P AZHAGUMANI Vs. C PERUMAL MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the Second Appeal, plaintiffs in O.S. 330 of 1991, on the file of Sub Court, Trichy, are the appellants.

(2.) SUIT filed by them was to declare that the election conducted on 11.11.1990 for the election of Executive Committee Members of ninth defendant-Society, is illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires and for consequential permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 8 from functioning as Executive Committee and also as ordinary members of ninth defendant-Society, (ii) for declaring that the amended bye-laws dated 25.9.1989 of 9th defendant-Society as unconstitutional and ultra vires and are against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, and consequently for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to the amended bye-laws of the 9th defendant-Society, dated 25.9.1989; (iii) for declaring that all the resolutions passed by the Executive Committee and the General Body of the 9th defendant-Society which run repugnant to the resolution dated 29.7.1990 passed in the General Body meeting as unconstitutional and ultra vires as they were passed against various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder and the bye-laws of the 9th defendant-Society, (iv) for a mandatory injunction directing 9th defendant-Society to admit all the eligible candidates as Members of 9th defendant-Society on payment of prescribed fees and as per the original bye-laws of the Society, conduct fresh election for electing the Executive Members of 9th defendant-Society; (v) order appointing an impartial and eligible candidate as Receiver or Special Officer to take charge of the 9th defendant-Society for the purpose of admitting the eligible candidates as members of 9th defendant-Society and conduct an Election for the Executive Committee Membership; (vi) for directing the defendants to pay plaintiffs the cost of suit; and (vii) also for passing other reliefs that are necessary.

(3.) THE matter was taken on appeal by defendants 1 to 10 as A.S. No. 139 of 1993, on the file of District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. Plaintiffs also filed a cross-appeal against that portion of the decree which refused the relief of mandatory injunction. THE lower Appellate Court also confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the Executive Committee cannot go beyond the decision of the general body meeting dated 29.7.1990 and without admitting new members, election cannot be had. It also came to the conclusion that the alleged request of 75 members evidenced by Ex. B-1 is not valid. It held that there is an interpolation in Ex. B-1 and the contention of defendants that the admission of new members is suspended on the basis of their requisition, cannot be accepted. It was further found that the general body meeting alleged to have been held on 23.9.1990 is invalid, since no notice was given to the members, and the amendment of bye-laws was not a matter in the agenda for being discussed, and that is also invalid. After holding so, the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that since the Executive Committee cannot function beyond three years, the election must be held to be valid, and, therefore, the declaration granted by the trial Court was set aside. THE appeal was allowed with the modification. It is the said decision of the lower Appellate Court that is challenged in this Second Appeal by plaintiffs, on the following substantial questions of laws:-