Mr. M. Duraiswamy, J.

1. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No. 73 of 2008, on the file of Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 76 of 2005, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, the defendants have filed the above Second Appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 76 of 2005 for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to admit the plaintiff as a member of the Samudayam on receipt of membership and other dues. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:

According to the plaintiff, he belongs to Chetty Samudayam of Padmanabhapuram and the first defendant is the President and the second defendant is the Secretary of the Chetty Samudayam of Padmanabhapuram. The parents of the plaintiff are the registered members of the Samudayam and they are paying all the subscription without any default. The plaintiff is not a registered member of the Samudayam and as per the custom of Samudayam, the membership registration is highly necessary. On 23.05.2003, the plaintiff submitted an application for membership and it was agreed by the managing committee to accept the membership of the plaintiff. But the defendants are not willing to issue the membership to the plaintiff. In spite of repeated requests, the defendants evaded to make the plaintiff as the member. A notice sent to the second defendant was refused. In these circumstances the plaintiff filed the suit.

3. The brief case of the defendants is as follows:

According to the defendants, the plaintiff or his parents do not belong to Padmanabhapuram Chetti Samudayam and the address given for the defendants are not correct. The plaintiff's family never paid any subscription at any point of time. The Padmanabhapuram Chetti Samudayam is a hereditary trust and one among the ancient Ezhoor Chetti Sangam Ltd., is having headquarters at Eraniel. It exclusively belongs to Ezhoor Chetti caste people. There are some restrictions for issuance of membership. One among them is when a person belongs to Chetti community or being conducted his marriage with a person belonging to another community, his membership should be cancelled or refused at once. The request of the plaintiff for his membership was denied, as the plaintiff married another girl of another caste. The wife of the plaintiff does not belong to Ezhoor Chetti Samudayam. The plaintiff has violated the customary rights and the Samudhayam rules and regulations, hence he is not entitled for membership. In these circumstances, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined and 5 documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and 13 documents viz., Exs.B.1 to B.13 were marked. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences let in by the parties, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 73 of 2008 and the lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, the defendants have filed the above Second Appeal.

5. Heard Mr. C. Godwin, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. C.K.M. Appaji, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. The learned Counsel for the respondent in support of his contentions relied upon the following judgments:

(i) In Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and another v. District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Urban) and others reported in AIR (2005) SC 2306, wherein the Honourable Apex Court held as follows:

"29. Section 23 of the Contract Act provides that where consideration and object are not lawful the contract would be void. But for Section 23 to apply it must be forbidden by law or it must of such a nature that it would defeat the provision of any law or