VELAYUDHA KURUP Vs. DY TAHSILDAR RR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants who are seven in number, are the members of the Nandaivanam Charitable Society, Nagaroor Alatharamoodu, Thiruvananthapuram District, and the society itself was one registered under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (Act XII of 1955) (the learned Single Judge appears to have wrongly mentioned the society as a cooperative society coming under the Cooperative Societies Act, in his common judgment). It is now not in dispute that the seven appellants signed a bond in favour of the Khadi Board agreeing to repay the monies borrowed from the Khadi Board for the purpose of the said society. In the bond, a copy of which was placed before us by learned counsel for the appellant, the borrower in preamble is shown as the society, but towards the end of the document all the appellants have also signed agreeing to repay the monies and also agreeing that in case of default, the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act can be straightaway enforced against them. On the ground that there was default, a demand was issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, as per Ext. P2, under S.33 of the Act. Then the appellants submitted Ext. P3 dated 16-10-1989 to the Minister for Revenue, but of no effect. Thereafter, Ext. P4 was issued to the first appellant under S.7 of the Revenue Recovery Act. The main question argued before the learned single Judge was as to whether the appellants who were the then directors of the society were liable, even if they are now not the Directors. According to counsel for the appellants, the appellants, even when they were directors, were not the borrowers, and at any rate, when they ceased to be directors, the bond is not enforceable against them. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

(2.) In this appeal, the first contention that is raised before us is that the appellants were not borrowers. We may here point out that from the bond, a copy of which is placed before us the following appears in Schedule IV:

(3.) It is true that the opening part of the bond refers to the society as borrowers. But in our view, a reading of the entire bond and in particular Clause.17-A and the concluding part of it clearly establishes that all the appellants were co-obligers under the bond. Therefore all of them are liable.