Appellant's use of 'son' and 'daughter' for wards did not constitute misrepresentation under club's rules; the Club's Bye-Laws did not prohibit wards from enjoying membership privileges.

JUDGMENT :

ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

1. The Appellant in this First Appeal is the Plaintiff in the captioned Suit. Respondent No. 1 is the Bombay Presidency Golf Club Limited, which is incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (“the Club”), and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the President and Secretary & Chief Executive Officer of the Club, respectively.

2. The Appellant had filed the captioned Suit inter alia seeking a declaration that the two children, namely, Amoorth Dayanand Shetty (“Amoorth”) and Aadhyaa Dayanand Shetty (“Aadhyaa”), are entitled to enjoy all rights and privileges of the membership of the Appellant with the Club. Amoorth and Aadhyaa are hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘the Wards’.

3. The Trial Court, however, vide a judgement dated 5th July 2024 (“the Impugned Judgement”), dismissed the captioned Suit.

4. It is thus that the present First Appeal has been filed.

5. However, before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary for context to set out the following facts:

i. The Appellant had, in the year 2017, applied for a short-term membership of the Club for herself and four children, two of whom were the Appellants biological children, and Amoorth and Aadhyaa, who were the children of the Appellant’s predeceased sister, one Sheetal Dayanand Shetty, and in respect of whom the Appellant and her brother, one Rajkiran Shetty, had been appointed legal guardians vide an order dated 7th April 2017 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Guardian Petition No. 3 of 2016.

ii. The Appellant thereafter applied for permanent membership (category B/Life) for herself, and in the form, she mentioned the names of all four children under “Family Details”. The Appellant annexed the following documents to the Application Form (a) the Appellant’s passport, (b) the birth certificates of all four children, (c) the death certificate of the Appellant’s sister and (d) the Order dated 7th April 2017 appointing the Appellant and the Appellant's brother.

iii. The Appellant then vide an email dated 13th April 2018, stated that she had made payment of Rs. 6,18,760/- towards her membership of the Club in December 2017 and requested the Club to allow her to make payment of the balance fees in instalments, and proposed the following: (i) payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 2nd May 2018 (in respect of which she had already deposited a post-dated cheque with the accounts department of the Club that afternoon); (ii) payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 1st December 2018 (in respect of which also she had already deposited a post-dated cheque with the accounts department of the Club); and (iii) in respect of the remaining balance amount she requested time until March 2020.

iv. The Club then, on 3rd May 2018, invited the Appellant and her proposer to attend the ballot meeting which was scheduled for 24th May 2018 and noted that a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- had been paid in advance and that the balance amount payable ‘in instalments’ was Rs. 49,00,000/-.

v. The Club then, vide an email dated 18th May 2018, enclosed certain EMI options, which stipulated that the payments could be made in instalments between 1 to 4 years and interest would be levied thereon at the rate of 15% per annum.

vi. On 25th May 2018, post the balloting, the Appellant was conferred with her provisional membership, subject to the completion of necessary compliances for her permanent membership. The Appellant and all four children were issued their respective membership cards and were permitted to use the facilities of the Club.

vii. The Club then, on 14th September 2018, addressed a letter to the Appellant cancelling the membership of the Wards inter alia on the ground that the Club had, while processing admission applications, missed the distinction between adoption and guardianship and had inadvertently admitted the Wards and issued them ID cards. The Club stated that since the Wards were not the Appellant’s ‘real’ or ‘adopted’ children, and the Appellant was merely their gu