THIRUNAGESWARAM HANDLOOM TEXTILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Vs. T.P. KUPPUSAMY MUDALIAR AND SONS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant before the courts below has come forward with this second appeal. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to declare that they are entitled to have three separate memberships in the defendant's association and for an injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiffs from participating in the proceedings of the association, which was allowed by the trial court and the appeal preferred by the defendant before the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, was dismissed, hence this second appeal. The facts of the case are that originally the plaintiff was a member of the defendant's association. The defendant's association by resolution decided to enrol individuals/partners from the respective firms which were already members of the defendant's association instead of the firms. The plaintiffs have sent representations, exhibit A-3, dated May 29, 1982, calling upon the defendant's association to give membership to all the three partners. The amount sent by money order, exhibit A-5 towards subscription was also returned. The plaintiffs have issued a legal notice dated July 19, 1982, exhibit A-6 and another letter dated Dec. 14, 1982, exhibit A-10 to the defendant seeking to furnish the copy of the bye-law, but their request was rejected, hence the suit.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to maintain the suit by the firm, when the right involved in the suit relates to individual partners. The defendant's association has resolved in its general body meeting held on Feb. 5, 1982, exhibit B-1 to do away with the membership of firms in the association and that only the senior persons of such firm should be permitted to become members in the place of the firms. In terms of the said resolution, one of the senior partners of the plaintiff's concern namely Ganesan was admitted as a member, who was later suspended from the association under bye-law 23 by the general body on Oct. 17, 1982. It is also contended by the defendant that the right of admission of the members is purely discretionary and it cannot be interfered with.

(3.) Before the trial court, the second plaintiff examined himself as P.W.-1 and marked exhibits A-1 to A-10 and the defendant has examined the president of the association namely, Kumarasamy as D.W.-1 and marked exhibits B-1 and B-2, dated Feb. 5, 1982 and Jan. 2, 1982, resolutions passed by the association. After consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court held that suspension of the said Ganesan was not valid as no evidence was let in to justify the same, that the association removed the membership of the firms and admitted partners of each and every firm as members of the association as such it ought to have admitted all the three partners of the plaintiffs as individual members, which right was denied by the defendant's association without assigning any valid reason; that the suit filed by the plaintiffs under Order 30 of the Civil Procedure Code is valid; that arraying the plaintiffs firm as a party to the suit is valid and that the contention of the defendant that senior members of each and every firm alone be admitted as a partner was contrary to exhibit B-1. Ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the decree and judgement passed by the trial court, the defendant has preferred an appeal before the Sub-Court, Poonamallee. The first appellate court has confirmed the decree and judgement passed by the trial court, hence this second appeal.