SATYAVART SIDHANTALANKAR Vs. ARYA SAMAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have filed this suit, being members of the Arya Samaj, Bombay, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the said society, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860, against the first defendant who is the president of the said society, as representing the society of the Arya Samaj, Bombay, and against defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are the members of the managing committee of the society on behalf of themselves and all the other members of the managing committee of the society, for a declaration that the resolutions dated October 8, 1944, passed at an extraordinary general meeting of the society are ultra vires and in fraud of the minority, for a declaration that the resolution dated January 21, 1945, passed at the general meeting of the said society is also null and void and for further and other reliefs. The resolutions dated October 8, 1944, enacted certain changes in the constitution of the said society and the plaintiffs allege that the said resolutions are void inter alia as being ultra vires the said society and constituting a fraud on the rights of the minority who voted against the said resolutions, and that the minority of the members of the said society was overborne by the vote of the majority who were acting in their own interests illegally, fraudulently and contrary to the interests and objects of the said society and the rights of the minority of the members of the society present at the meeting and voting against the resolutions. The resolution of January 21, 1945, sanctioned the agreement for sale of the Shenwewadi property belonging to the said society and the agreement for purchase of another property situate at Bangadwadi. The plaintiffs alleged inter alia that the resolution was passed by the majority in fraud of the rights of the minority and against the interests of the society. The plaintiffs further alleged that the managing committee of the said society were about to complete the sale of the property at Shenwewadi and purchase of the property at Bangadwadi and sought to restrain the defendants from completing the sale of Shenwewadi property and purchase of Bangadwadi property and from acting on the resolutions, dated October 8, 1944, a January, 21, 1945, and carrying the same into effect, particularly from carrying out the sale of the Shenwewadi property and purchase of the Bangadwadi property.

(2.) At the hearing of the suit before me Mr. R. S. Billimoria for the first defendant raised inter alia the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the suit without having obtained the sanction and consent of the society for the institution thereof. (2) Whether the society in this suit is both the plaintiff and the defendant and whether the suit as framed is maintainable. (4-a) Whether the allegations contained in paragraphs 4(&), 4(e) and 16 of the plaint amount to any averments of fraud. (6) Whether apart from the plea of the resolutions being ultra vires, the plaint deals with matters which relate to the internal management of the society. (7) If so, whether the court will entertain the suit in respect of such matters. Mr. M. P. Amin on behalf of defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 joined in the issues raised by Mr. R. S. Billimoria and raised further issues on behalf of defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 which were: (1) Whether the plaint discloses any cause of action against these defendants; and (2) Whether these defendants are necessary parties to the suit.

(3.) Mr. R.S. Billimoria invited me first to decide issue No. 4(a), viz. .Whether the allegations contained, in paragraphs 4(6), 4(c) and 16 of the plaint amount to any averments of fraud. He contended that it was an acknowledged rule of pleadings that the plaintiffs must set forth the particulars of the fraud which they allege and that it was not enough to use such general words as " fraud " or " fraudulently " as has been done by the plaintiffs in the plaint. He relied upon the observations of Lord Selborne in Wallingford V/s. Mutual Society (1880) 5 App. Cas. 685, where it has been observed (p. 697): With regard to fraud, if there be any principle which is perfectly well settled, it is that general allegations, however strong may be the words in which they are stated, are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court ought to take notice. These observations of Lord Selborne have been quoted with approval by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Gunga Narain Gupta V/s. Tiluckram Chowdhry (1888) L.R. 15 I.A. 119, 121 and in Bal Gangadhar Tilak V/s. Shrinivas Pandit (1915) L.R. 42 I.A. 135, 151. He also referred me to the later decision of the Privy Council reported in The Bharat Dharma Syndicate V/s. Harish Chandra (1937) L.R. 64 I.A. 143 where it was held that litigants who prefer charges of fraud or other improper conduct against persons should be compelled to place on record precise and specific details of those charges even if no objection is taken on behalf of the parties who are interested in disproving the accusations, Their Lordships went so far as to observe that in the case before them the petitioner ought not to have been allowed to proceed with his petition and to prove fraud unless and until he had upon such terms as the Court thought fit to impose amended his petition by including therein full particulars of the allegations which he intended to prove, and that such cases would be much simplified if this practice was strictly observed and insisted upon by the Court even if as in the case before them no objection was taken on behalf of the parties who were interested in disproving the accusations. Relying upon these authorities, Mr. R. S. Billimoria urged that the allegations contained in the plaint with regard to the fraud alleged to have been perpetrated by the majority of the members of the society upon the minority were not enough and could not be entertained by the Court as they stood.