SAJJAN K SANYASI Vs. PADMAVATHI MONTESSORI SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal Is by defendants 1 to 9 directed against the dtcree dt. 23-4-1983 passed by the III Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City In O.S. No. 935/1981 decreeing the suit brought by the plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 6 in this appeal) and granting the relief of declaration that the committee alleged to have been constituted on 8-3-1981 by defendants 1 to 9 Is Illegal, -unconstitutional and opposed to the rules and regulations governing the 1st plaintlffschool and permanent in junction restraining defendants 1 to 9 or their agents from Interfering In any manner In the management of the said school by the Committee headed by the plaintiffs 2 and 3 as President and Secretary respectively and a direction to the 10th defendantbak (7th respondent herein) to allow plaintiffs 2 and 3 to operate the Institution account bearing No. S.B. 1822.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint Is as follows ; The 1st plaintiff Padmavathi Montessori School was started about 18 years ago. It is an educational institution (for short the'institution') registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The main object of the institution was to establish educational institutions in the State of Karnataka open to all communities to Impart education and other connected purposes. The institution is governed by its own Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations. Under the rules and regulations, general body meeting of the institution shall be held once In a year. A general body meeting was held on 21-12-1980 at which the 2nd plaintiff was elected as the President, the 1st defendant as the Vice President, the 3rd plaintiff as Secretary-cum-Treasurer and plaintiffs 4 and 5, defendants 3 and 4 and one "Viswanath were elected as members of the Managing Committee. The Committee thus constituted took charge of the management of the Institution and has been functioning smoothly since then. The fact of constituting the committee was intimated to the Assistant Educational Officer. After the Committee took over the affairs of the Institution, the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs have started operating the institution account with the 10th defendant. The staff members and other employees of the institution were paid their salaries etc. regularly. Examination for the students of the Institution was being conducted regularly. When the Institution was so functioning, deiendants 1 to 9 with a view to take control of the management of the Institution, intimated the '0th defendant not to allow plaintiffs 2 and 3 to operate the institution account, alleging that there were disputes between the members of the Institution. Some of the deJendants appeared to have submitted a complaint to the Assistant Educational Officer, Southern Range, Bangalore. Acting upon such a complaint, the Assistant Educational Officer wrote a letter dt. 28-2-1951 to the institution to set right certain alleged Irregularities. Such of those alleged irregularities pointed out In the letter w. re complied with. While the management of the institution and was thus being carried on, the 2nd and the 3rd plaintiff received a letter dt. 10 3-1981 from the 1st defendant stating that as per the direction of the Assistant Educational Officer, he convened an emergency general body meeting on 8-3-1981 at which a new Managing Committee was constituted with defendant-1 as President, defendant-2 as Vice-Presldent, defendant-8 as Secretary, defendant-9 as Treasurer and defendants 3 to 7 as members of the Committee and further calling upon plaintiffs 2 and 3 to hand over all the documents of the institution. Some of the defendants who were members of the previous commlttee acted adverse to the Interest of the Institution by joining hands with other defendants in forming the latter Committee The action on the part of the defendants is high handed and Illegal. Emergency meeting of the general body could not be convened In the manner stated by the 1st defendant In his letter. The procedure adopted for convening such a meeting is unknown to law and the committee constituted at such a meeting has no existence in the eye of law. Under the rules and regulations, no person other than the Secretary could convene an emergency meeting for transacting any of the business of the institution. The President is the chief controlling authority of the institution and the Secretary is the Chief Executive Offilcer who alone are competent to convene any meeting of the general body. Any general body meeting not being so convened has no validity and the members of the committee alleged to have been elected at such a meeting cannot in any manner represent the Institution. No notice of the meeting had been served on the plaintiffs or other members of the Institution as required under law. The required number of days' notice for convening the emergency general body meeting was also not given. The Assistant Educational Officer had not Issued any direction to the 1st defendant to convenue general body meeting nor has he got power to do so. Defendants 1 to 9 have conspired together with a view to prevent the smooth running of the management of the Institution by the former committee, and are puttlng-rorth all kinds of obstructions On a complaint made by some of the defendants, the 10th defendant has also prevented the plaintiffs 2 and 3 from operating the Institution's account. The salaries of the staff and" other employees for the month of February 1981 was paid by the 2nd plaintiff from his pocket In order to avoid inconvenience to the staff members. The 10th defendant has no right to prevent plaintiffs 2 and 3 from operating the account on. the complaint of unauthorised persons On these grounds, the plaintiffs brought the suit for a declaration that constitution of the later Committee is illegal, unconstitutional and for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 9 or their agents from Interfering in any manner in the management of the institution by the earlier committee headed by plaintiffs 2 and 3 as President and Secretary respectively and for a mandatory injunction or direction to the 10th defendant to allow plaintiffs 2 and 3 to operate the institution account opened with the 10th defendant and for such other incidental reliefs.

