IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHICKBALLAPUR A, No. 102/2016 BETWEEN: SRI. SATHYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST & OTHERS APPELLANT ‘AND: SRI. SATHYA SAI LOKA SEVA TRUST & OTHERS RESPONDENT AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT No. 1 U. Gangadhara Bhat S/o. Late Sri Subbanna Bhat, aged about 86 years, Sathya SajVihar, Alike, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshin Kannada in ous i Son Sas folemnly affirm and state on oath as under: 1. | am a trustee and chairman of the Respondent No.1/Deferidant No.1 ‘Trust. I know the facts of the case and able to depose matters pertaining thereto. 2, The Appellants/Plaintiffs had instituted a suit in O.S. No. 141 of 2015 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Chikkaballapura seeking to declare that minutes of board of trustees meeting on 11.09.2012, item No.10 relating to amendment of deed of trust and meeting of board of trustees of the Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 trust held on 12.09.2012 at Muddenahalli and registered Deed of Amendment dated 12.09.2012 executed by the Respondent NO.2,3 and 4/ Defendant No.2,3 and 4 are illegal, void and non-est. The Appellants/Piaintiff had also sought consequential relief in the said suit. CPLR | fae3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & J.MI.C., Chikkaballapura, in the said suit the Appellants/ Plaintiffs have filed this appeal. 4, I state that from the very beginning I have been advising Respondent Nos. 2, 4 to 8 not to act against the interest of the Trust or the Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust. I state that on 11.09.2012 a meeting of the Board of trustees was held at Bangalore, in the chambers of Sri S.8, Naganand which was attended by myself, Sri Iswar Bhat, Sri B.N. Narasimha Murthy, Sri $.8. Naganand and Sti B. R. Vasuki as Trustees and Sri B, Narayana Rao, Sri Mahendra Hegde and Sri RK. Subramanya were also Present in the said meeting. The items on the agenda were discussed and decisions were taken. I state that there was no item_on the agenda with regard to amendment of the Trust Deed of Sri Sathya Sai Loka Seva Trust. No discussion took plece with regard to the same. I state that Respondent No.2 along with Respondent No.3 misled me to go to Chikkaballapura the next day, on 12/9/2012., and execute a document which had been drafted by Sri Venkatesh Pastay, Advocate on the instructions of Sti B.N. Narasimha Murthy. This was done without the knowledge or concurrence of other two trustees i.e. Sri $.8. Naganand and Sri B.R. Vasuki. I have since realised that the said document is illegal and: the document was the handiwork of Sri B, N. Narasimha Murthy to keep out Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust from the affairs of Sti Sathya Sai Loka Seva Trust and goes against the will and instructions of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba who has been my guiding’force for over 60 years. I sincerely regret for having signed the said deed and I state that the deed of amendment dated 12/9/2012 is not lawful and was ilegally got up to spite the Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust and goes against fhe principle of truth propounded by my Guru and God Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba. PUEECGHVE (5. [state that during pendency of suit as. well as after passing’of the order dated’ 16.09.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Chikkaballapura, certain developments’ have taken place which have bearing on the ‘above appeal-and it has become necessary to-bring to the notice of this Hon’ble court about these developments. 6. I state that one Sri Madhusudan Naidu ( who it is claimed, illegally by Sri Narasimha ‘murthy and others, has been appointed-as Trustee of Defendant No.1 Trust}. Under the active participation ‘and support of Defendant No, 2 said Madhusudhan Naidu is continuing to hold out that he is the ‘chosen communicator’ of Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba and pretends that he can communicate Baba’s messages and instructions to devotees and is playing a well orchestrated game of deception and is misleading iarge number of persons with a view to collect donations and money. Defendant No. 2 and his supporters are orchestiating a large scale social media disiriformation campaign about Sti Sathya Sai Central Trust and its Trustees. Defendant No 2 has appropriated ‘to himself the spiritual successorship of Bhagavan Baba and by misusing Madhusudan Naidu is carrying out a well planned deception strategy. Concerted attempts are being made by Defendant 2 to-contact many disciples of Bhagavan Baba who are well placed in life and Jarge sums of money’ are being collected oh the basis that Madhusudan Naidu, had received instructions from Bhagavan Baba to approach those persons. 7, V'state that I have been objecting to such deception and that I have distanced myself from such illegal and immoral activities of Defendant No.2 and his supporters which is contrary to all the teachings of Bhagavan Baba, When Defendant No.2 and the other trustees who were allegedly appointed subsequent to the illegal amendment dated 12.09.2012: got to know that I am’ not going to support their illegal