Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 61520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. M. Shaffique, J
Prem Kumar P. N. and Others v. Sree Narayanan Bhaktha Paripalana Yogam Thrissur and Others
O.S. No. 864 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. T. A. Shaji
For the Respondents: Sri. Krishnanunni
Decisions made by the majority of a society bind all members, and individual minority members lack standing to challenge such decisions.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 23 Rule 3B - Members of a society - Necessary parties to the suit - Settlement reached between parties - Duty of Court to ensure notice to interested parties - Court held that majority decisions of the society bind all its members and minority members cannot challenge. (Paras 25, 27)
(B) Legal Representation - Legal entity - A registered society can sue or be sued in its name - Members lose individuality in affairs of the society. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a suit against the Yogam for repayment of a loan, which was dismissed. An appeal was then filed challenging this dismissal. The parties later settled the claim during mediation.
Findings of Court:
The court found no necessity for the petitioners' involvement as they are represented through the Yogam.
Issues: Whether petitioners are necessary parties and if the court must notify all members before approving settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: Majority decisions bind members of a society; thus, individual members cannot dispute decisions made at general body meetings. The argument for equitable treatment contended that only a minority challenging cannot negate majority decisions.
Result: Applications dismissed; parties given a month to formalize the settlement details.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant filed suit against the yogam for loan repayment, dismissed at lower court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. settlement reached during mediation with payment terms agreed upon. (Para 5 , 6 , 26) |
| 3. conflict over membership and necessity of additional parties arises. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. the yogam's decision binding on all members, upholding majority rule. (Para 11 , 25) |
| 5. court granting time for confirmation of settlement details. (Para 27 , 28) |
1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 864 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur challenging the judgment of that Court dismissing the suit filed by him.
2. The appellant is a member of the Sreenarayana Bhaktha Paripalana Yogam (hereinafter referred to as the 'Yogam'). He filed the suit claiming an amount of Rs.1,25,000,00/- from the Yogam. The case of the appellant / plaintiff in the suit is that he gave the aforesaid amount to the Yogam as a loan and that the Secretary and the President of the Yogam executed Ext.A1 document agreeing to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. He filed the suit when the Yogam refused to repay the amount inspite of the demand made by him for return of the money.
3. There are two defendants in the suit. The first defendant is the Yogam represented by its President and the second defendant is also the Yogam represented by its Secretary. They filed written statement in the suit denying any financial transaction between the plaintiff and the Yogam and also denying execution of any document by them in favour of the plaintiff. They alleged that the former office - bearers of the Yogam had forged documents and falsified the accounts of the Yogam to help the plaintiff.
4. The lower Court framed necessary issues in the suit. During the trial of the suit, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 and A2 documents were marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B30 documents were marked on the side of the defendants. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, the lower Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his plea that he had advanced loan to the Yogam and therefore, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
5. When the appeal came up for hearing before this Court, the dispute between the parties was referred to mediation. During the course of mediation, the parties have reached a settlement and they have executed a memorandum of settlement dated 21/11/2017. As per the settlement arrived at between the parties, respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal (the defendants in the suit) have agreed that an amount of Rs.1,58,000,00/- would be paid to the appellant in full and final settlement of the claim. The memorandum of settlement is signed by the appellant / plaintiff and also the present President and Secretary of the Yogam and it also bears the seal of the Yogam.
6. Meanwhile, an application was filed as I.A. No. 1317 of 2017 on 12/07/2017 by five members of the Yogam (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') to implead them as respondents in the appeal. On 27/11/2017, these five persons have filed another application as I.A. No. 2209 of 2017 with a prayer that the Court may give notice to the members of the Yogam and afford them opportunity to participate in the settlement proceedings.
7. The first petitioner in I.A. Nos. 1317 of 2017 and 2209 of 2017 has sworn to the affidavit filed along with these applications. The averments in these two affidavits are more or less the same and they are as follows: The petitioners are members of the Yogam. The present office - bearers of the Yogam have colluded with the appellant and they have taken steps to defeat the appeal against the interest of the Yogam. During the election held in October, 2016 a panel of 15 members was formed under the chairmanship of the appellant and the present President and Secretary were candidates of that panel who contested the election. In th
