Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33726
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sathish Ninan, JOHNSON JOHN, JJ
FELIX FERNANDEZ – Appellant
Versus
ICE SELLERS SANNADHA SANGHAM – Respondent
RFA 396/2019
A.JANI(KOLLAM), SMT.NISA FASIL(KOLLAM), SRI.G.SIVASANKAR, SMT.L.JYOTHY KUMARI, SMT.N.RAJI, SHRI.JAI GOVIND M.J., SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR, SRI.R.RENJITH, SRI.K.SHAJ
A suit challenging membership termination is barred by limitation if filed after the statutory period, and valid bye-laws can provide for membership removal.
Headnote:
Limitation - Membership Dispute - Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 - Sections on Membership and Termination - The court upheld the trial court's decision that the suit was barred by limitation, affirming the validity of the membership termination and the sale deed executed by the Society.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of membership in a Society and challenged a sale deed as void, alleging misappropriation and improper termination of membership. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing limitation and valid termination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's right to sue accrued in 2009 when he was removed from membership, making the 2015 suit barred by limitation. The court also upheld the validity of the sale deed executed by the Society.
Issues: Whether the trial court's finding of limitation was correct, whether the bye-laws allowed for removal from membership, and whether the trial court's judgment warranted interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation as the right to sue arose in 2009, and the bye-laws permitted termination of membership, rendering the challenge to the sale deed invalid.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
The suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is a member of the first defendant Society, to declare Ext.A11 Sale Deed as void, for recovery of possession, and for other reliefs, was dismissed by the trial court.
The plaintiff is in appeal.
2. The first defendant is a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 . The Society was formed in the year 1990. It was formed to function as a charitable entity to eradicate unemployment of its members and to uplift their family life and to educate the children of the members. The plaintiff became a member of the Society in the year 1994. In the year 1998, the plaintiff was elected as Secretary of the Society. During his tenure the Society acquired various items of properties under Exts.A3, A4 and A5 sale deeds. According to the plaintiff, during the period 2001-02, when he was the President of the Society, the then treasurer committed gross misappropriation.
3. In the year 2003, alleging misappropriation, a criminal case was registered against him. The case ultimately ended in acquittal as per Ext.A8 judgment dated 12.05.2015. On 03.07.2015, the plaintiff issued Ext.A9 notice to defendants 1 to 4 requiring them to permit the plaintiff to continue as member of the Society. Without heeding to the request, the claim was denied as per Ext.A10 reply. A portion of the property of the Society which was purchased under Ext.A5, was purportedly conveyed by the Society as per Ext.A11 Sale Deed dated 12.01.2007, in favour of the fifth defendant. The plaintiff alleges that Ext.A11 is a fraudulent, collusive and void document. According to the plaintiff, the transaction is grossly under valued. It is also alleged that such sale was without any sanction from the general body.
4. The defendants denied the plaint allegations. It was contended that the suit is barred by limitation. According to them, the plaintiffs were removed from the membership as early as in the year 2009. It was contended that Ext.A11 is a true, genuine and bonafide transaction.
5. The trial court held that the suit is barred by limitation. It was also held that Ext.A11 conveyance and the termination of the membership of the plaintiff was, as decided by the general body.
6. We have heard learned counsel Sri.A.Jani on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff and Sri.K.Shaj and Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar on behalf of the respondents. 7. The points that arises for determination are :-
(i) Is the finding of the trial court that the suit is barred by limitation, correct?
(ii) Is the contention of the appellant that Ext.B1 bye-laws does not provide for removal from membership of the Society, sustainable?
(iii) Does the decree and judgment of the trial court warrant any interference?
8. Even according to the plaintiff, ever since in the year 2003 he was not permitted to participate in the general body. According to the defendants, the plaintiff was removed from the membership of the first defendant Society in the year 2009. Therefore, the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff at least by the year 2009. The suit is filed only in the year 2015. It would be relevant to refer to the averments at paragraph 34 of the written statement, with regard to the procedure followed by the first defendant for removing the plaintiff from its membership. The same reads thus :-
“34) The plaintiff and his son were abstained from their duty from 23.11.2004. The general body of 1st defendant dtd 14.12.2008 discussed the matter in detail and resolved to remove them from the membership by due process of law after conducting enquiry. Committee dtd 26.04.2009 decided to conduct a domestic enquiry into the matter after issuing the charge memo to the plaintiff. The charge memo was in respect of the misappropriation of Rs.6,17,483/- and the unauthorized absence of plaintiff from 23.11.2004. A charge memo was issued to him inviting his reply within 7 days. The charge memo was sent by registered
