M. SUBBARAYAPPA Vs. MYSORE STATE VANHIKULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the appellants and the Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The appellants were the plaintiffs before the trial court. Respondents 2 to 9 are said to be the erstwhile members of Defendant no.1, who have formed themselves into a trust by the name and style of the Karnataka State Vanhikula Kshathriya (Thigalara) Hostel and Kalyana Mantapa. It is an admitted fact that defendant no.1, the respondent no.1 herein, namely, the Mysore State Vanhikula Kshathriya (Thigalara) Sangha, was a Society registered under the Mysore Societies Registration Act, 1904 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'MSR Act', for brevity), in the year 1924. The objects of the Society was to provide and promote educational facilities to the students of Vanhikula community and to construct a hostel for the students of that community. The plaintiffs claimed that along with other defendants, they were members of the said Society and a site in land bearing survey no.9/1 of Agrahara Thimmasandra, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore Taluk, was purchased in the year 1931 and funds were collected for the purpose of construction of a students' hostel. In addition to the above, one Shri Ramaiah had donated land near Motor Industries Company Limited, Bangalore, for the purpose of construction of a hostel.

(3.) Shri Padubidri Mohan Rao would, on the face of it, point out that it is not in serious dispute that defendant no.1 was a Society. It was never dissolved in accordance with law and hence, the admitted circumstance that defendants 2 to 9 had formed a Trust and had taken over the assets of the Society is patently illegal and hence, the court below has not at all addressed this admitted circumstance. Therefore, the observation that the plaintiffs should go before the Registrar and seek an inquiry is also without reference to Section 25 of the KSR Act, which empowers the Registrar, on his own motion, as also on the application of the majority of the members of the governing body or of not less than one-third of the members of the Society, to initiate an inquiry. In which event, it is not ensured that there would be an inquiry even if the appellants should approach the Registrar. Hence, the learned Counsel would submit that it is only the civil court, which would have to decide on this aspect of the matter insofar as the illegal acts committed by defendants 2 to 9 in usurping the assets of the Society and seeks appropriate reliefs.