Judges : KADER
PARAYAKATTU NALUKULANGARA DEVASWOM - Appellant
Versus
PADMANABHAN HARSHAS AND OTHERS - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P. No. 2101 of 1982
Decided On : 01/03/1983
Advocates Appeared :
N. Venkitarama Iyer; For Petitioner P.N. Ramakrishnan Nair; For Respondents
Society - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Act 12 of 1955 - S.5 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 - Bye-laws - Jurisdiction of Civil Court not ousted by provisions of Act 12 of 1955 - Suit for injunction maintainable - Legal character of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Society enjoys status of a legal entity - S.25 of Act 12 of 1955 does not oust jurisdiction of Civil Court - S.41 of the Specific Relief Act - Efficacious remedy - Implied exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court - Allegations in the plaint to be considered at the time of trial
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed by a member of the Parayakkattu alukulangara Devaswom seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants from convening a General Body meeting of the Devaswom on the ground that it is illegal and opposed to the provisions of the bye-law. The defendants contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of the specific provisions in Act 12 of 1955.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions in Act 12 of 1955 were insufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil court and held that the suit is maintainable. The court also determined that the legal character of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 allows it to enjoy the status of a legal entity, and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted by the provisions of Act 12 of 1955.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, absence of Order I R.8 publication, and the suit's maintainability for want of proceedings under Act 12 of 1955.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was primarily influenced by the legal character of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and the interpretation of S.25 of Act 12 of 1955. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not ousted by the provisions of Act 12 of 1955 and that the allegations in the plaint should be considered at the time of trial.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the suit for injunction was held to be maintainable.
1. Defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. No. 596/1981, a suit for injunction, are the revision petitioners. The said suit was instituted by the 1st respondent herein in his capacity as a member of the Parayakkattu alukulangara Devaswom praying for the issue of an injunction restraining the defendants from convening a General Body meeting of the Devaswom on 7-12-1982 on the ground that it is illegal and opposed to the provisions of the bye-law and also for issue of a commission to convene the general body in accordance with the provisions of the bye-law of the Devaswom.
2. Defendants 1 to 4, the revision petitioners herein, who are respectively the President, the Vice President, the Manager and the Treasurer of the Parayakattu Nalukulangara Devaswom, hereinafter referred to as the Devaswom, filed a joint written statement resisting the suit mainly contending that the suit is not maintainable in view of the specific provisions in Act 12 of 1955.
3. Additional defendants 5 to 8 filed written statements supporting the plaintiff.
4. Several issues were framed on the basis' of the pleadings in the suit and issues Nos.1 to 3 were heard as preliminary point at the instance of the revision petitioners herein. The following were those issues:-(1) Is the suit not maintainable? (2) Is the suit bad, for absence of Order I R.8 publication? (3) Is the suit not maintainable for want of proceedings under Act 12 of 1955?
5. All the three issues were heard preliminarily as they related to matters affecting the jurisdiction of the court. After hearing both sides the learned Munsiff found that the provisions in Act 12 of 1955 relied on were insufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil court and the suit is maintainable and is not bad for want of publication under Order I R.B.
6. Shri Venkatarama Iyer, the learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioners strongly assailing the order of the court below urged the following points in support of the revision. (1) The Devaswom in question is an unincorporated body which has no personality in the eye of law and therefore no proceeding can be instituted in a civil court. (2) There are specific provisions in Act 12 of 1955 enabling members of the Society to institute suits and none of the provisions in Act 12 of 1955 contemplate filing of a suit by an individual. (3) The plaintiff in the case under the guise of a suit for injunction is really seeking a change of administration for which there is a specific provision and a suit of this nature is expressly barred under S.25 of Act 12 of 1955.
7. At the time of the argument counsel appearing for both sides produced the bye-law of the Devaswom which was registered under Act 12 of 1955, and placed reliance on the same and the provisions in Act 12, 1955.
8. The Devaswom in question is a society admittedly registered under S.5 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (Act XII of 1951), for short'the Act'. The very basis of the argument of the counsel for the petitioners is that the Devaswom is an unincorporated body. By virtue of the provision in S.9 of the Act, the Devaswom may sue or be sued in the name of the president, chairman, or principal secretary, or trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the society, and in default of such determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion. There is a proviso to this section which states that it shall be competent for any person having a claim or demand against the society, to sue the president or chairman, or principal secretary or the trustees thereof, if, on application to the governing body, some other officer or person be not nominated to be the defendant. Under S.6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, where the members form themselves into an association and register the same under this Act and authorise a person or persons to sue to recover its property, a suit can be brough
AIR. 1970 Patna 163 1964 (1) MLJ. 272; AIR. 1968 All. 369 (F.B.)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.