The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the rules and provisions governing the election process for charitable committees, including the requirement for a quorum and the validity of the election based on the majority of the electoral body.

Ayling, J.

1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by plaintiff (1st respondent) to declare the validity of his election as a member of the committee of the Abbas Ashoor Khana or Thousand Lights Charities in Madras. These charities are governed by a scheme framed by this Court in O.S. No. 392 of 1878. The decree in that suit (Exhibit VII) provides inter alia for a managing committee of five members (including the president), and three muttawallis working under them. Vacancies in the committee were to be filled by election by an electoral body consisting of the remaining committee members and the three muttawallis. According to plaintiff, he was validly elected in accordance with the rules contained in the decree at a meeting held on 7th June, 1914.

2. Defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 5 who are admittedly members of the electoral body above referred to, raised various objections to the validity of the election, which were all rejected as baseless by the City Civil Judge, who gave plaintiff the declaration sued for. Hence this appeal.

3. Before us, the validity of the election was attacked on three grounds. Two of these may be briefly disposed of. It was argued:

(1) that the procedure was in contravention of Rule 6 of a series of rules framed for them selves by the committee and muttawallis in 1888 (Exhibit IV) and

(2) that the election was Void for failure to give notice of meeting to one Moulvi Mahomed Madhi Sahib, who, according to appellants, was one of the muttawallis at the time.

4. As regards (1), a consideration of Exhibit IV leaves no doubt in my mind that Rule 6, which is relied on, was only intended to govern the proceedings at meetings of the managing committee, and has no application to elections by the committee and muttawallis conjointly. I may add that I find no evidence that this procedure was ever followed at elections. In my opinion, the objection based on this rule is without foundation.

5. As regards (2), Moulvi Mahomed Madhi Sahib was at the time of his appointment as muttawalli in 1906 a boy of eleven years of age; and I agree with the learned City Civil Judge that his appointment is altogether void and that he did not possess the status of muttawalli at the time of plaintiffs election.

6. The third objection is of a more serious character. Excluding Moulvi Mahomed Madhi Sahib, there were six surviving members of the electoral body on 7th June, 1914: (1) President of committee (1st defendant), (2) Three members of committee (defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and (3) Two muttawallis (Defts No. 5 and 6). Of these only 3 persons (defendants 2, 3 and 6) were present at the meeting. The other three are found to have had notice of the meeting but they failed to attend and they oppose plaintiffs election. It is argued that plaintiffs election, not being the act of a majority of the electoral body, is invalid.

7. The decree in O.S. No. 392 of 1878 simply directs that the surviving or continuing members of the committee and the muttawallis for the time being do elect a person from the Shia sect to the vacancy; that each elector should have one vote and the President a casting vote in case of equality, and that the person to whom the greatest number of votes is given be deemed to be elected. There is no provision for a quorum at an electoral meeting, nor for a minimum number of votes to be recorded for a candidate to render his election valid.

8. The electoral body in this case is certainly " a select and definite body"; and it is hardly disputed that the general rule of English Law regarding such bodies is that any act of such a body by way of resolution at a meeting is only valid, when a majority of the body are present - Vide Halsburys Laws of England, Volume 8, page 351.

9. Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar has however argued that this rule is not to be rigidly applied to Indian bodies; that circumstances may justify its being disregarded; that the practice of each body is the real test; and that before declaring the election