KARUA TALUK EX TAPPERS ASSOCIATION Vs. RAMASWAMI NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raised out of a suit filed by the appellant for recovery of possession of the plaint property and to call upon defendant 1 and 2 (respondents 1 and 2) to render a true and proper account of the Karur Taluk Ex Tappers Association from 1942 till the date of suit, directing them to pay the amount that may be found due, and also for future profits from the suit property.

(2.) THE short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows. The plaintiff association has been duly registered under the Societies Registration act, Prior to the introduction of prohibition the aforesaid association was working under the name and style of Karur Taluk Tappers Union and it was registered under the Trade Unions Act of 1926. The Union had a membership of more than 2000 members and respondents 1 and 2 herein. President and Treasurer respectively, were collecting subscription from the various members. In the course of the management of the Union, the property in question was purchased in the names of the first respondent and the secretary and subsequently a terraced building was built of it. The first respondent is occupying the main portion of this property and the second respondent is occupying another portion. There are thatched houses in the property which are in the possession of respondents 3 to 5 who are paying a monthly rent to respondents 1 and 2. After the introduction of prohibition this Union became ineffective and there were no activities. Therefore, the members were not taking any interest in the activities of the Union. Taking advantage of this situation the first respondent continued to be in possession of the suit property. It was for the first time that on 6-8-1958 the members of the karur Taluk Ex-tappers Association decide to recover the property from first respondent and on that date under the auspices of the Karur Taluk Tappears Union a general body meeting was held wherein the Association was renamed as Karur taluk Ex-Tappers Association and office bearers were elected on that date. They passed a resolution authorising the Secretary to take steps for recovering the suit property. Hence the suit by the Secretary of the above said Association.

(3.) THE suit was registered by the first respondent contending that the plaintiff association is not entitled to recover the suit portion is not entitled to recover the suit property, not can they call upon him to render a true account in respect of the income from the property which belonged only to the Karur Taluk Tappers Union, that the Karur Taluk Tappers Union was a distinct body altogether, that there was no meeting held as alleged in the plaint that the property was not acquired with the funds of the Union or for the benefit of the Union, that the today contractors gave donations to him, with which he purchased the property for his own benefit, that taking advantage of the description and address of the first respondent in the sale deed and the incorrect averments made therein the present suit was filed, that he was not responsible for the maintenance of accounts nor the moneys of the Union, that the plaintiff has not been in possession within 12 years before the suit and that the suit was barred by limitation. The second respondent-second defendant filed a written statement to the effect that it is true that he was the treasurer of the Tappers Union and that the amounts collected were deposited by the Secretary in the banks in the joint names of himself and the Secretary and that the first respondent the President was in possession of all the accounts. In fact, he supported the case of the plaintiff Defendant 4 contends that he is a tenant and that he has no objection to surrender possession to whomsoever the court directs, Defendants 5 and 6 contend that they have vacated the property and they are not in possession and that they are not liable to pay any rent. On these pleadings the parties went to trial. The first court has held that the plaintiff association has title to the property and that the plaintiff is entitled to sue. Against the decision the first defendant preferred an appeal. But here he did not press the defence regarding the title to the suit property. He contended that the suit was not maintainable. He further contended that Karuppanna Nadar, who styled himself as the Secretary of the Association has no locus standi to maintain the suit. The lower appellate Court agreeing with these contentions dismissed the suit. The result is that the first defendant-first respondent has no title to the property and the property belongs to the Tappers Union. The lower appellate court is of the opinion that the plaintiff-appellant is not a successor-in-interest of the former Union and that the suit instituted on behalf of the appellant association to recover possession of the suit property which belonged to the dissolved Union is incompetent. Now, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.