1. Defendants 1 to 9 and 11 in a suit for declaration and prohibitory injunction are the appellants. The trial court granted a decree that the first plaintiff is the lawful manager of Santhinikethan Secondary School belonging to the second plaintiff Society and that defendants 1 to 6 and 11 are not the members of the second plaintiff-Society. It was also declared that the first defendant has not been validly elected as the manager of that High School. Consequential prohibitory injunction was granted restraining the first defendant from functioning as the manager of the School. The appellants herein were also restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction obstructing the first plaintiff from functioning as the manager of the school. The appeal filed by them was dismissed by the lower appellate court.

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' case is stated thus:-

The second plaintiff is the Society of which the first plaintiff is the Secretary. The second plaintiff-Society consists of nine members. Defendants 1 to 6 are members of the Society. The first plaintiff was elected as the Manager of Santhinikethan Secondary School and L.P.School and he is also the Secretary of the Society. He was so elected in the general body meeting of the Society held on 29-11-1998. His appointment was approved by the Education Department and as such he has been functioning as the Manager of the School. There was no election of the office bearers of the Society after 1998. The last general body meeting of the Society was held on 12-5-2008. But on that day a decision was taken to have the election conducted soon. Though the meeting was proposed to be held on 20-09-2008 with an agenda for election of the main office bearers, that meeting was postponed due to the sudden demise of the niece of the first plaintiff. But he came to know from the 9th defendant that defendants 1 to 6 were admitted as members of the Society and that defendants 1 to 8 elected the first defendant as manager of the School. Defendants 7 to 9 have fabricated records to make it appear that defendants 1 to 6 and 11 were admitted as members of the Society. The first defendant has no right to be elected as Manager and he was not validly elected also. Hence, the plaintiffs sought for a declaration and prohibitory injunction as stated earlier.

3. The appellants resisted the suit contending as follows:-

The first defendant was approved as the Manager of the School by the competent authority of the Education Department and as such the suit is barred under Sec. 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act since the remedy of the first defendant is to file an appeal to the Director of Public Instruction. (“DPI” for short). The first plaintiff has no authority to represent the second plaintiff since the first plaintiff was removed from the post of Manager of the School in a meeting which was held on 12-5-2008. Defendants 1 to 6 and 11 were nominated as members of the Society and they were admitted as members. The members who attended the meeting on 12-5-2008 unanimously supported the nomination of defendants 1 to 6 and 11. Subsequently, in the general body meeting held on 22-9-2008 the first defendant was elected as the Manager of the School and his appointment as Manager of the School was approved by the D.E.O. Vatakara. It is not correct that the meeting proposed to be held on 28-9-2008 was postponed. The suit is bad for want of notice under Sec. 80 of C.P.C.

4. Before the trial Court relevant issues were framed. P.W.1 and PW2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the defendants. Exts.X1 to X3 were also marked.

5. The trial Court found that as on the relevant date there were altogether 9 members in the Society. Ext.A7 which is the notice of the said meeting and Ext. B3 the minutes of the General Body Meeting would show that in the said meeting there was no agenda as to the admission o