A society's suit must be filed according to authorized resolutions, absence of such leads to dismissal and protection for office bearers acting within given authority.

JUDGMENT :

E.S. INDIRESH, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants, assailing the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2013 in O.S.No.8756/2007 on the file of XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-Hebbar Sree Vaishnava Sabha (for short “Sabha”) in part.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaint averments are that, the plaintiff is a Registered Society under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and the President of the Society has been authorized to file the suit. Defendants No.1 and 2 are the former Secretary and Treasurer of the Central Committee of the plaintiff-Sabha during 2005. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner of property bearing No.22, Seshadri Road, Bengaluru-09 and a portion of the property was let out to Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (for short “KPCL”) by the plaintiff on specified terms and conditions as agreed between the parties. The KPCL, being a tenant of the said premises had agreed to pay the rents to the plaintiff- Sabha. The lease period was extended up to 31.12.2004. In the meanwhile, the Rent Committee of the plaintiff- Sabha had taken a decision to enhance the rent in respect of the let out premises while renewing the lease period. Accordingly, the lease period has been renewed from 01.01.2005 for a period upto 31.12.2009 with enhanced rent. It is further stated in the plaint that, the Central Committee of the plaintiff-Sabha held a meeting on 02.01.2005 in which, defendants No.1 and 2 and several other Central Committee members of the plaintiff-Sabha, accorded approval for engaging a Liaisoning Officer to get enhanced rent to be payable by the KPCL in respect of the demised premises in question. In the said meeting, fee of the Liaisoning Officer was fixed at Rs.6,50,000/-. Accordingly, defendant No.3 was identified as Liaisoning Officer as per the said Resolution.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said Resolution passed by the Central Committee is contrary to the bye- laws of the plaintiff-Sabha and also there is no provision in the bye-laws of plaintiff-Sabha for appointment of Liaisoning Officer by paying a huge amount to deal with the tenants and to get enhanced rent. Hence, it is the contention of the plaintiff that the Resolution dated 02.01.2005 is contrary to bye-law and same is not binding on the plaintiff. It is further stated in the plaint that on 07.01.2005, another Resolution was passed to make payment of Rs.2,00,000/- from the account of plaintiff- Sabha, through Cheque bearing No.023370 dated 08.01.2005 drawn on Canara Bank, Madhavanagara Branch, Bengaluru, in the name of the Secretary of the plaintiff-Sabha. The said amount was drawn and voucher for the said amount for making payment to defendant No.3. The said voucher was signed by the defendants No.1 and 2. It is further averred in the plaint that the Resolutions dated 13.01.2005 and 18.01.2005, were passed by the Managing Committee for transferring and for drawing a further sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the account of the plaintiff-Sabha and thereafter, a Cheque for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was drawn from the account of the plaintiff-Sabha and same was signed by defendants No.1 and 2 and voucher was given by defendant No.3 for having received the amount. Insofar as voucher is concerned, the defendant No.1 and 2 have acknowledged and signed the same. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiffs that Resolutions dated 02.01.2005,