Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. G. Oak, J.
SHRIDHAR MISRA - Appellant
Versus
JAICHANDRA VIDYALANKAR - Respondents
Original Suit 1 Of 1956
Decided On : 10/14/1958
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT - Alteration of purpose of society - Procedure prescribed in Section 12 of the Act is mandatory - Amendment of rules of society - Procedure laid down in Rule 46 of the old constitution is mandatory - New constitution framed by the Sammelan is invalid as it contravened Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act and Rule 46 of the old constitution - Suit for declaration that the new constitution is invalid and for injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the new constitution is maintainable in part - Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief in respect of other parts of the new constitution which do not suffer from any illegality - Suit for declaration that the proceedings of the Standing Committee of the Sammelan held on 9-9-1951 are invalid is not maintainable as the plaintiffs have failed to establish any illegality in the said proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act (No. XXI of 1860), framed a new constitution in 1951. Some members of the Sammelan challenged the validity of the new constitution and filed three connected suits in the Allahabad High Court. The plaintiffs in the suits contended that the new constitution was invalid as it was framed in violation of Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act and Rule 46 of the old constitution of the Sammelan. The defendants, who supported the new constitution, contended that the procedure prescribed in Section 12 of the Act and Rule 46 of the old constitution was not mandatory and that the Sammelan was competent to amend its constitution without following the said procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court held that the procedure prescribed in Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act for altering or extending the purpose of a registered society is mandatory. The Court further held that the amendment of rules of a society as provided in Rule 46 of the old constitution of the Sammelan was also mandatory. The Court found that the new constitution framed by the Sammelan contravened Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act and Rule 46 of the old constitution and was, therefore, invalid. The Court also held that the suit for declaration that the new constitution was invalid and for injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the new constitution was maintainable in part, but the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief in respect of other parts of the new constitution which did not suffer from any illegality. The Court further held that the suit for declaration that the proceedings of the Standing Committee of the Sammelan held on 9-9-1951 were invalid was not maintainable as the plaintiffs had failed to establish any illegality in the said proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the procedure prescribed in Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act for altering or extending the purpose of a registered society is mandatory? 2. Whether the amendment of rules of a society as provided in Rule 46 of the old constitution of the Sammelan was mandatory? 3. Whether the new constitution framed by the Sammelan contravened Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act and Rule 46 of the old constitution? 4. Whether the suit for declaration that the new constitution was invalid and for injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the new constitution was maintainable? 5. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to any relief in respect of other parts of the new constitution which did not suffer from any illegality? 6. Whether the suit for declaration that the proceedings of the Standing Committee of the Sammelan held on 9-9-1951 were invalid was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The procedure prescribed in Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act for altering or extending the purpose of a registered society is mandatory. 2. The amendment of rules of a society as provided in Rule 46 of the old constitution of the Sammelan was also mandatory. 3. The new constitution framed by the Sammelan contravened Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act and Rule 46 of the old constitution and was, therefore, invalid. 4. The suit for declaration that the new constitution was invalid and for injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the new constitution was maintainable in part, but the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief in respect of other parts of the new constitution which did not suffer from any illegality. 5. The suit for declaration that the proceedings of the Standing Committee of the Sammelan held on 9-9-1951 were invalid was not maintainable as the plaintiffs had failed to establish any illegality in the said proceedings.
Final Decision: The Court partly decreed Suit No. 1 of 1956 and declared that the new constitution framed by the Sammelan was invalid in so far as the amendment of the object or purpose of the Sammelan was concerned. The Court also directed the defendants not to give effect to Rule 2 of the new constitution until the objects or purpose of the Sammelan were amended in accordance with law. The Court dismissed Suit No. 2 of 1956 and Suit No. 3 of 1956 with costs.
( 1 ) THESE three connected suits relate to the affairs of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. The principal question raised in these suits is whether a certain constitution framed on behalf of this institution is valid.
( 2 ) THERE is not much dispute about facts. The admitted facts are these. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (hereinafter referred to as the Sammelan) was established some years ago to popularise Hindi language and to develop Hindi literature. The Sammelan has been doing valuable work in the cause of Hindi language and literature during the last few years. The Sammelan has been registered under the Societies Registration Act (No. XXI of 1860 ). Certain rules were prepared in the year 1946 for the management of the Sammelan. Those rules were in force for two or three years. The Constitution of India recognized Hindi as the official language of the country. It was felt by a large section of the Sammelan that, it was necessary to introduce fundamental changes in the object, programme and constitution of the sammelan. The matter was taken up in the Hyderabad session held in December, 1949. A resolution was passed appointing a committee of 21 persons for drafting a new constitution for the Sammelan so as to make it fully representative of all Hindi regions of the country. It was laid down in the resolution that, the new constitution should be placed for approval before a special session of the delegates of the Sammelan. The committee drafted a constitution. That draft was placed for approval before the special session of the Sammelan convened at Patna in june, 1950. However, that draft could not be passed by the Sammelan in the Patna special session. Resolution No. 1 was passed in the Patna special session appointing another committee of 11 persons for drafting a new constitution. A constitution was accordingly drafted. It was to be taken up for consideration by the Sammelan in the session held at Kotah in december, 1950. But it was said that that draft became un-traceable. So resolution No. 11 was passed at the Kotah session on the subject of preparation of a new constitution. The committee of 11 persons appointed at the Patna special session was again directed to prepare a new constitution. It was Further laid down in the resolution that, the draft constitution would be deemed to have been adopted by the Sammelan as soon as the constitution received the assent of eight members of the committee. Sri Jaichand Vidyalankar was the President of the Sammelan in the year 1951, and Sri Rai Ram Charan Agarwala was the General Secretary.
( 3 ) SOME members of the constitution committee met at Allahabad in July, 1951 for framing a new constitution. The new draft was signed by some of the members of the committee. It was announced that another meeting of the committee would be held on 28-8-1951 at the house of Sri kanhaiya Lal Misra at Allahabad for final approval of the draft constitution. In the meanwhile eight members of the committee put their signatures on the draft constitution. It was felt in certain quarters that, the new constitution came into force on 11-8-1951, when eight members put their signatures on the draft. It will be convenient to refer to the set of rules framed in 1946 as the "old constitution", and to the rules or constitution prepared in August 1951 as the "new constitution".
( 4 ) ON 28-8-1951 Sri Shridhar Misra and two others filed in the court of Munsif, Allahabad (West), Suit No. 567 of 1951 against Sri Jaichand Vidyalankar and 11 others with the following allegations. Resolution No. 1 passed at the Patna Special Session and resolution No. 11 passed at the Kotah session are both ultra vires and inoperative. Consequently the new constitution framed by the committee of 11 persons is also invalid. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed for a declaration that, resolutions Nos. 1 and 11 passed at Patna and Kotah respectively, and the draft constitution framed by defendants Nos. 2 to 12 are ultra vires the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
