SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SAMAJAM Vs. MOHANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in a suit for declaration and injunction are the appellants in R.S.A. No.1003 of 2004 and the original respondent in the R.S.A. is the plaintiff in the suit. Respondents 2, 3, and 4 in R.S.A. No.1003 of 2004 are parties who have been impleaded subsequent to the filing of the Second Appeal on the basis of I.A.Nos. 1925, 1981 and 1963 of 2004. The Trial Court decreed the suit in part. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Court. The District Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in full. R.S.A. 1003 of 2004 is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Court. Additional respondents 2 to 4 in this appeal support the appellants. Even though the Courts below have narrated the rival pleadings very elaborately, I am also referring to the pleadings in brief. The parties will be referred to by their status and ranks before the Trial Court.

(2.) According to the plaintiff he is a member of Sree Narayana Dharma Samajam, a society registered under T.C.Act 12 of 1955 which functions at Ayyappankavu within the limits of Kochi Corporation. The defendants in the suit are the President and Secretary of the said society (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samajam'). The affairs of the Samajam are being conducted on the basis of Ext.A I byelaws. The Samajam has 561 members. Under C1.20(f) of Ext.Al members shall be given 7 days clear notice on ordinary general body meetings. The defendants published a notice on 25.3.1999 to the effect that a general body of the Samajam will be convened at 10 A.M. on 4.4.1999. The plaintiff received the notice only on 1.4.1999. Many other members received this notice later still. The action of the defendants is in gross violation of C1.20(f) of the byelaws. Important items such as admitting new members into the Samajam, purchase of a new bus for the Samajam school and appointment of a Manager for the school were on the agenda. To 115 members notices were sent by post.. Those members are yet to receive the notices. The intention of the defendants was to prevent members who are opposed to them from participating in the meeting so that they can take decisions unilaterally. Realising the above intention, the plaintiff and 81 members submitted on 2.4.1999 itself a memorandum seeking postponement of the meeting scheduled for 4.5.1999. The defendants did not agree even to consider the memorandum. Hence the suit for injunction restraining the conduct of the meeting and for a declaration that in the event of the meeting being held the decisions to be taken are invalid and for a further declaration that in future also meetings shall not be held in violation of C1.20(f) of the byelaws.

(3.) Defendants contended that the plaintiff is no longer a member of the Samajam since he indulged in activities which were contrary to the interest of the Samajam. The Working Committee of the Samajam on 22.4.1999 suspended him from the primary membership of the Samajam and therefore he is not a member of the Samajam. Plaintiff had previously filed a suit O.S.No.690 of 1999 and sought for injunction. The Court rejected the said suit. He is not entitled to question the decisions of the General Body of the Samajam since he is no longer a member of the Samajam. Plaintiff's averment that he received the notice only on 1.4.1999 is not true. Plaintiff is a person who participated in the meeting. The decisions taken in the meeting are not liable to be invalidated on the only reason that a few persons did not have seven days' notice in the matter of the meeting. The decisions taken by the General Body on 4.4.1999 are decisions which are liable to be implemented and many of those decisions have already been implemented.