(3.) Defendants 2 to 9 have resisted the suit by filing a joint written statement. Defendant - I adopted the written statement of defendants 2 to 9. In their statement, the defendants 1 to 9 contended that on the date of the suit, plaintlff-3 was not the Secretary of the institution and therefore,-not competent to represent the 'institution' in the suit Similarly, plaintlff-2 was not the President of the Institution and like-wise plaintiff 4 to 6 were not the members of the Managing Committee Thus, they contended that plaintiffs 2 to 6 have no locus standl to Institute or conduct the suit or to question the validity of the constitution of the governing body at the general body meeting held on 8-1-1981. Defendants 1 to 9 constituted the lawful governing Council and Managing Committee of the 1st plaintiff Institution and they are in lawful management. They further say that a general body meeting was held on 21-12-1980 for election of the office-bearers, but no validty elected body of the officebearers came into existence as the third plaintiff got himself planted illegally as Secretary-cum Treasurer of the institution at the alleged election held, which is contrary to the rules and regulations of the institution. The rules and regulations do not contemplate an elected Secretary but only an ex-officio secretary to be co-opted to the governing Council. The ex-officio Secretary has been invariably the Principal or the institution. The rules and regulations also do not contemplate election of the treasurer and the treasurer also all along has been a non-elected person. The alleged committee said to have come Into existence on 21-12-1980 has no legal or lawful existence at all. Even If an election as alleged was held, a list of the members of the committee said to have been elected at the said meeting has not been filed with the Registrar of Societies within I4days from the date of the alleged election as required under S. 13 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and no such list has been forwarded to the Assistant Educational Officer as required under the Grant-in-Aid Code. Plaintiffs 2 to 6 were defaulters in payment of the membership fee as on the date of the alleged election and as sueh they were disqualified to seek election to the governing body under the rules and regulations- Thus, the constitution of the Managing Committee on 21-12-1980 was unlawful and bad in law. Defendant No. 9 was appointed as the treasurer by the general body on 21-12-1980 and he was operating the Institution account with defendant-10. Later, plaintiffs 2 and 3. In collusion with each other attempted to by-pass defendant-9 and operate the account by themselves which was objected to by defendant-10. Then, plalntlff-3 produced a false document purported to have been signed by the members of the general body wherein many of the signatures were forged. At this, defendant 10 suspected the bona fides of plaintiff-.3 and did not accept the document. Thereafter, on the representation made by defendants-1, 8 and 9, the 10th defendant-bank did not permit plaintiffs 2 and 3 to operate the bank account of the institution. In fact, defendants 1 and 9 are the lawfully elected members of the Managing Committee on 8-3-1981 with full knowledge of the plaintiffs and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. The Asst. Educational Officer did issue direction to defendant-1 to conduct the general body meeting and the direction Issued by him was not invalid. They denied all other averments made In the plaint. Finally, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.