SANKARANARAYANAN Vs. KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Nattika Firka Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd., the 2nd respondent, and a shareholder of the bank, the 1st respondent, filed a suit against the defendants, the appellants, for a declaration that the resolution of the general body of the bank dated 10th January 1953 was ultra vires and also for the return of a sum of Rs. 11,765 paid to the first appellant. The lower court decreed the suit and defendants 1 to 7 and 10 have filed the appeal. The 1st defendant was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the bank, defendants 2 to 7 the other Directors and the 10th defendant was the President of the Sree Rama College Committee. The 12th defendant was the Special Officer of the bank; and he is now replaced by the present President of the Board of Directors, whom we have impleaded in the appeal as an additional respondent.

(2.) The learned Advocate General, on behalf of the appellants, has raised four contentions before us. The less important of them are that the 1st plaintiff was only a shareholder of the bank and therefore he could not have brought the suit on behalf of the bank; and that he was precluded from questioning the validity of the resolution, because he also attended the general body meeting at which the resolution was passed. The two more important objections are that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because of S.51 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act; and that the resolution dated 10th January 1953 was valid, because the Government sanctioned the payment under the resolution by their order, Ex. D 4. The learned Advocate General has raised yet another contention; and that is that the question involved is one covered by the doctrine of cypress, the principle of applying the money to some object as near as possible to the one specified, when this has become impracticable. We may straightaway point out that the last contention has not been raised till the stage of arguments in the appeal. If the contention is allowed to be raised at this stage, it is evident that fresh pleadings and fresh evidence will also have to be allowed. Therefore, we disallow this plea.

(3.) Now we shall dispose of the two minor contentions. The question involved in the suit relates to the validity of the resolution passed by the general body of the bank. There is no force in the argument that a member, who was present at the general body meeting, cannot question the validity of the resolution. It may also be noted that the 2nd plaintiff is the bank itself; and that what the 1st plaintiff has prayed is that a decree be passed in favour of the bank. Therefore, both these contentions have to be rejected.