Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31959
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
K.SATHYAN – Appellant
Versus
BHASKARAN KALLANKANDY – Respondent
OP(C)/687/2021
R.SURENDRAN, K.MAYUKHA, SMT.TISSY ROSE K CHERIYAN, SMT.KEERTHANA.V
A society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not a juristic person; hence, suits can be initiated in its name without invoking provisions for representative litigation.
Headnote:
Societies - Societies Registration Act - Sections 6, 7, 8 - The court interpreted that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not a body corporate; hence, it aligns with the act's provisions that allow suits to be conducted in the name of the society's officials without the need for invoking Order I Rule 8 of CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming to be the President of a registered Society, contended against a lawsuit filed by a few members regarding the conduct of elections based on an outdated voters' list. They sought to invoke Order I Rule 8 of CPC to include all members in the litigation.
Issues: Whether the Society can be regarded as a legal entity in its own capacity, and whether Order I Rule 8 of CPC is applicable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that although registered under the Societies Registration Act, the Society is not a body corporate; decisions are binding on the Society, not individual members, negating the need for Order I Rule 8.
Final Decision: The original petition is dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943 OP(C) NO. 687 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 142/2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY, KANNUR PETITIONER/S:
K.SATHYAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O. BALAN, ADVOCATE, PRESIDENT OF SREE GNANODAYA YOGAM, SREE JAGANATHANATH TEMPLE, (A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860, THALASSERY, P.O. TEMPLEGATE, KANNUR DISTRICT
670 102. BY ADVS.
R.SURENDRAN KUM.S.MAYUKHA RESPONDENT/S:
1 BHASKARAN KALLANKANDY AGED 77 YEARS RETIRED TEACHER, RESIDING AT SURABI P.O. TEMPLE, GATE, 670 102, THALASSERY.
2 ANAND RAJ, AGED 64 YEARS S/O. MADHAVAN, ACCOUNTANT, RESIDING A T RAMALAYAM, NEAR MANOLIKAVU P.O. TEMPLE GATE. 670 102 THALASSERY.
3 CHANDRAN PATTERI, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. DAMODARAN, PAINTER, RESIDING A T SRE PADMAM, P.O. PULIANAMBRAM, 670 675, VIA PERINGATHUR.
4 K.P. RATHEESH BABU, AGED 62 YEARS S/O. LATE ACHUTHAN, TAILOR RESIDING A T REESHMA, MANOLIKAVU ROAD P.O. TEMPLE GATE, 670 102 THALASSERY.
BY ADVS.
SMT.TISSY ROSE K CHERIYAN SMT.KEERTHANA.V THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.6.2021, THE COURT ON 02.07.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
V.G.ARUN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
O.P(C).No.687 of 2021 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims to be the President of Sree Gnanodaya Yogam, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Society) and in that capacity, the second defendant in O.S.No.142 of 2018 pending on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Thalassery. The suit was filed by the respondents against the Society and its then President, for a declaration that no election to the Society shall be conducted on the basis of the existing un- updated voters' list and that any election conducted without updated voters' list will be illegal and against the stipulations in the bye-laws of the Society. The further prayer was for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants or persons appointed by them from conducting election to the Director Board of the Society on the basis of the existing voters' list and without updating the list. In the absence of any interim injunction restraining conduct of election, the election to the Director Board of the Society was conducted on 24.6.2018 and from among the newly elected Directors, the petitioner was elected as the President of the Society. After being elected as President, the petitioner filed written statement in his capacity as the second defendant. He also filed an interlocutory application requiring the court to direct the plaintiffs to invoke the provisions under Order I Rule 8 of CPC.
2. According to the petitioner, there are more than 8000 members in the Society and the suit was filed by only four members. Since the public at large is interested in the affairs of the Society, all persons should be put on notice, as mandated under Order I Rule 8 CPC. The prayer was opposed by the plaintiffs on the premise that, being a registered Society with limited members, it is not necessary to invoke Order I Rule 8 and that the attempt of the petitioner was only to protract the proceedings. By Exhibit P5, the learned Magistrate dismissed the interlocutory application finding that as per Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, a Society can be sued in its own capacity and the decisions in such a suit shall be binding on all members of the Society. The Court also found that the Society enjoys the status of a legal entity and is sufficiently capable of protecting the interest of its members and hence, there is no requirement for invoking Order I Rule 8.
3. Sri.R.Surendran, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order, firstly on the ground that a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not a legal entity. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Honoura
