IMPORTANT POINT
The plaintiffs failed to establish their right to manage the society, leading to the dismissal of their appeal for lack of locus standi and compliance with statutory requirements.

Judgment :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2014, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.69/13 of 2013, whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, Ghumarwin in Civil Suit No.533/1 of 2011/06 has been affirmed.

2. The appellants were the plaintiffs in original suit and for the sake of convenience, the parties hereafter shall be referred to by the same status as they hold in the original Court.

3. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants seeking decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the working of plaintiff No.1-Society.

4. It was averred that plaintiff No.1 was a registered society. It was running an educational institution known as Adarsh School Ghumarwin. Plaintiffs No.2 to 6 claimed themselves to be the elected office bearers of governing body. They alleged that the defendants were the strangers and defendant No.13 was the Headmaster of the school, but he wanted to grab powers of governing body in violation of Rules and Regulations of the Society. In this pursuit, defendant No.13 allegedly had connived with other defendants with a motive to take over the control of affairs of plaintiff No.1-society.

5. The defendants contested the suit. It was alleged that the school was receiving the grant-in-aid to the extent of 95% from the State Government. Defendant No.13 was also paid by the State Government to the extent of 95% of his salary. It was further alleged that plaintiffs No.2 to 6 were not the elected members of governing body. As per the defendants, plaintiff No.1- society was constituted in the year 1987 and since then no elections of the governing body had been conducted in accordance with bye laws of the society. It was also the case of the defendants that the general body of the society had elected the defendants as governing body members and thus, they were vested with the powers to run and manage the society.

6. Learned trial Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for?...OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? ...OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his acts, conducts and deeds as alleged? ...OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as alleged?...OPD.

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? ...OPD.

6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present suit as alleged? ...OPD

7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as alleged/...OPD

8. Relief.”

7. Issue No.2, 4 and 5 were answered in affirmative and rest of the issues were negated. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

8. This appeal was admitted on 06.07.2015 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether on account of misappreciation of the pleadings, misreading and misconstruction of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and law also, the findings recorded by both Courts below are erroneous and as such the judgment and decree impugned in the main appeal being perverse and vitiated, is not legally sustainable?”

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

10. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their right over management and affairs of plaintiff No.1-society. It was also held by the trial Court that the general house of plaintiff No.1-society had dissolved the earlier governing body and had elected a new governing body in the year 2006, which included the defendants. Learned trial Court also found that the entire record was with defenda