RAJIV KUMAR Vs. VIJAY AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are aggrieved of judgments and decrees dtd. 21/8/2009 and 17/8/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Panipat and the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, respectively, whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 for declaration that induction of members over and above the cap of 201 life members is illegal, arbitrary, null and void with consequential relief of mandatory as well as permanent injunction has been decreed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that, respondents No.1 and 2 - Vijay Aggarwal and Naresh Singla (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that elections of defendant No.1 - Shree Sanatan Dharam Education Society, Panipat (for short, the 'Society') and its members institutions should be held as per the list attached as Annexure-A and that enlistment and enrollment of defendants No.5 to 97 as members of the Society was illegal, without jurisdiction, null and void. Mandatory injunction was sought for directing the defendant-Society to hold elections as per the list. It was pleaded that defendant-Society was an educational society registered with the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Haryana. Defendant No.2-Rajinder Kumar Goel (appellant No.6 in this appeal) was the Secretary of the Society at that time and was looking after the day to day affairs, while defendants No.3 and 4 - Ram Niwas Gupta and Anoop Garg (proforma respondents 3 and 4, respectively in this appeal) were the executive members of the Committee. It was pleaded that the defendant-Society comprised of members including life members having faith in Sanatan Dharam. A meeting of all the members comprising general body was held every year. The Society manages, runs and controls the institutions as detailed in para 2 of the plaint. It was further pleaded that the defendant-Society issued a notice on 2/6/2006 for Annual General Meeting of the Society for 18/6/2006 while specifically mentioning that elections for the posts of office bearers of all the Institutions mentioned therein as well as Secretary of the defendant-Society would be held on 18/6/2006 at 12.00 noon. It is further submitted that the defendant-Society, as per its constitution, could have a maximum of 201 life members at a time. Induction of new members was permissible in the event of death of existing members or someone renouncing Sanatan Dharam or being of unsound mind or incompetent to remain a member. New members were to be then inducted as per applications moved by them subject to the permissible limit of 201 members. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs came to know that some members were inducted in the Society in an illegal and unauthorized manner taking the number of members to 294 whereas the number of members could not exceed 201. Moreover, the new members could be inducted by following due procedure and that too within the stipulated cap of total 201 members. Addition of the members, it was averred, was with a sole motive to circumvent free and fair elections and to gain control of the institutions of the appellant-Society, the budget of which runs into crores. It was thus pleaded that elections should be held as per the list of voters (Annexure-A) and the newly inducted members as mentioned in Annexure-B should not be permitted to participate. All the defendants were stated to be in collusion with each other. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) Defendants No.1 and 2 i.e., appellants No.5 and 6, as well as defendant No.35 (proforma respondent No.32) have filed their separate written statement, whereas joint written statement was filed by defendants No.3 and 4. Joint written statement was filed by defendants No.8,9, 11,13,14,21,25,26,62,67, 80, 85 to 87 and 93. Defendants No.1 and 2 pleaded that resolution dtd. 18/6/2006 was passed in the Annual General Meeting of the Society after enrollment of another 100 members. Furthermore, the Executive Committee, which was competent to receive applications had scrutinized the same. Applications of 90 candidates were considered and their membership was approved as per resolution dtd. 18/6/2006. Effective strength of the Society was pleaded to be 294. Defendant No.2 being the Secretary of the Society called for the Annual General meeting of the Society on 18/6/2006 for holding elections of the Society and its educational institutions and circulated the list of 294 members. Law and order problem was however alleged to have been caused by the plaintiffs due to which elections of the Society were postponed. Annual General Meeting, thereafter to be held on 17/9/2006 was also postponed. Enrollment of defendants No.5 to 97 was pleaded to be in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Society. It was denied that strength of the members of the Society could not exceed 201. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Replication to the written statement was filed.