer of Hope Lutheran Church -IELC during the year 2013-15, he along with his group of men unlawfully and illegally disturbed the oath taking event and argued the Police with false and frivolous information. In view of the same, oath taking ceremony was postponed to next day on the request of the Police. That on 11.12.2022, again when the Pastor Rev.R.Stephen Jakayya went to the Church for his regular duty to conduct the worship service, the Pastor was forcibly blocked, pulled and was physically handled and attacked by Mr.Kennedy and his group of men mixed with some local goondas. Immediately, the Church Pastor Rev.R.Stephen Jakayya went to the Police Station and lodged a written complaint to the D.J Halli Police Station. The Police warned Mr.J.Kennedy and his group of men and directed to prove their rights, if any, legally and not to disturb the peaceful environment in the Church. Thereafter, the suit in O.S.No.8268/2022 is filed with dishonest intention by misrepresentation of fact. The motive of the plaintiff is to somehow or the other gain illegal entry into the administration and affairs of the Church.

8. It is also contended that Mr.J.Kennedy and his father by name Mr.N.John and his sons had involved in the Church land grabbing acts owned by IELC at Sy.No.27/3 and were also involved in documents forgery act against IELC Church. The schedule property is in the name of the Hope Evangelical Lutheran Sabe by virtue of purchase vide registered sale deed dated 20.05.1949 is the Ancestral Mission property called Missouri Evangelical Luthern Church as per the 1959 Constitution and bye laws as amended in the year 2022. The day to day affairs are carried by the elected Church committee of IELC- Hope Lutheran Church.

9. It is contended that the administration of the IELC Head office from 2018 to 2022 was under the control of Justice D.Hariparanthaman (Retd.). There was no IELC elected Church committee functioning during this period. After the election, direction to all IELC Churches, the Church committee election of Hope Lutheran Church, was held and new Church committee was formed in Aug-Nov, 2022. During the absence of elected Church committee inside the said Church, the ex-office bearer group led by Mr.J.Kennedy and his brother Mr.J.Magiban and his family associates formed illegal and unlawful assembly against the Church regulations and forcibly involved themselves in unauthorized functioning by taking the law on their own against the Church regulations. Both father and son have made several attempts to grab IELC Church and misusing their ex-officio bearer of the Church. It is also contended that suits are filed earlier and they didn’t get any relieves and now again one more suit is filed with an intention to knock of the property.

10. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, formulated the points whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction as prayed in I.A.No.2 and whether the plaintiff will be put to great hardship in the event of temporary injunction is not granted and balance of convenience lies in their favour. The defendants have also filed an application vacating of interim order which is numbered as I.A.No.3 and the Trial Court answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and point No.3 in the affirmative and vacated the temporary injunction.

11. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed before this Court. The counsel appearing for the appellant in his argument would vehemently contend that the order passed by Trial Court is perverse, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court below has not taken into consideration the pleadings and documents produced by the appellant/plaintiff. The Court below came to false conclusion that the appellant has not produced any document to establish plaintiff is the President of Trust as on the date of the suit and vaguely dismissed the I.A.No.2 without providing any opportunity to the plaintiff to establish his claim in the suit. The Court below blindly believed the version of the defendants/respondents are true without looking into the crux of the case. It is the respondents who are trying to interfere with the day to day affairs of the plaintiff Trust and respondents have deliberately suppressed the real and material facts and the impugned order requires interference.

12. The counsel also in his argument would vehemently contend that the Trust was formed in the year 2008 and the rectification deed was also registered on 28.03.2011 and also other deeds dated 25.10.2014, 25.03.2013 by executing a rental agreement and rental agreement was also renewed in the year 2009 and 2013 and also on 01.01.2022. The counsel would vehemently contend that the khata stands in the name of the plaintiff/appellant and tax paid receipts are also produced, the defendants are not trustees. The defendant No.3 is a priest as claimed by them. They have not been appointed by appellant/plaintiff. The defendants have created the documents. The counsel also would vehemently contend that even sale deed of the year 1949 also discloses while purchasing the property in the name of Mr.N.John, the same was purchased. The counsel also would vehemently contend that Trust deed dated 12.11.2020 is also produced before the Court, the same is registered Trust and Trial Court fails to take note of the material on record. The counsel also produced the copy of the document of sale deed dated 20.05.1949, the copy of the Trust deed dated 12.09.2008, the copy of the rectification deed dated 28.03.2011, the copy of the amendment of Trust deed dated 25.10.2014, the copy of the rental agreements dated 12.04.2009, 28.02.2013, 10.08.2017, 22.09.2022 and 01.01.2022, copy of the khata certificate and extract also produced along with memo. The counsel referring these documents would vehemently contend that these documents clearly establishes the plaintiff Trust managing the affairs of the Church and also maintaining the school and Church and the defendants are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff/appellant and the Trial Court fails to consider the same.

13. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents in his argument would vehemently contend that the father of the plaintiff has filed earlier suit in O.S.No.6747/2009 claiming in his individual capacity and the same is a private Trust and they are managing the affairs. The counsel would vehemently contend that both the I.As’ filed by the father of the plaintiff in the said suit and they are rejected. The reasons are assigned in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of order of the Trial Court and discussion was made in detail and the said suit was withdrawn. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the M.F.A is also filed against the rejection of I.As’ and the same was dismissed by giving liberty to approach the committee. The counsel would vehemently contend that in view of the recommendation of the committee, the father of the plaintiff is continued as ordinary member. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the father of the plaintiff was also expelled and contend that one Shekhar as President has also filed the suit in O.S.No.26943/2022 and the same was also withdrawn. Now, filing the present appeal claiming the plaintiff as President seeking the relief of permanent injunction and their family members were unsuccessful in getting any relief in earlier suit.

14. The counsel in support of his arguments also relied upon the documents along with memo the India Evangical Luthran Church (IELC) bye-laws, sale deed dated 16.05.1949, agreement entered by the Trust being a owner for construction of parishhall, letters showing payments and plan, the copy of the tax paid receipt, the copy of the letter showing expulsion of the father of the appellant, the copy of the letter of the appeal committee showing to continue the father of the appellant as ordinary member on his request, the copy of the letter showing Stephen Jakayya having appointed full time Pastor, the copy of the letter showing Stephen Jakayya having appointed as incharge Pastor, the copies of the name of the elected office bearers and positions, the copy of letter of the head office confirming the elected office bearers, the copy of the acknowledgment with compliant and statement of the appellant to the police, the copy of the photo breaking the keys by the respondents, the copy of the created trust deed of the appellant, the copy of the interim orders in O.S.No.6747/2009, the copy of the order dated 30.03.2010 passed by this Court in M.F.A.No.728/2010, the copy of the letter of the appeal committee showing father of the petitioner is only a ordinary member, the copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.6747/2009 is produced and the copy of the proceedings of the BBMP is also produced for cancellation of the khata.

15. The counsel referring these documents would vehemently contend that though suits were filed in the year 2009, till date they did not get any relieves and still they are making efforts to grab the property by creating documents. The Trial Court taken note of the same, rightly rejected the application. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents, point that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:

1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the I.A.No.2 and whether it requires any interference

2) What Order

POINT Nos.1 and 2:

16. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents, it is the claim of the plaintiff that the plaintiff are the Trustees and they have formed the Trust in the year 2008. Thereafter, rectification deeds are also came into existence and these agreements are also placed before the Court contending that they are taking care of affairs of the suit schedule property Church and school and defendants are making an attempt to interfere with their possession or running of Church, school and they are the utter strangers.

17. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondents that earlier suits are also filed by the father of the plaintiff and he was unsuccessful and also contend that being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court in rejection of I.As’ filed by the father of the plaintiff approached this Court and this Court dismissed the M.F.A and liberty is given to approach the committee. The counsel appearing for the respondents brought to notice of this Court that Trust was formed in the year 1959 and the same is not disputed by the plaintiff and the property was purchased on 16.05.1949 and purchasing of the property in the year 1949 is also not in dispute. The father of the plaintiff Mr.N.John is also one of the Trustees along with others D.Jayaraj and M.Munivel have purchased the property. The plaintiffs are claming that they have formed the Trust in the year 2008 and they are managing the affairs of the plaintiff Trust. I have already pointed out that earlier the father of the plaintiff has filed the suit and subsequently, the same was withdrawn and also interim application filed in the said suit by the father of the plaintiff i.e., I.A.No.2 was also dismissed. An appeal was also filed before this Court.

18. Having perused the order passed by this Court dated 30.03.2010, this Court made an observation that impugned order does not call for any interference, however it is also made it clear that the respondents shall furnish all the necessary details to the appellants for approaching the appeal committee. If any, preferred by the appellants, be considered by the respondents in accordance with the bye laws applicable to the respondents IELC. The dismissal of the appeal will not come in the way of the matter being dealt with the appeal committee in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the 1st respondent. Having perused this order, it is very clear that an observation is made that considered the case of the father of the plaintiff in accordance with bye-laws applicable to the respondents IELC. The respondents/plaintiffs also filed 1959 Constitution and bye laws amended in the year 2022. Hence, it is clear that 1959 IELC Constitution and bye laws are in existence.

19. It is also important to note that the plaintiffs have also placed documents of payment for the construction. It is important to note that a decision was taken on 01.06.2009 that the Church council resolves to expel N.John, P.Inbam and J.Mohan Kumar who have filed the suit earlier in the year 2009 from Hope Lutheran Church a unit of IELC with immediate effect.

