POINT OF LAW: If on application to the governing body some other officer or person be not nominated to be the defendant and thereby when it is seen that the Society must sue or be sued through a person nominated in that behalf

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2005 and made in A.S.No.6 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge of Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2003 and made in O.S.No.115 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate judge of Udhagamandalam.)

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2005 passed in A.S.No.6 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge of Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2003 passed in O.S.No.115 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udhagamandalam.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

3. The defendant in O.S.No.115 of 1998 is the appellant in the second appeal.

4. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law.

“Whether the plaintiff-society is a juristic person and entitled to maintain the suit against the defendant in its name?”

5. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties qua the substantial question of law formulated in the second appeal, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

6. Suffice to state that the plaintiff-society has laid the suit against the defendant for the possession, past and future damages. The plaintiff is the Nilgiri Diocesan Society, a registered Christian Public Charitable Society, represented by its Secretary Rev. Fr.A.Anthonyswamy. Claiming that the defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff qua the suit property and seeking possession of the suit property from the defendant for the reasons assigned in the plaint as well as the damages, the plaintiff has laid the suit against the defendant. It has been averred in the plaint by the plaintiff that the plaintiff-society is exempted from the provision of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as per G.O.MS.No.2000 Home dated 16.08.1976 and accordingly put forth that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff.

7. The defendant resisted the plaintiff’s suit interalia contending that the parties are governed by the provisions of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and therefore, the plaintiff can seek eviction of the tenant only before the Rent Controller, Oootacamund, and accordingly raised the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the plaintiff’s suit.

8. In support of the plaintiffs’ case P.W.1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A13 were marked. On the side of the defendant D.W.1 was examined and no document has been marked.

9. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions put forth by them, the courts below were pleased to grant the reliefs in favour of the plaintiff. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been laid by the defendant.

10. On an appreciation of the reasons and conclusions of the courts below, it is found that the plaintiff is falling under exemption vide G.O.MS.No.2000 Home dated 16.08.1976 and accordingly, rightly held that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit laid by the plaintiff and accordingly granted the reliefs in favour of the plaintiff. As far as the reliefs granted in favour of the plaintiff by the courts below, it is found that the same had been determined by the courts below on the appreciation of the materials placed on record as well as the principles of law in respect of the issues involved between the parties and accordingly, in my considered opinion,, no reason is warranted to interfere with the abovesaid determination of the courts below.

11. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the counsel for the defendant contended that the very suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable in law as according to him, the plaintiff is not a juristic person and therefore, not entitled to main