A S KRISHNAN Vs. M SUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE South Indian Education Society was registered in 1932 under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860. THE memorandum of association, the rules and the by-laws of the society were duly registered in accordance with the Act. THE memorandum defines the objects. THE society was founded mainly to promote the education of the boys and girls of Southern India and with that object in view it thought of erecting a building to house the school. Not having sufficient funds on hand schemes were suggested to borrow money. It was suggested that debentures should be issued. To find out if that scheme would be workable several persons were approached and they expressed their willingness to subscribe. When it came to payment, however, the response on the whole being unsatisfactory, there occurred a divergence of opinion. THE plaintiff who was a member of the society and who took part in getting promises to subscribe the debentures resigned in January, 1936. On July 26, 1936, a general meeting of the society was called at which a managing 'Committee was elected. In the plaint the proceedings of this meeting are challenged. This election was for the years 1936-37-38. THE next general meeting of the society was called on December 4, 1938. At that meeting eight persons were elected to the managing committee. THEy co-opted one member in April, 1939. THE managing committee, on a consideration of the situation, resolved to borrow money from certain other parties and entered into an agreement with them for that purpose. THE plaintiff started correspondence in which he challenged the advisability and legality of those acts. He challenged the constitution of the managing committee also. A requisition signed by eighteen members and dated September 24, 1939, was forwarded to the then existing managing committee which called a general meeting of the members on October 15, 1939. THE requisition signed by the eighteen members showed a desire to pass four resolutions mentioned therein. THEy were to validate the election of the managing committee which had been functioning till then and their acts. A notice containing the four resolutions which were intended to be passed at the meeting was sent to each member on the register of the society. THE meeting was held on October 15, 1939, at which twenty-four persons were present. THE four resolutions mentioned in the notice and requisition were duly proposed and passed unanimously. THE plaintiff then filed this suit on behalf of himself and the other members of the society except the defendants. THE defendants are the nine members whose appointment to the managing committee was confirmed by the general meeting held on October 15, 1939. THE following reliefs are asked for: that it may be declared that the defendants were not the duly elected members of the managing committee elected on July 26, 1936; that it may be declared that the loans raised by the defendants in their capacity as members of the managing committee of the society were unauthorised; that the agreement of mortgage entered into] by the defendants with Hirji Laxmidas was not binding and that the defendants may be restrained from completing the mortgage.. THE plaintiff further prayed that a managing committee be constituted for the society by and under the direction of this honourable Court, and for that purpose all necessary directions may be given for enrolment of members and framing a proper register of members of the society.

(2.) THE defendants filed a written statement in which they denied that the meetings of 1936 and 1938 were improperly convened. According to them the managing committees elected at those meetings were properly elected. THEy further contended that the meeting of October 15, 1939, was properly convened and the resolutions passed at that meeting in any event validated the resolutions passed by the managing committee at the previous meetings and their acts. It was also contended in the written statement that the suit as framed was not maintainable.

(3.) PENDER v. Lushirigton also does not help the plaintiff. In that case a shareholder of the company was prevented from voting at a meeting. He filed a suit and applied for an injunction. The facts showed that the company was a party to the litigation. That was clearly a case where the plaintiff's individual right was denied and his status as a member of the company was in dispute. That gives rise to an individual grievance and a remedy for that can be obtained in a Court of law. In the present case it is not suggested that the plaintiff was prevented from doing anything as a member of the society.