1. Can third parties be impleaded as proper parties to a Regular Second Appeal when they were not parties either to the suit or to the appeal therefrom? The jurisdiction under Order I Rule 10 (2) to add parties in the context of the powers of the appellate court under Section 107 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC for short) arises for consideration.

2. The suit is for a declaration that the amendment made to the bye-laws of a Society are null and void and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to administer it as per the original bye-laws. The Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 is the educational agency of a school governed by the Kerala Education Act. The amendment made to the bye-laws of the Society concerns the admission of patron members on payment of `1,000/- and the appointment of one amongst them as a permanent Manager of the school. The trial court dismissed the suit which was reversed in appeal by the lower appellate court and the same is impugned at the instance of the defendants in this Regular Second Appeal. The fourth plaintiff died pending first appeal while the remaining plaintiffs (except the second plaintiff) died pending Regular Second Appeal and their legal heirs are not brought on record. It later transpired that a compromise was entered into between the second plaintiff and defendants 1, 3, 4 and the legal heirs of the second defendant who alone are parties to the Regular Second Appeal. The parties requested the compromise to be recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC whereby they seek to set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court and restore the judgment of the trial court. It was at this juncture did the present petitioners seek impleadment in the Regular Second Appeal in order to oppose the recording of the compromise and have the judgment of the lower appellate court sustained.

3. My attention was drawn to certain observations of the lower appellate court and the relevant portion of the judgment in appeal is extracted herein below:

“The 1st defendant Society administers a large high school. The assets of the high school came by way of the state of affairs reveal that the director board was fraudulently functioning as the general body also. So fraudulently the entire power has been exercised by the director board. The amendments were made when approved and it was decided to constitute general body, further amendments ought to have been made after general body was duly constituted. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that general public was invited to be members of the general body after due notification. The way in which generous contribution is seen made by the general public for the establishment of the school indicates that had notice been given, never the membership of the general body would have remained at 9 for a long time and the maximum membership was only a meagre 25. As referred to already the induction of three members at the crucial point of time of passing the amendments to bylaw was itself suspicious and was made with a view to wrest control of the society by the defendants.

……………………………………………………………………...

Anyone who has attained the age of 21 years and same and residing within the Sooranadu south village could become a member. Under such circumstances only with effective manipulation the membership of the general body can be maintained at a low level of 25. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the general body meetings were convened after the required prior notice of 7 days. The records in this regard are not kept properly. The membership register shows that annual subscriptions were not being paid even by the defendants.”

The finding of the lower appellate court would indicate that the assets of the school accrued by way of contribution from the public and that the general body of the Society was not being convened regularly. The membership of