The main legal point established in the judgment is the legal standing of a registered society to sue on behalf of its members under the Societies Registration Act.

JUDGMENT :

P.D. Audikesavalu, J.

(through video conference)

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 25.11.2019 made in A. No. 4630 of 2019 in C.S. No. 374 of 2017.

Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 21.11.2019 made in A. No. 4631 of 2019 in C.S. No. 374 of 2017.)

1. The intra-court appeals in O.S.A. Nos. 291 and 292 of 2020 arise out of the orders dated 25.11.2019 in Application Nos. 4630 and 4631 of 2017 respectively in C.S. No. 374 of 2017 passed by the Learned Judge on the Original Side of this Court.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their description in C.S. No. 374 of 2017 for the sake of clarity and convenience.

3. We have heard Mr. S.R.Raghunanthan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Fifth Defendant and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

4. The members of Chintadripet Fish and Perishable Products Traders Society (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Association’ for short), which has been registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the property measuring around 1880 square meters comprised in Survey No. 735/47 situated at Arunachala Naicken Street, Chintadripet, Chennai - 600002, which originally belonged to one C.R.B.Ramesh Babu. According to the Association, an agreement dated 06.05.1990 had been entered by it with the said C.R.B.Ramesh Babu in respect of the manner in which the said property should be maintained and enjoyed. It had been provided in clause 16 of the said agreement as follows:-

“in the event of the owners selling or attempting to further lease out the property, the first right to purchase the same is given to the Society”

The question of buying that property did not arise during the lifetime of the said C.R.B.Ramesh Babu because he did not attempt to sell the same and the individual members of the Association were paying rents to him. After the death of the said C.R.B.Ramesh Babu and his son, viz., C.R.Basanth Babu, the said property devolved upon C.R.Kasthuri (wife of C.R.B.Ramesh Babu), Sarayou Basanth (wife of C.R.Basanth Babu) and B.Saaru Rupa and B.Hema Rupa (daughters of C.R.Basanth Babu). On coming to know that the said persons had executed an agreement with one J.M.Imran Khan for sale of an extent of 3.87 grounds of the said property, the Association, viz., ‘Chinthadripet Fish and Perishable Products Traders Society, represented by its President’, had on 02.05.2017 instituted the suit in C.S. No. 374 of 2017 on the original side of this Court against the said persons, who have been arrayed as the First to Fourth Defendants, for specifically enforcing clause 16 of the agreement dated 06.05.1990 by directing them to execute sale-deed in respect of that property in favour of the Plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining them or any persons claiming through them from in any manner alienating or encumbering the property to any third party or disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the Plaintiff and its members. Shortly thereafter, the First to Fourth Defendants had executed a sale-deed dated 03.05.2017 in favour of the said J.M.Imran Khan, which has been registered as Document No. 1235 of 2017 on the file of the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Periamet at Chennai. The said J.M.Imran Khan was impleaded as the Fifth Defendant by order dated 12.06.2017 in Application No. 3046 of 2017 passed in that suit. The Fifth Defendant resisted that suit by filing Written Statement dated 16.07.2018 and also by way of application to reject the plaint in Application No. 7144 of 2017 by contending that the suit filed by the Association was not maintainable and the nature of rights sought to be enforced in that suit were not fo