Power to analyse evidence let in cannot be delegated to any functionary.

Kanakaraj, J.

The facts leading to the above two writ petitions and the civil miscellaneous appeal are as follows:

2. The parties are referred to with reference to their rank and status in O.S. No.417 of 1996. The first plaintiff therein is a Society registered under the Central Act 21 of 1860 and later under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The life members of the Nadar Mahajana Sangam are the members of the first plain-tiffSociety. There is a College called S.Vellaichamay Nadar College established by the Nadar Mahajana Sangam in the year 1965. The College offers Under Graduate, Post Graduate And Research Courses for both boys and girls and has a teaching strength of 90 members and non-teaching staff of about 2000 members. The administration of the College is under the control of the first plaintiff society. The society has to elect a Managing Board, comprising of the President, Vice President, Secretary, Correspondent and the Treasurer plus 40 members to constitute the Managing Board. It is stated that the annual income from all sources in respect of college itself runs to several crores. That, probably, is the reason for the parties vying with one another to become the members of the Managing Board and the consequent fight for membership. The period of office of the Managing Board is two years from the date of election. The defendants 1 to 4 were elected as the office bearers and their period of office came to an end on 33. 1996. Under the bye-laws of the Society, the General Body of the first plaintiff Society should be convened in December, 1995 for electing a new set of office bearers for the period from 4. 1996 to 33. 1998. There is a dispute between the parties regarding the date of convening of the General Body Meeting and the manner in which the General Body Meeting was convened. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were delaying the election because they were not confident of being reelected.

3. A meeting of the General Body was convened to take place on 6. 1996 at 11 a.m. at the auditorium of the college. The case of the plaintiffs is that they had intended to contest the election and apprehending trouble from the defendants, they had asked the Registrar of Societies to depute and observer to be present at the General Body Meeting. It is the further case of the Plaintiffs that a Senior Member of the Managing Board by name, Mr.D. Sabapathy was requested to preside over the meeting. Most of the subjects including the amendment to extend the period of office from two to three years were deferred. However, it is the case of the plaintiffs that nominations were received for the new Board and there being no contest, they were declared to have been elected. Minutes have been recorded to that effect and intimation was sent to the Registrar of Societies. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that they had assumed office, but the defendants are interfering with their administration of the college. Therefore, the suit was filed to declare the plaintiffs as validly elected office bearers of the first plaintiff society and to direct the defendants to hand over all the records and furnish Accounts in relation to the management of the society for three years prior to the suit. I. A. No.292 of 1996 wes filed for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ administrati on and management of the college. The suit was filed on 16. 1996. On 7. 1996, the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai passed orders in LA. No.292 of 1996, vesting the administration with the Principal of the college, under the control of the trial court and directing the Registrar to hold an enquiry, after giving opportunity to both parties regarding the validity of the meeting held on 6. 1996 with consequential directions to be based on the findings of the District Registrar. This order is the subject-matter of C.M.A. No.846 of 1996.

4. Writ Petitio