M DHANASEKARAPANDIAN Vs. NADAR MAHAJANA SANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to the above two writ petitions and the civil miscellaneous appeal are as follows:

(2.) THE parties are referred to with reference to their rank and status in O. S. No. 417 of 1996. THE first plaintiff therein is a society registered under the Central Act 21 of 1860 and later under the Tamil nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). THE life members of the Nadar Mahajana Sangam are the members of the first plain-tiffsociety. THEre is a College called S. Vellaichamay Nadar College established by the Nadar Mahajana Sangam in the year 1965. THE College offers under Graduate, Post Graduate And Research Courses for both boys and girls and has a teaching strength of 90 members and non-teaching staff of about 2000 members. THE administration of the College is under the control of the first plaintiff society. THE society has to elect a Managing Board, comprising of the president, Vice President, Secretary, Correspondent and the Treasurer plus 40 members to constitute the Managing Board. It is stated that the annual income from all sources in respect of college itself runs to several crores. That, probably, is the reason for the parties vying with one another to become the members of the Managing Board and the consequent fight for membership. THE period of office of the Managing Board is two years from the date of election. THE defendants 1 to 4 were elected as the office bearers and their period of office came to an end on 31. 3. 1996. Under the bye-laws of the Society, the general Body of the first plaintiff Society should be convened in December, 1995 for electing a new set of office bearers for the period from 1. 4. 1996 to 31. 3. 1998. THEre is a dispute between the parties regarding the date of convening of the General Body Meeting and the manner in which the General Body meeting was convened. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were delaying the election because they were not confident of being re-elected.

(3.) WE have heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel mr. K. Alagiriswamy for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and the appellants in C. M. A. No. 843 of 19% and the arguments of Mr. T. R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/newly elected office bearers. The first and foremost argument of Mr. K. Alagiriswamy regarding the correctness of the order made in LA. No. 292 of 1996 appeals to us and we agree with the learned Senior Counsel that the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai had exceeded his jurisdiction in going beyond the scope of the LA. No. 291 of 1996, while passing the order, dated 1. 7. 1996. While the application is for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants in the suit from interfering with the administration and management by the plaintiffs (newly elected office bearers), it was the duty of the trial judge to try the suit and decide as to whether the election was conducted properly on 9. 6. 1996 and whether in fact, the plaintiffs had been elected in a duly conducted meeting. Without doing so, the learned subordinate Judge has purported to delegate the said function to the District registrar on the ground that his earlier order in the letter, dated 19. 6. 1996, accepting Form No. VII was contrary to the decision of this Court in arivanandapandian, K. and another v. Nadar Mahajan Sangam and 3 others, (1994)2 l. W. 584. In other words, the trial court has delegated its essential functions i. e. , adjudicatory functions to the Deputy Registrar, by directing him to hold an enquiry on the genuineness of the meeting held on 9. 6. 1996. In our firm opinion, it was the duty of the trial court to adju- dicate whether in fact a meeting was held on 9. 6. 1996, and whether the plaintiffs had been duly elected as office bearers. If the plaintiffs had not approached the civil court and if a writ petition had been filed challenging the acceptance of Form No. 7 and the said letter, dated 19. 6. 1996, may be, the High Court could have passed such an order, directing the Deputy Registrar to hold an enquiry based on the judgment cited above. When once a suit is filed it is the duty of the civil court to adjudicate the question by analysing the evidence let in by both sides. This judicial function of the civil court cannot be delegated by the trial court to the District Registrar. Therefore, we are clearly of the opinion that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in LA. No. 292 of 1996 is vitiated to the extent that he directed the District Registrar to hold an enquiry. In this connection, reference may be usefully made to the judgment of the Supreme court in Swetambar Sthanakwasi Jain Samiti v. Alleged Committee of Management, (1996)3 S. C. C. 11.