KROVI SIVAJI RAO Vs. SANATHANA BHAGAVATHA BHAKTA SAMAJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is against the judgment which concurred with the judgment of the first Court. Facts are few: The first plaintiff (1st respondent herein) a Samajam known as Sri Sanathana Bhagavatha Bhakta Samajam and established in 1924, is represented by its President Sistla Chandramouli Sastry. The second plaintiff (2nd respondent herein) is Sistla Chandramouli Sastry, President of the said Samajam. Defendants 1 to 11 are the members of another Samajam known as Sri Sanathana Bhagavatha Bhakta Samajam which they got registered under the SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860, on 30 12-1968 and the 12th defendant is the said Samajam itself represented by its Secretary Krovi Sivaji Rao, Appellants 1 to 4 are defendants 1. 8, 9, and 12.

(2.) Admittedly the first Plaintiff-Samajam founded in the year 1924 js not a registered Samajam. It was founded to propogate Bhakti, Jnana Viragya by means of Harikathas Bhajans and Upanyasams and so on. The second plaintiff became the president of the Samajam and he is managing its affairs. Defendants 1 to 7 were formerly the membersof the said Samajam. Owing to certain differences between the defendants and the 2nd plaintiif, they along with some others formed a rival Samajam adopting the same name and got it registered under the Societies Registration Act on 30-12-1968 and started conducting activities, which the plaintiffs felt, are detrimental to their Samajam and so the suit was filed for a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to use the name of their (plaintiff's) Samajam and for an injunction restraining the defendants from using the same name for their association. The suit was decreed and on appeal was confirmed. Hence this Second Appeal.

(3.) The Judgment under appeal is challenged on the following grounds: (1) The suit as framed infringes the fundamental right of association guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India and so, the same cannot be decreed, (2) The first plaintiff which is non- registered body cannot lay a suit. (3) The 12th defendant is a registered body and therefore, no injunction can be granted against it. (4) Since no claim for concellation of registration has been made and so long as the registration stands, no injunction can be issued.