MAHESH CHAND Vs. SECUNDERABAD CLUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.1104 of 1995 on the file of the XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, is the appellant. THE suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 11/11/1998, A.S.No.8 of 1999 filed by him before the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was dismissed, on 4/11/2004. Hence, this Second Appeal.

(2.) SECUNDERABAD Club, the 1st respondent (for short the respondent), is one of the reputed clubs in India. The father of the appellant is a permanent member thereof. The Rules framed by it confers certain rights upon the children of permanent members. Initially, up to the age of 16 years, such a person is conferred with the status of a junior dependant, and thereafter, up to 25 years, he is treated as senior dependant. On attaining the age of 25 years, he is entitled to seek admission as a permanent member. Special procedure is prescribed therefor.

(3.) MS. Anjana Taggarse, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there was absolutely no basis for the respondent in not taking necessary steps on the application of the appellant for admission, as a permanent member, in spite of the fact that he has fulfilled the criteria prescribed by them. She contends that the very fact that the respondent conferred the status of a senior dependant upon the appellant would establish the entitlement of the appellant to seek permanent membership and refusal by the respondent to admit the appellant as a permanent member, is absolutely without any basis. She submits that once the appellant has answered the description of the child of a permanent member as provided under Rule 15 of the Rules and that the application was filed with all material particulars, the respondent has no alternative except to admit him as member. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court erred in treating the suit as premature, even after the respondent came forward with a plea that it would not admit the appellant as a member. She further contends that the lower Appellate Court was not sure as to the basis on which it refused the relief, particularly when it expressed the view that necessary factors exist in favour of the appellant.