Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11390
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sathish Ninan, J
ASSOCIATION FOR THE WELFARE OF THE HEANDICAPPED – Appellant
Versus
K.P.MOHAMMED – Respondent
RSA 232 2018
SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.), SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER, SRI.P.RAHUL, SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL (CAVEATOR), N.KRISHNA PRASAD, NISHA GEORGE, SRI.P.A.HARISH, SRI.B.G.BHASKAR, SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SR., SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR
A society must adhere to its bye-laws for the legitimacy of member induction, and courts can reinstate trial court decisions where sufficient and credible evidence is presented.
Headnote:
Societies - Disputes in Members Induction - Societies Act - 4, 5 - The court primarily addressed the competency of the society's meeting, upholding the trial court's decree that valid meetings were held for member induction in accordance with the bye-laws, thus influencing the decision to restore the trial judgment.
Fact of the Case:
Disputes arose within the AWH society, leading two factions to claim authority. Both factions held separate meetings to elect committee members, resulting in litigations regarding the validity of these meetings and subsequent member inductions.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that valid meetings for member induction on specified dates had been held, supported by corroborative evidence despite previous claims of document fabrication. The first appellate court's failure to consider this evidence led to erroneous conclusions.
Issues: The primary issue involved whether valid meetings were conducted on certain dates for the induction of members, and if reliance on previously disputed minutes for proving membership was permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the earlier remand did not negate the possibility of proving valid meetings held on the relevant dates, and substantial evidence supported the induction decisions, thereby restoring the trial court's judgment.
Final Decision: The judgment of the trial court is restored; appeals allowed.
J U D G M E N T
These appeals arise from the decree and judgment in a suit in which essentially the dispute relate to the administration of a Society namely, “the Association for Welfare of Handicapped” hereinafter referred to as “AWH”. AWH is a Society registered under the Societies Act . It runs about 32 educational institutions.
2. In the Society there arose disputes between the members and they formed into two factions, one faction which showed allegiance to the President and the other to the Secretary. In the proceedings they have been referred to as the “President Faction” and the “Secretary Faction”. Both factions purported to hold separate general body meetings and elected executive committee/managing committee members. This resulted in suits as O.S.667 of 2010 (originally numbered as O.S.368 of 2008 of the Principal Munsiff-II, Kozhikode), O.S.187 of 2008, O.S.226 of 2008, O.S.365 of 2008 and O.S.537 of 2008. The suits related to election to the governing body, and the expulsion and induction of members to the Society.
3. The trial court originally, as per judgment dated 23.12.2009, declared the general body meetings claimed to have been held by both factions respectively, to be bad in law. The expulsion of three members from and after 20.02.2008 were also held against. Though the trial court found Ext.B2 minutes book to have been manipulated, it relied on the same to validate certain enrollments observing that their induction were prior to the sprouting of disputes. The Court passed a preliminary decree holding that, as on 01.04.2008 AWH has 42 members. The Court appointed a Commissioner for convening the general body of the members and for election to the executive committee in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society (Ext.A5).
4. On appeal, as per judgment dated 14.10.2010, the appellate court held that, the trial court having found that Ext.B2 appears to be fabricated, ought not have relied on the same for any purposes including for considering the induction of members. The appellate court noticed that, there was no issue regarding the validity of membership, and also that the persons whose membership are in issue are not parties to the suit. The finding of the trial court regarding the number of members of AWH were set aside. The suit O.S.368 of 2008 was remanded back to the trial court. The decree in the other suits were affirmed; the details thereof are not being adverted to as they are not necessary for consideration now. The order of remand directed the trial court to decide afresh on the number of members of AWH. Opportunity was given to implead additional parties and also to adduce evidence with regard to membership.
5. Challenging the said judgment there were appeals before this Court as RSA 368/2011, FAO 24/2011 and FAO 34/2011. As per judgment dated 14.03.2013, the appeals were dismissed.
6. Thereafter, before the trial Court, additional parties-the persons who were enrolled in the disputed meetings, got themselves impleaded as additional defendants. Further evidence was adduced in the suit. As per judgment dated 31.07.2017 the trial court upheld the induction of members made by the executive committee on 14.05.2006 and 26.01.2007. As regards the induction of members held on 26.11.2007, it was held that, though the meeting was validly convened the induction was not proper. The court passed a preliminary decree declaring that, as on 01.04.2008 AWH had 42 members out of which one(2nd defendant) is no more, and the total strength of the membership is 41. A commission was appointed for convening of the general body and conducting election to the 13 member executive committee. It was further directed that the election shall be conducted strictly in accordance with Ext.A5 bye-laws and with due notice to all the members.
7. Challenging the decree and judgment of the trial court, the plaintiffs in O.S.667/2010 filed A.S.1/2017. The first appellate court held that in the earlier round no valid meetings were held
