The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for societies to comply with registration and re-registration provisions under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975, which directly impacts their locus standi and legal standing in property disputes.

P. SHANMUGAM, J.

1. The first defendant is the appellant. Plaintiffs filed a suit for a direction to the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the house, ground and premises bearing Survey No. 78/C3 in Kanoor Road, Kodaikanal and to pay a sum of Rs. 27,000/- as damages and future damages at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. The suit was decreed and the appeal is against this judgment and decree.

2. The plaintiffs are — (i) The Kodaikanal Ladies Club and (ii) The Association of All India Womens Conference, New Delhi. According to them, the first plaintiff is a society registered under the Central Act namely the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as Society No. 1 of 1934-1935 and the second plaintiff is the Association of All India Womens Conference, a registered society. They further state that after the passing of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975, the first plaintiff was registered under the said Act as Society No. 67 of 1982. The plaintiffs contend that the suit property was purchased by the first plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 2.7.1937 and after putting up a building therein, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The second plaintiff was instrumental in obtaining the medical van and donation from the Central Social Welfare Board to attend to one of their activities namely to provide free medical aid to the villagers. The first plaintiff constituted a committee from among its members to run the medical aid unit known as SKIPPO Roadside Hospital Committee (hereinafter referred to as the SKIPPO). The SKIPPO, through the committee members, have given possession of the suit property to the appellant herein, the first defendant in the suit, without the knowledge, concurrence or consent of the first plaintiff for running an orphanage by an agreement dated 12.5.1975 on an yearly payment of Rs. 1/-. The appellant, by virtue of its possession of the suit property, has been running an orphanage in the premises. After coming to know of this, the plaintiffs have requested the appellant to deliver vacant possession to the first plaintiff, and on his failure to do so, the above suit came to be filed.

3. The first defendant, the appellant herein, questioned the locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit. According to them, they are strangers to the transaction as per which they have got possession of the property and that there is no cause of action against the appellant. The first plaintiff had not handed over possession of the property and it is not stated in the plaint as to how the first plaintiff has acquired any right in the property so as to demand possession. They denied the composition and constitution of the plaintiff. According to them, the SKIPPO came into possession of the suit property, developed the same by constructing two buildings in the suit property out of their own funds and the Kodaikanal Ladies Club was nowhere in the picture because it had ceased to exist long ago. In order to put the property for a worthy and noble cause, SKIPPO was on the look out for an established charitable and philanthropic organisation which could utilise the suit property and the building for a noble cause. They then contacted the appellant herein, which is an organisation engaged in the rehabilitation of orphan and destitute children by running children homes and orphanages. After they were given possession of the suit property along with the two buildings, they have made improvements therein and additional constructions have been made in the property after finding that there is nobody else to claim the property. They further contend that SKIPPO Mobile Medical Unit has no connection with the so called SKIPPO Roadside Hospital Committee and no committee of the Kodaikanal Ladies Club was running any free medical service. According to them, the SKIPPO Mobile Medical Unit was a distinct and separate entity vis-a-vis the Kodaikanal Ladies Club. The appellant also plead that they have perf