MUDDAPPA Vs. PANCHAKSHARAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal is by the defendant in O. S. No. 2107/1980 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, directed against the decree dated 30-6-1982 decreeing the suit brought by the plaintiff as prayed for.

(2.) The plaintiff-society called the Jayanagar Parents Association (hereinafter called the 'Society') is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short the 'Act'). The suit is filed by the society through its President S. M. Panchaksharaiah against the defendant for a declaration that the defendant cannot call a meeting of the general body of the Society as stated in the notice dated 8-4-1977 and any such action taken pursuant thereto is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from conducting a meeting of the general body, electing an Executive Committee, collecting any funds in any manner on behalf of the society from the parents, students and the members of the society and spending any amount for the proposed expenses of the society.

(3.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as follows : The plaintiff-society was registered under the provisions of the Act on 19-6-1974. Under the Memorandum of Association and the Rules and Regulations of the society, provision is made for constituting an Executive Committee consisting in all 17 members including the office-bearers such as a President, two Vice-Presidents, a Secretary, a Joint Secretary, a Treasurer and a Committee Auditor. The power of the office-bearers are defined in the Rules and Regulations. The source of income for the society is from the membership fee, donations, aids, grants and subscription from the members of the public, Government and the local bodies. The society is running a nursery and Primary school in Jayanagar IV 'T' Block and IX Block. The fees collected from the students the various heads also form under the finance of the society. The present Executive Committee comprises of five founder-members and the other members were later co-opted. One S. R. Swamy was the first Secretary of the Society. He was removed from the office of the Secretary by the Executive Committee at its meeting dated 2-1-1977 on the ground of misconduct. In his place, the defendant was appointed as the Secretary. It was hoped that the defendant who had been appointed as the new Secretary would improve the affairs of the society. It was however noticed that he had joined hands with the previous Secretary. The defendant was required to take accounts from the previous Secretary and place the same before the one Man Committee as per a -Resolution passed by the Executive Committee. Further he was also required to make a report to the Executive Committee about the Irregularities in the appointment of teachers made by the previous Secretary. The defendant did not carry out any of these directions of the committee. In these circumstances and also in view of the defendant having indulged in acts of criminal intimidation against the President on the midnight of 11-4-1977 and again at 4 p. m. on 12-4-1977 which was after the President issued a notice proposing to convene the Meeting of the Executive Committee on 12-4-1977, the defendant was removed from the office of the Secretary as per the resolution passed by the Executive Committee at its meeting held on 12-4-19977. One Chandrasekharaiah a former President of the Society and S. R. Swamy, a former Secretary and one of the then Vice-Presidents were also removed from the Executive Committee as they were acting in concert with the defendant. The defendant was informed of his removal from the office of the Secretary by a registered notice and also by a letter sent by Certificate of Posting. Besides, a press statement was also issued in that regard. The defendant having realised that he was in trouble, issued a notice purporting to be one to convene the first Annual General Body Meeting of the Society on 8-5-1977 antedating the notice as 8-4-1977 to make it appear that it was issued prior t o the Executive Committee Meeting held on 12-4-1977 at which he was removed from the post of the Secretary. One of the business to be transacted at the general body meeting as per the notice was the election of 17 members of the Executive Committee. It was learnt that the defendant, in the meanwhile, had managed to enrol some persons as members of the society in order to get himself elected as the Secretary and also to get the other members of the Executive Committee elected of men of his choice. The defendant has no power to convene a general body meeting as the powers of the Secretary are very much circumscribed by the rules and regulations of the society. He should work as per the difections of the President. He did not do so. On the other hand, ignoring the President, the defendant had been at pains to summon the general body meeting. Only the Executive Committee could convene the general body meeting. However, the defendant keeping the executive committee wholly in dark about convening of the proposed general body meeting, took action by himself to convene the general body meeting. Besides, the notice issued by him purported to convene the first general body meeting of the society. The first general body meeting of the society, according to Section 11(2) of the Act should have been convened within 18 months of the registration of the society. The accounts of the society having not been placed before the Executive Committee, there was no point in calling the first general body meeting on 8-5-1977 long after 18 months of the registration of the society. The present Secretary A. S. Nagabhushana Rao has given a written representation to the Registrar of Societies to appoint an enquiry officer to go into the affairs of the society. The attempt on the part of the defendant to summon a meeting is to create further confusion. If the meeting is allowed to be held and the defendant is permitted to have his own way in having the new Executive Committee elected and getting himself appointed as Secretary, the activities of the society will be seriously affected and brought to an abrupt stand-still. There was mismanagement and misappropriation of the funds of the society and which would be further depleted. In these circumstances, the plaintiff brought the suit