An authorized representative acting within their delegated powers binds the institution in legal proceedings. Allegations of fraud require strict proof, and a suit for declaration is not maintainable without seeking consequential relief when the plaintiff's status is that of a licensee.

JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The appellant-plaintiff has instituted the present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”), assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, as well as the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant–plaintiff is that the suit land originally belonged to Punjab Cotton/Wool Spinning and Weavers Centre, a registered body under the State of Punjab. It is further pleaded that the appellant–plaintiff society was constituted in April, 1967 and duly registered with the Registrar of Societies. Vide registered settlement deed dated 13.03.1968, defendant No.1 is stated to have transferred all right, title, and interest in the properties, fully detailed in the said deed, in favour of the plaintiff–Sangh. It is further averred that defendant No.1 was permitted only a permissive use of a portion of the property, shown in yellow in the site plan, by the Chairman of the Sangh.

2.1 It is further the case of the appellant–plaintiff that about two months prior to the institution of the suit, the defendants asserted ownership rights over the suit property. Upon inquiry, the defendants relied upon a judgment and decree dated 10.07.1972 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, Jalandhar in civil suit titled “M/s Punjab Khadi and Village Industries Board versus Khadi Sewa Sangh and others”. The said judgment and decree is challenged as being illegal, null and void, inoperative, and having no binding effect upon the rights of the plaintiff– Sangh, on the ground that the then Secretary of the plaintiff–Sangh lacked authority to enter into any alleged settlement.

2.2 It is further pleaded that the impugned judgment and decree are the outcome of fraud allegedly practised by the then Secretary of the plaintiff–Sangh in connivance with the defendants. It is also asserted that prior to the said decree, the suit property had already been pledged with the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bombay, and, therefore, no lawful settlement could have been entered into in respect thereof.

2.3 It is further averred that the plaintiff–Sangh raised construction over the suit land during the years 1972–73. In the year 1974, the plaintiff–Sangh was attached to the defendant Board by the Khadi Commission, Bombay. Thereafter, in January 1990, the plaintiff–Sangh was again brought under the direct list of institutions with the concurrence of the defendant Board, in relation to loan liability amounting to Rs. 52 lakhs, which is stated to be that of the plaintiff–Sangh. It is thus pleaded that the plaintiff–Sangh has continued its existence since 1967 without interruption. It is further asserted that there has been no change in ownership in the revenue record, no mutation has been sanctioned in favour of the defendant Board, and that the plaintiff–Sangh has continued to pay property tax and other incidental charges including electricity and water charges. On these premises, the suit was instituted.

3. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections inter alia that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, that the plaintiff has no locus standi and no cause of action. On merits, it was pleaded that the suit property had already been transferred to Punjab Cotton, Wool Spinning and Weavers Centre vide transfer deed da