Primacy of Statutory Title: Supreme Court Clarifies that Allotment Made to a Registered Society Cannot Be Claimed by its “Parent” Trust – The ISKCON Bangalore v. ISKCON Mumbai Ruling

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India in Prasannatma Das v. K.N. Haridasan Nambiar (dead) & Ors. (2025 INSC 717) finally resolved two decades of litigation between the Mumbai-based public trust, International Society for Krishna Consciousness (“ISKCON Mumbai”) and the separately registered society, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Bangalore (“ISKCON Bangalore”). The dispute centred on (i) who owns and controls the famous ISKCON temple complex on Bellary Road, Bengaluru (Schedule “A” land of 6 acres 8 guntas) and (ii) who legitimately constitutes the governing body of the Bangalore society.

The Court decided a bouquet of civil appeals that arose from two independent suits:

Suit No. 7934 of 2001 – filed by ISKCON Bangalore seeking declaration of title over the temple lands and injunction against ISKCON Mumbai; counter-claim by ISKCON Mumbai alleging the land was actually allotted to its “Bangalore branch”.
Suit No. 1758 of 2003 – filed by several individuals (and ISKCON Bangalore) challenging the legitimacy of the 1984 Governing Body elected under Madhu Pandit Dasa.

A slew of connected appeals also questioned the High Court’s recasting of issues, adverse remarks and interim oversight arrangement headed by Hon’ble Justice R.V. Raveendran (Retd.).

2. Summary of the Judgment

Appeals on Title (Civil Appeal No. 9313/2014 etc.): The Supreme Court allowed ISKCON Bangalore’s appeal, restored the trial court decree that recognised the society as the absolute owner of Schedule “A”, “B” & “C” properties and rejected the counter-claim of ISKCON Mumbai.
Appeals on Governing Body (Civil Appeal Nos. 3821-22/2023): The Court dismissed the challenge to concurrent findings that the General Body meeting of 1 July 1984 validly elected Madhu Pandit Dasa & others as the Governing Body of ISKCON Bangalore. No relief was granted to the earlier members.
Oversight Committee: The R.V. Raveendran Committee that had been supervising the temple for 14 years is dissolved one month after the judgment.
Costs: No order as to costs; long-standing litigation is directed to be brought to a close.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

K. Karuppuraj v. M. Ganesan, (2021) 10 SCC 777 – reiterated the appellate court’s duty to re-appreciate evidence. Relied upon by appellants but Court found the High Court had in fact mis-appreciated crucial documentary evidence, prompting Supreme Court interference.
Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana, (2016) 12 SCC 288 – holds that an un-challenged, un-denied registered document stands proved without formal evidence. Used to underscore that the 3 Aug 1988 BDA Sale Deed in ISKCON Bangalore’s name did not require further proof.
Principles from Evidence Act – Sections 101-106 (burden and onus), Section 114 illustration (g) (adverse inference for non-examination of material witness). Court drew an adverse inference against ISKCON Mumbai for not examining Stoka Krishna Dasa and against ISKCON Bangalore in the governing-body suit where certain plaintiffs withdrew.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(A) On Ownership of Schedule “A” Property

Chain of Title is Documentary and Unbroken:
- Application for allotment dated 5 Feb 1987 (Exh. P-51) expressly stated that applicant is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act (“KSRA”) with Reg. No. 49/78-79.
- BDA’s demand (31 May 1988) and Sale Deed (3 Aug 1988) consistently name “International Society for Krishna Consciousness” giving the Bangalore society’s registered address.
- Exemption order under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (27 May 1989) recognises ISKCON Bangalore as declarant.
Eligibility under Section 38B, BDA Act:
- Clause (v) allows bulk allotment to “any society registered under the KSRA, 1960”.
- If allotment were to ISKCON Mumbai, it would fall under clause (vi) (charitable trust) and the documents would have reflected that status. They did not.
Funds Do Not Decide Title: The Court held that even if donations routed through ISKCON Mumbai’s 80-G certificate funded the purchase or construction, that cannot divest the grantee society of its statutory title.
Failure to Register under MPT Act is Fatal for Mumbai Trust: ISKCON Mumbai did not register Schedule “A” land with the Charity Commissioner as required by Section 22-B of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. Absence of such statutory registration undermined its title claim.
Adverse Inference for Missing Evidence: – ISKCON Mumbai alleged manipulation of BDA file but produced no original applications or authorisation. Non-examination of Stoka Krishna Dasa, who purportedly disclosed fraud, invited adverse inference.

(B) On Governing-Body Legitimacy

The plaintiffs themselves pleaded that ISKCON Bangalore had become defunct soon after 1978 and that many original members were inactive/dead.
Concurrent factual findings of trial court & High Court that General Body Meeting dated 1 July 1984 (notice dated 25 May 1984 proved as Exh. D-9; minutes Exh. D-13) validly elected Madhu Pandit Dasa & others.
Key plaintiffs withdrew mid-trial; their testimony lost probative value.
Absence of contrary documentary proof from appellants → no ground for Supreme Court to upset concurrent findings (applying the well-known restraint under Section 100 CPC).

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

Statutory Title Prevails: Agencies like BDA must allot land strictly to entities legally eligible and named in the application. Post-allotment claims by “parent” organisations or funding entities will carry little weight unless reflected in the conveyance or proven as benami.
Branch vs. Separate Legal Personality: A “branch” has no juristic personality distinct from its parent trust. Where law (KSRA) requires the entity itself to be registered, only such registered society can hold title. This distinction will guide religious/charitable organisations operating Pan-India networks.
Importance of Charity-Commissioner Registration: Trusts must promptly register acquisitions under Section 22-B, MPT Act (or similar state legislation). Failure may estop later claims.
Adverse Inference Doctrine Re-emphasised: Non-examination of crucial witnesses or withholding primary documents can decisively tilt the scale of probabilities.
Oversight Committees are Temporary: The Court signalled that such court-appointed supervisory mechanisms are not meant to be perpetual and must dissolve once ownership and management disputes settle.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Society vs. Trust: – A society under KSRA is an association of individuals; its property vests in its governing body (Section 14 KSRA). – A public trust (MPT Act) is a fiduciary arrangement; property vests in trustees and must be registered with the Charity Commissioner.
“Branch”: An operational unit of a larger organisation, but not a separate legal person unless independently registered.
Section 38B, BDA Act: Allows Bangalore Development Authority to allot land in bulk to certain categories (Govt, co-operative societies, KSRA societies, charitable trusts). Eligibility clause invoked determines documentary proof required.
Adverse Inference (Evidence Act, S. 114(g)): When a party withholds a material witness or document, court may presume that evidence would have gone against that party.
Concurrent Findings: When both trial and first appellate court agree on facts, Supreme Court interferes only if findings are perverse or ignore material evidence.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling sets a clear precedent: Documentary chain of title and statutory registration trump equitable or historical assertions of ownership. Where a land-allotting authority has conveyed property to a registered society qualified under the enabling statute, subsequent claims by an unregistered branch of a different legal entity cannot prevail, even if that entity funded the purchase or construction.

On the governance side, the Court signalled a conservative approach to disturbing concurrent factual findings, especially in intra-organisational disputes where documentary proof of meetings and elections exists.

The judgment will reverberate across the not-for-profit sector, particularly among religious and charitable networks operating through multiple branches and vehicles. It underscores the necessity of proper legal structuring, meticulous documentation, transparent registration of properties and timely compliance with statutory requirements to avoid protracted and costly litigation.