NAROTAM PRASAD Vs. PREMALABAI CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In May, 1956 All India Deaf and Dumb Society was registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. Plaintiffs 3 to 5 have alleged themselves to be the ordinary members of the Society whereas plaintiff No. 2 is alleged to be the treasurer. Plaintiff No.l claims himself to be the Vice President of the Society. On 24th January, 1993 a meeting of the General Body of the Society was held, when the office bearers of the Society were elected. It appears that besides the seven elected members of the Executive Committee five additional members were nominated to the Executive Committee by the President of the Society. This nomination was alleged to be ultra vires the powers of the President as well as memorandum of the Association of the Society and plaintiffs 1 & 2 in spite of their being the office bearers of the Society were not being allowed entry in the Society premises nor letters were being accepted from the members and consequently they had to mail the letters to the office of the Society under registered post. It is alleged that there had been irregularities in the functioning of the Society and the defendants in order to scuttle the voice of the deaf and dumb members had illegally deprived them of their membership by not allowing entry to them into the premises of the Society. These acts of the defendants were alleged to be illegal. The present suit, therefore, has been filed for a declaration that memorandum of the Association and bye-laws of the Society were those which were registered on 11th May, 1956 and that only the ordinary and life members of the Society had right to vote and elect the Executive Committee. It has also been prayed in the plaint that a declaration be given to the effect that the President has no power to nominate the members of the Executive Committee of the Society and to direct the defendants to hold the meeting of the Executive Committee to manage the affairs of the Society. Certain other reliefs have also been claimed in the plaint.

(2.) . Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule I and 2 Civil Procedure Code was filed for restraining the defendants I and 2 from operating the bank account of the Society. Another application being IA..No-328/95 was filed by the plaintiffs on 11th January, 1995 for appointment of a receiver to take charge and manage the affair of the Society on the ground that the defendants had been misutilising the funds of the Society. An ex-parte order was passed on January 13,1994 whereby defendant No. I was restrained from operating the Bank account without the signatures of plaintiff No. 2 i.e. the treasurer of the Society. This order was passed presuming the averments of the plaintiff No. 2 to be correct that he was treasurer of the Society and he was not allowed to operate the Bank account.

(3.) . The defendants I and 2 after service filed the written statement and denied the allegations of the plaintiffs made in the plaint. It has been stated in the written statement that plaintiffs 1 to 4 had been removed from the membership of the Society w.e.f. 28th September, 1993 and they had therefore no locus standi to file the suit. It was further stated that the plaintiffs having not challenged the termination of their memberships, were not entitled to any relief in the suit. As far as the memorandum of Association and bye-laws of the Society are concerned, the stand of the defendants is that certain amendments were proposed in the memorandum of Association of the Society which were duly approved by the General Body meeting in 1985 and the plaintiffs had availed benefits from the Society on the basis of the said amendments. Moreover, the plaintiffs are also stated to be signatories to the said amendments. These amendments were duly confirmed by the General Body in its meeting held on 6th April, 1986. It is further stated that as an objection had been raised by the plaintiffs and some other members of the Society about the nomination of certain members by the President in 1993, fresh elections were held on January 2, 1994 to elect all the office bearers. In the meeting held on January 2, 1994 Mr. Padam Kumar Nagar was stated to have been elected as Treasurer of the Society and the plaintiff No. 2, therefore, according to the defendants, had ceased January 2,1994. Plaintiff No. I was not even a member according to the defendants on 2nd January, 1994 when the election was held and it was Ms. Malti Saxena who was elected Vice-President in the elections held on 2nd January, 1994. The contention of the defendants therefore, is that as neither the election held on 2nd January, 1994 nor the expulsion/termination of the plaintiffs by the Society with effect from 28th September, 1993 has been challenged in the present suit, the suit is not maintainable.