Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26572
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sathish Ninan, J
K.P.MOHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
ASSOCIATION FOR THE WELFARE OF THE HANDICAPPED – Respondent
RSA 146 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, SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, SMT.PREETHI. P.V., SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN, GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.), IMAM GRIGORIOS KARAT
Membership validity in societies hinges on adherence to procedural requirements outlined in bye-laws, and prior findings on fabricated documents cannot preclude fresh evidence supporting legitimate meetings.
Headnote:
Societies - Disputes over Membership and Governance - Societies Act - Sections related to Governance and Membership - The court's decision focuses on the validity of meetings and inductions of members contested under society's bye-laws and statutory provisions, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to procedural norms in governance.
Fact of the Case:
The case revolved around a dispute in 'the Association for Welfare of Handicapped', where two factions contested the validity of executive committee meetings and the induction of members following allegations of procedural violations and a contested minute book, Ext.B2.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence supported the holding of meetings on the disputed dates (14.05.2006 and 26.01.2007) as valid, dismissing the earlier appellate court's conclusion of invalidity. However, the induction on 26.11.2007 was deemed invalid as it contravened the bye-laws.
Issues: The issues included whether the previous remand decision precluded reliance on disputed minutes for membership validation, the interpretation of evidence regarding meeting validity, and the procedural compliance of member induction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if meetings were indeed held and membership applications supported by evidence, such meetings could be validated notwithstanding earlier findings of document fabrication.
Final Decision: The decree of the trial court was restored; earlier appellate rulings were overturned, validating member inductions from specific meetings.
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
