T A GEORGES Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal calls for no judicial heroics to cope with the issues involved. it so happened that St. Sophias' Christian Education Society (here inafter called the Society) which was running a school in Kirti Nagar in the early seventies inducted in December 1983one Mr. M.M. Samuel as its member and within a few days of having done so, made him the Chairman of the School Managing Committee. However, before that the Society had been alloted four acres of and at Paschim Vihar for constructing and running a school thereon. No doubt a school duly recognised by the competent authorities is now running On that land but not perhaps without ripples. The reason is the legal battles being fought in the name of the Society in the corridors of the law courts. Fissures appeared in the year 1984 when Mr. Samuel was allegedly removed from the Chairmanship of the Managing Committee. Admittedly, despite this so-called removal, Mr. Samuel continued running and managing the school as its Chairman till February, 1988 when death removed him from the scene. His claim, it appears, was that the Society had elected a new Governing body sanctioning his cointinuance and that the so-called Governing body which took action against him was acting without any sanction of law, it having become defunct on account of its supersession by another duly elected body. The battle-lines were thus clearly drawn. The first salvo was fired in the form of Suit No. 101 Oof 1984 instituted by the present appellants seeking to restrain Mr. Samuel from interfering with the functioning of the society and an induction with regard to the premises. That suit is still pending but no ad-interim injunction has been granted so far. This was followed by Suit No.552 of 1984 against the Director of Eduction and C.B.S.E. seeking non-affiliation of the school being run by Mr. Samuel at Paschim Vihar. However, it appears that despite such efforts the school was upgraded upto. Senior Secondary level and the CBSE too granted affiliation. This was challenged through Writ Petition No.1744 of 1986 which was admittedly dismissed. Yet another suit filed by the appellants is 1346 of 1987 seeking to restrain the respondents from raising some construction at Paschim Vihar. As noticed above, Mr. Samuel died in February 1988. The following year saw the institution of yet another suit being number1610 of 1989.The ad-interim order passed in that case needs to be noticed. It was:

(2.) A few things clearly emerge out from the past of this case and they need to be emphasised before' striding ahead.. First, right from the day Mr. Samuel was appointed as the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the school in the year 1984 till his death in February 1988, it was he as the Chairman who was running and managing the school and was in physical possession of the land allotted to the school at Paschim Vihar and that at the time of the institution of the suit also it were the respondents who were in possession and who were managing the whole show. Yet another thing which I feel must be emphasised is that the stand of the respondents has all along been that they were the legally constituted managing Committee of the Society. In short there were and still are two separate managing Committees each claiming to the exclusion of the other, to be the duly and legally constituted body.

(3.) Time now to come to Suit No.2243 of 1992. Significantly in he plaint no reference was made to the pendency of suit Nos. 1010 of 1984, 1048 of 1984, 552 of 1984 and suit No.l346 of 1987.A reference was made to some efforts at reconciliation made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.L. Chaudhary of this court. There was no mention as to whether that exercise was made in some suit and was it an endeavour at personal level. No reference was made that in Suit No. 1OIO of 1984 an ad interim injunction with regard to the school at Paschim Vihar was sought but no relief had been granted. In fact nodi-tails of the pending cases was given. As already noticed, it was no where claimed specifically that the appellants who were plaintiffs in the suit were in actual physical possession of the premises or were running or managing the school. The fact that since 1984 only Mr. samuel and other respondents had been in actual physical possession of the premises was suppressed. The court was also not informed that since 1984 the respondents had been running and managing the school. It was also kept back from the court that there had been two parellel managing Committees and that the respondents also claimed to be a legally constituted managing Committee. The court was also kept in dark that on September 19, 1986 in Civil Writ No.l 744 of 1986 a Division Bench of this court had passed the following order: