A suit by or against a registered society must be brought in the name of the President, Chairman, or Principal Secretary, or Trustees, as determined by the rules and regulations of the society.

( 1 ) THIS letters patent appeal is filed by defendants 1 to 3 against the judgment of Srinivasachari, J. , in appeal suit No. 476 of 1956 confirming that of the Subordinate Judge, Gudivada in O. S. No. 54 of 1953.

( 2 ) THE appeal arises out of an action laid in the name of Sri Edupuganti Raghavendra Rao Memorial High School Committee represented by its Secretary, Adusumilli Aswadhanarayana Chowdary and member Sri Edupuganti Raghavendra Rao Memorial High School Committee for directions to the defendants to submit an account of the monies entrusted to Vallabhaneni Bapayya Chowdary, father of defendants 1 to 3, for erecting a building for the High School.

( 3 ) FOR an appraisal of the contentions urged in this appeal, it is necessary to give a brief statement of facts.

( 4 ) IN the year 1945, the residents of Gudlavalleru, Krishna District, decided to establish a High School in the village to be named after Sri E. Raghavendra Rao, who acted once as the Governor of the then Central Provinces and to raise funds for that purpose from the public. Pursuant to this resolve, they collected contributions and donations from amongst themselves to the tune of one lakh of rupees. To give effect to this project, they formed themselves into a society called the Edupuganti Raghavendra Rao Memorial High School Committee and had it registered under the Societies Registration Act with ten members. Sri Bapayya Chowdary was elected as the President and Adusumalii Aswadhanarayana as its secretary. It is the plaintiffs case that the secretary was in charge of the construction of this building till about the year 1947, when the President Bapayya Chowdary, took over the management and got possession of the funds set apart for the building but never rendered an account thereof, though a large sum of about Rs. 70,000. 00 is alleged to have been spent by him. It was also recited in the plaint that the said Bapayya Chowdary, who was in an impecunious condition, with the aid and assistance of the others members who were his close associates, utilised the funds belonging to the society for his own purposes and failed to render an account in spite of repeated demands of the secretary and the educational authorities. Bapayya Chowdary died in or about 1953 and this suit was filed shortly after his death.

( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 were sought to be made liable to account! as they were in possession of the assets of their father, Bapayya Chowdary. The fourth defendant was called upon to render accounts for the period during which he was the delegated president.

( 6 ) THIS claim was contested on several objections, the chief of them relating to the form of the suit. It was also pleaded in the written statement that no liability to render an account attached to the defendants, as the accounts were looked into by all the members of the society except the secretary and were passed as being correct and in order.

( 7 ) THE trial Court, on these pleadings, struck as many as sixteen issues, though there were in main only two questions arising for consideration. The same idea was repeated in a number of issues in different words, the principal issues in the suit being: (i) Whether it was competent for Adusumilli Aswadhanarayana styling himself as the Secretary to file a suit for and on behalf of the Society? And (ii) Whether the defendants were liable to account to the plaintiff?"

( 8 ) AS the defence did not find favour with the trial Court, both the issues were answered against the defendants. In the result, the suit was decreed with costs as prayed for.

( 9 ) THE aggrieved defendants carried an appeal to this Court in S. A. No. 476 of 1956. The same points on the basis of which the suit was resisted were repeated before our learned brother. The learned Judge agreed with the conclusions of the Subordinate Judge with the result that he dismissed the appeal as against defendants 1 to 3. The fourth defendant was exonerated for reasons which need not be set out h