This application by the plaintiff is to implead Saidapet Annadhana Samajam by its Secretary, C. Bakthavatsalam as second defendant. There is a connected application for consequential amendment of the cause title and the several paragraphs of the plaint. That matter is not now before me as the said application is not stamped or numbered.

Applicants plaintiffs have filed the above suit for framing a scheme for safeguarding the properties of the aforesaid Samajam, and its income, for proper administration of the affairs of the Samajam, for removal of Bakthavatsalam from all posts which he claims to hold as, according to the plaintiffs, he has committed various acts of breach of trust, for appointment of a Commissioner-cum-Receiver to take inventory and for accounts, etc. The plaint is laid under section 92, Civil Procedure Code, and the Advocate-General has given consent to the institution of the suit as originally framed wherein C. Bakthavatsalam is impleaded as the sole defendant.

The averments in the plaint are to the effect that taking advantage of the factions within the Samajam, Bakthavatsalam has committed various acts of mismanagement and breaches of trust detrimental to the interests of the Samajam and has usurped for himself all the key posts of the Samajam. It is also alleged that subsequent to the order passed in I.A. No. 2628 of 1962 in O.S. No. 2178 of 1962 (City Civil Court) that status quo ante should continue, he has altered several rules of the Samajam and effected changes in the personnel of the Committee to suit his own ends and that he had temporarily misappropriated the Government grant for teachers amounting to about Rs. 2,000 so that it is - the plaintiff’s case that the affairs of the Samajam are in a chaotic, deplorable and dangerous condition and that the funds of the Samajam are not utilised for the purpose for which they are intended.

Along with this plaint, the plaintiffs moved an application No. 806 of 1966 for appointing a Commissioner-cum-Receiver to take possession of the account books, and movable and immovable properties of the Samajam and administer the affairs of the Samajam. The said application is still pending. In the counter filed by defendant Bakthavatsalam in the said application, he stated inter alia that the plaintiffs have no right to agitate for reliefs in respect of the affairs of the Samajam especially when the Samajam is not a party to the suit. It is to obviate this objection, and for an effectual and complete adjudication of all questions involved in the suit and further to make the scheme framed and the orders made in the suit binding on the Samajam that the plaintiffs have now sought to implead the Samajam represented by its Secretary Bakthavatsalam; and the short point for consideration is whether this application is not maintainable in law and the applicants have no right to file the application.

Bakthavatsalam to whom notice was taken of this application, both in his individual capacity and as the Secretary of Saidapet Annadhana Samajam, has filed counter on his own behalf and on behalf of the Saidapet Annadhana Samajam. The substantial objection taken by him is that Saidapet Annadhana Samajam is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and the description of it as a public charitable institution is made with ulterior motives. He would contend that he has been sued in his individual capacity and sanction had been obtained from the Advocate-General in such capacity and, therefore, it is not open to the plaintiffs to say that the Saidapet Annadhana Samajam should be impleaded as a party for whatever purpose. He would further contend that the application is not maintainable according to the law governing bodies registered under the Societies Registration Act and the rules of the Samajam.

The suit is instituted, as I stated, under section 92, Civil Procedure Code with the consent of the Advocate-General. In the case of public charities, where any alleged