APPAJI GOWDA versus VOKKALIGARA SANGHA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 1201 · Decided: 07-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 1201 
APPAJI GOWDA 
A 
v. 
VOKKALIGARA SANGHA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5170 of 2009) 
AUGUST 07, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA,· JJ.) 
Trust - Administration of - Trust created by executor of 
i 
testamentary disposition - Compromise entered into by the 
trust - Challenged by a member of the trust - Locus standi c 
of the member - Held: Any action which, according to 
members of a trust are illegal, can be subject matter of 
challenge before an appropriate forum - In a given case, an 
appeal would also be maintainable at the instance of an 
executive member of the Trust - In the event a case is made 
D 
" 
out as regards mal-administration o( the trust or otherwise, 
appropriate remedies can be availed - An originating 
summons can be taken out, if otherwise it is permissible in 
law before the Original Side of the High Court. 
A widow executed a registered Will in respect of E 
landed property and appointed her nephew as the 
executor and administrator thereof. After death of the 
testatrix, the executor executed a trust deed creating 
respondent no. 1-trust. Appellant is a member of 
F 
respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 2 is son of the 
executor. 
Proceedings under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 
1961 were initiated in respect of the said landed property 
on which the executor raised contention seeking G 
.. 
impleadment of respondent no.1, which was rejected by 
the Land Tribunal and occupancy rights granted in favour 
of the purported tenants. Subsequently, respondent 
nos.2-4 made representation before the Development 
1201 
H 
1202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A authority, claiming themselves to be the real owners and 
applied for forming a layout, permission wherefor was 
granted. 
Respondent no.1 thereafter filed suit for declaration 
B that it was the owner in possession of the landed 
property in question in terms of the trust deed. The suit 
was rejected. Respondent no.1 filed appeal before the 
High Court wherein a settlement/compromise was arrived 
at between respondent no.1 and respondent nos.2-4, in 
c terms of which the respondent no.1 restricted its claim 
to a portion of the land in question, on which the High 
Court remitted the matter back to the trial court with 
direction to it to examine the question of passing a 
decree in terms of the said compromise. 
D 
Appellant and other members of respondent no.1, 
being aggrieved by the settlement/compromise, filed· 
application for impleadment contending that the 
compromise had been entered into without the consent 
of the General Body. The said settlement was however 
E accepted by the Trial Court. Appeal filed by appellant was 
dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the 
appellant did not have any locus standi to challenge the 
compromise entered into by respondent no.1 with 
respondent nos.2-4. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Appellant is a Member of the Executive 
Committee of respondent No.1-Trust. Any action which, 
according to its members are illegal, can be subject 
G matter of challenge before an appropriate forum. In an 
given case, an appeal would also be maintainable at the 
.. 
instance of an Executive Member of the Trust. [Paras 27, 
29] [1211-H; 1212-A-C] 
H 
1.2. The question which had been raised by the 
APPAJI GOWDA v. VOKKALIGARA SANGHA & ORS.1203 
& ORS. 
appellant in his Memorandum of Appeal is as to whether A 
respondent No.1 could have entered into a settlement 
with respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of the property of 
the Trust. It is not necessary to go into the aforementioned 
question as the suit filed by respondent No.1 has been 
dismissed for non-payment of court fee. No decree has 
B 
thus been drawn up incorporating the terms of settlement 
entered into by and between respondent No.1 on one 
hand and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the other. However, 
in the event a case is made out as regards mal-
administration of the Trust or otherwise appropriate c 
remedies can be availed. An originating summons can be 
taken out, if otherwise it is permissible in law before the 
Original Side of the High Court. [Paras 28, 30 and 31] 
(1212-B; 1213-G-H; 1214-A-B] 
A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board, (2007) 
D 
).. 
7 SCC 482 and Swami Shankaranand (Dead) by LRs. v. 
Mahant Sri Sadguru Sarnanad and others, (2008) 14 SCC 
642, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
E 
(2001) 1 sec 482 
referred to 
Para 29 
(2008) 14 sec 642 
referred to 
Para 29

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.