SUDHARAM PATAR Vs. SUDHARAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am of opinion that this special appeal should be dismissed with costs. The plaintiff laid his case thus:--He said that he invited the defendants to a party; that the defendants accepted the invitation, but did not come and partake of the food provided for them; that since that time the defendants never asked the plaintiff to their parties of a similar character; and that as ha the plaintiff and the defendants are members of one and the same Somaj or Society, he (plaintiff) sues for a decree declaring his right to a membership of that Society. The case of the defendants was, that the plaintiff by his own act became separated from their Society.

(2.) The first Court held that as the plaintiff and the defendants in fact lived in one Society, and were in the habit of eating together, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. The first Court therefore gave the plaintiff a decree to be restored to the Somaj or Society.

(3.) On appeal, the lower appellate Court held that such a suit would not lie, inasmuch as there was no law which empowered a man to compel another against his will to come and dine at his house, and that such a decree would be in fact a direct interference with personal liberty.