RAM CHARAN AGARWALA Vs. SHRIDHAR MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four connected appeals are directed against the decree passed by our brother Oak in exercise of the original civil jurisdiction of this Court in three consolidated suits. The three suits relate to the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan which is a body registered under the Societies Registration Act (No. XXI of 1860) and is hereinafter referred to as the Sammelan. It was constituted several decades ago for the purpose of promoting Hindi language and to develop Hindi literature. In the year 1946 certain rules were framed for the management of the affairs of the Sammelan. With the prospects of Hindi being recognised as the national language of India in the Constitution it was felt by a large section of the Sammelan that it had become necessary to introduce fundamental changes In the objects, programme and the constitution of the Sammelan. The annual session of the Sammelan for the year 1949 was held in December of that year at Hyderabad and there a resolution was passed appointing a committee of twenty one members for drafting a new constitution or set of rules for the Sammelan in order to make it fully representative of all the Hindi regions of the country. The resolution inter alia provided that the new constitution after being drafted should be placed for approval before a special session of the Sammelan. It is the common case of the parties that the committee of 21 persons mentioned above (hereinafter referred to as the first committee) drafted a constitution and the said draft was placed for approval before the special session of the Sammelan convened at Patna in June 1950 but for certain reasons the same could not be passed in that session. Instead, resolution No. 1 was passed appointing another committee of cloven persons (hereinbelow referred to as the second committee) for drafting a new constitution and one in fact was drafted by the second Committee. The next session of the Sammelan was held at Kotah in December 1950 under the presidentship of Sri Jaichand Vidyalankar and though it was intended to put before the delegates assembled there the draft prepared by the second committee it could not be so done as the draft became un-traceable. The Kotah session thereupon passed resolution No. 11 which is to the effect that new constitution be prepared by the second committee and the same when drafted would be deemed to have been adopted by the Sammelan if and when it was signed by eight out of eleven members of the committee. The second committee-drafted another constitution and by the 10th August 1951 seven of its members signed it. As signatures of eight or, more than eight members were required to enforce the constitution Sri Mauli Chandra Sharma who was the convener of the committee called a meeting for 28th of August 1951 at Allahabad for the consideration of the new constitution (referred to in this judgment as new rules also) but before the meeting could be held one of the members of the second committee appended his signature to the draft constitution on 11th of August 1951 thus making the number of the signatories to that constitution as eight. Thereafter some of the members of the Sammelan took up the stand that the new constitution had come into force as it had been signed by eight persons. On 28-8-1951 Sri Sridhar Misra and two others filed civil suit No. 567 of 1951 in the court of Munsif (West) Allahabad against Sri Jaichand Vidyalankar and eleven other inter alia on the allegations that the resolution No. 1 passed at Patna Special Session and resolution No. 11 passed at the Kotah session were ultra vires and inoperative and the new constitution was invalid. The relief claimed in the suit was for a declaration that the resolutions mentioned above and the new constitution were ultra vires the Sammelan and were full and void and further that the constitution drafted by the first committee and placed before the Patna session was the valid constitution. A prayer was also made for a permanent injunction restraining the members of the second committee from meeting on 28-8-1951 and from approving the draft constitution as also from giving effect to it. This suit was contested by the defendant No. 2 Sri Rai Ram Charan Agarwal and the defendant No. 7 Sri Mauli Chandra Sharma who pleaded inter alia that the new constitution was a valid one and in any case the Sammelan being on autonomous body no suit in respect of its internal management was maintainable at the instance of the plaintiffs and further that the plaint was undervalued and the court-fee paid was insufficient. A claim for special costs under Section 35-A, C. P. C., was also made. The learned Munsif framed the following issues in the case : 1. Are resolutions Nos. 1 and 11 of Patna session and Kotah Session respectively, and draft constitution framed by defendants Nos. 2 to 12 ultra vires of the Sammelan and null and void? Has this Court jurisdiction to try the suit? Have plaintiffs any interest in the management of the affairs of defendant No. 13 ? Have the plaintiffs any right to maintain the suit? Is the valuation given in the plaint under-valued and indefinite? Is the court-fee paid insufficient? To what compensation, if any, is defendant No. 2 entitled under Section 35-A, C. P. C.? To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs entitled?

(2.) On 6-9-1951 the Sammelan through its Secretary Sri Rai Ram Charan Agarwal filed in the nature of a cross case to suit No. 567 of 1951, civil suit No. 604 of 1951 in the court of the Munsif (West) Allahabad against Sri Jaichand Vidyalankar inter alia on the allegations that the new constitution had come into force on 11-84951 and the defendant had wrongly called a meeting for 9-9-1951 of the old standing committee of the Sammelan to consider the question relating to the acceptance or non-acceptance of the new constitution. The relief, claimed in the suit was a declaration that the office-bearers of the Sammelan were bound by the new constitution approved on 11-84951. There was also a prayer for an injunction restraining the defendant from holding the proposed meeting or acting in accordance with the old constitution (also referred to by me as the old rules). The suit was contested inter alia on the allegation that the constitution prepared for being presented and passed at Patna special session had been traced out and was in possession of the defendant and further that resolution No. 1 passed at the Patna session and No. 11 passed at the Kotah session were ultra vires the Sammelan. The following issues were framed in the case : (1) Whether the new constitution prepared approved and signed on 11-8-1951 is valid? (2) To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?

(3.) In this suit the plaintiffs obtained from the learned Munsif (West) Allahabad a temporary injunction restraining the President of the Sammelan from considering matters relating to the conduct of the affairs of the Sammelan and the new constitution. Notwithstanding the injunction the meeting called for 9-94951 was held on that date though the President absented himself from it. In this meeting a resolution was passed removing Sri Rai Ram Charan Agarwal from the post of the Secretary of the Sammelan and electing new office-bearers.