20. It is important to note that in terms of the appeal committee dated 29.07.2010 and as per the advise of the appeal committee, Rev.J.Priestly Balasingh is advised to take back Mr.N.John, P.Inbam and J.Mohan Kumar as ordinary members of the Church. Further Rev.Priestly Balasingh is authorized to conduct elections immediately and inform to the undersigned. All the counter cases would be withdrawn before the election. It is also the claim of the defendants that the elections are conducted and office bearers are appointed. There was a gap in between 2018 to 2022, subsequently the office bearers were also elected and also specific pleading was made that while at the time of taking oath, plaintiff and his supporters are interfered and complaint was also given. The defendants have also produced the documents and given the statements before the Police. The photocopy of breaking the lock is also produced. The defendants have also produced order sheet in O.S.No.6749/2009. An application was filed by the plaintiff’s father on 22.11.2010 under Order 23 Rule 1 R/w Section 151 of CPC to withdraw the suit with a permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The other records with regard to the BBMP records also produced for having considered with regard to the cancellation of the khata made in favour of the plaintiff.

21. It is also important to note that the Trial Court while considering the application filed for the relief of injunction taken note of the documents which have been produced before this Court. Both the parties relied upon the documents in paragraph No.14 including the Trust deed dated 12.09.2008, subsequent rectification deed and also the amendment of the Trust deed dated 12.01.2020. The Trial Court also taken note that the plaintiff is claiming as the President. The plaintiff Trust is a private Trust and also taken note of the claim of the plaintiff that he is the President and his own brother claiming as President of the Trust on the same capacity filed the suit in O.S.No.26943/2022 on 09.12.2022 for the relief of permanent injunction. The said case was pending before CCH-20, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru. Subsequently, the same was also withdrawn. The Trial Court also taken note of the order sheet in O.S.No.26943/2022, the said suit is filed by President – Shekhar on 09.12.2022. An application was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and also taken note that earlier suit was filed in O.S.No.6747/2009. The Trial Court also taken note of expelling the earlier plaintiffs in O.S.No.6747/2009 in the year 2009, later as per letter dated 29.07.2010 for considering them as ordinary members of the Church. The Trial Court taking into note of all these materials into consideration comes to the conclusion that O.S.No.26943/2022 discloses that one Shekhar represented as President of the plaintiff Church who withdrew the suit on 11.01.2023, as on 11.01.2023 Mr.Shekhar was the President of plaintiff Church and Mr.Kennedy was not the President. From the document No.1 i.e., the minutes of Board meeting and resolution dated 19.12.2022 shows that the said authorization was given by the Secretary only to file the suit. The Trial Court also taken note of the claim made by the plaintiff and defendants. The Trial Court in paragraph No.17 taken note that even the Trust deed produced by the plaintiff also discloses that Mr.Kennedy was the President for the year 2020. After that also, no documents are placed to show that mere 2022-23, Mr.Kennedy is the President,.

22. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that the Church is functioning in the name of Hope Evangelical Lutheran Saba (Church), now known as Hope Lutheran Church (IELC). The Trial Court also taken note of the Trust was formed in the year 1949 and property was also purchased vide sale deed dated 20.05.1949. No doubt the contention of the appellant’s counsel that Mr.John is one of the Trustee in terms of the sale deed. The Court has to take note of the bye laws and in terms of the bye laws, office bearers of the Church should be elected.

23. It is also the case of the defendants that office bearers are taking care of the Church and school. The BBMP had cancelled the name of the plaintiff on the ground that they got the khata in their name by giving false information. When such being the case, very claim of the plaintiff that khata stands in their name cannot be accepted. The documents produced by the defendants is also clear with regard to Pastor has been appointed and he is taking care of the Church. The Trial Court in detail discussed in paragraph Nos.16 to 21 and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are making claim, but, the plaintiff Mr.Kennedy fails to establish his prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction and also comes to the other conclusion that on the other hand the defendants Church has made out a prima facie case to vacate exparte temporary injunction since the documents voluminous are stands in the name of defendants from 1959 onwards i.e,. formation of Trust and also purchasing of property. The property is also purchased by the Trustees on behalf of the Church. When such material are placed before the Court, the Trial Court in detail passed an order. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as contended by the counsel appearing for the appellant. The Trial Court in detail discussed the material on record and considered the documents produced by the plaintiffs as well as defendants in paragraph No.14 and taken note of the order passed by the Trial Court in the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff’s father was unsuccessful in the said suit and also appeal was dismissed and liberty was given to approach the committee. The committee was also taken decision in the year 2010 that to continue them as only ordinary members. When such being the case, in the meanwhile Trust was also created by the plaintiffs and they claiming and interfering with the affairs of the defendants. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Trial Court to come to other conclusion. The appellate Court must be very slow unless the order passed by the Trial Court is unreasonable and capricious and only if orders are reasonable and capricious, under such circumstances the appellate Court can interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and said circumstances is not warranted in the case on hand.

24. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed.

ii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of.