GANDHI SEWA SHIKSHAN SAMITI Vs. GULAM HUSSAIN WELJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs on behalf of an association known as 'Gandhi Sewa Shikshan Samiti, Chimur', which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,000 and odd from the defendant on the basis that the latter having made certain recoveries on behalf of the association has retained the same without any right and in a wrongful manner. Although the pleadings in this case are very much prolix, the facts so far as they are necessary for deciding this appeal lie within a narrow compass. Prominent residents of the village of Chimur held a meeting on June 15, 1952, for forming an Association with a view to start a High School to be named as 'Rashtriya Vidyalaya'. It appears that thirty members attended this meeting. It further appears that each of them agreed to donate a sum of Bs. 100. A committee to be styled as 'managing' committee' was formed comprising nine members. Some other meetings took place and it is not. necessary to set out the details of what transpired in the course of these meetings. Finally, in the meeting held on February 23, 1953, it was resolved that an association to be styled as 'Gandhi Sewa Shikshau Samiti' should be started. This meeting was attended by 69 members each of whom contributed a sum of Bs. 100. A constitutional sub -committee which was appointed in one of the earlier meetings had already submitted its report which came to be adopted in the general meeting. It was also resolved that the Samiti should be got registered under the Indian Societies Registration Act. In accordance with the said resolution, the society came to be registered on March 24, 1953. It is, however, necessary to remember that only sixteen members subscribed to the memorandum of this association at the time of its registration. It is the case for the plaintiffs that certain amounts, that were collected on behalf of the association, remained in the hands of the defendant as a temporary custodian. It is further their case that the defendant has been refusing to render accounts and pay the money in respect of the same and that is why the plaintiffs have been compelled to file the present suit for the recovery of the amounts that have remained in the hands of the defendant and which he has no right to retain. The plaintiffs have averred that the association has authorised them by a special resolution to file the present suit.

(2.) SEVERAL objections were raised on behalf of the defendant, only two of which are relevant for deciding this appeal. The first was that the association amounted to a public trust within the meaning of the expression in the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, and inasmuch as the association was not registered under the provisions of the said Act, the suit filed was not maintainable. The second contention raised was that although the association consisted of 69 members, only 16 of them subscribed to the memorandum of the association at the time of registration of the association. That being the case, the association must be deemed to be an association of only 16 members. The monies in respect of which the suit was filed, on the other hand, belonged to the association of 69 members and, therefore, the present association has no right to claim this amount from the defendant.

(3.) THE trial Court gave its findings on this issue in the first instance and came to the conclusion that the suit cannot legally be heard nor decided in view of the fact that the society which, according to it, was a public trust, was not got registered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act. Since, however, the section did not render the institution of the suit invalid, the trial Court allowed this suit to proceed so as to give an opportunity to the plaintiffs to get the association registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, before proceeding to the stage of hearing - and passing of a decree. Later on, the other objection was heard as a preliminary issue. That objection formed the subject -matter of two issues Nos. 5(b) and 6(b) which ran as follows: