IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.NO. 187 OF 2010() -------------------------------- CMA.3/2008 OF II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.29/2006 OF PRL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ---------------------------------------------------- SREENARAYANA SAMSKARIKA SAMITHY, REP. BY ITS PRESENT GENERAL SECRETARY IN-CHARGE S.K.SURESH, AGED 47 YEARS, T.C.NO.24/636, Y.M.R. JUNCTION, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT(S)- RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. K.S.SIVARAJAN, AGED 49 YEARS, T.C.NO.27/286, KUNNUKUZHI.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. V.R.JOSHY, AGED 41 YEARS, VALAMANAL HOUSE, KURIYANADA.P.O., KURAVALANGAD, KOTTAYAM. 3. M.SADANANDAN, AGED 46 YEARS, T.C.NO.3/780, GEETHANJALI, TKD ROAD, MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. PATTOM RAVI,AGED 41 YEARS, ASHTAMI, GRA-322, GOWREESA PATTOM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. A.ANANDARAJAN, AGED 41 YEARS, RESHMI, PONGUMMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU FOR R1-5 SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.187 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the Sreenarayana Samskarika Samithy - a registered Society (for short, “the Society”) represented by its General Secretary in charge filed O.S. No.29 of 2006 in the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Neyyattinkara seeking various reliefs such as declaration and prohibitory and mandatory injunction. Respondents who claimed to have been elected as office bearers of the said Society as per the election they rely upon, filed additional written statement disputing jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit in view of Section 25 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1995 (for short “the Act”). That objection impressed the learned Munsiff who found the suit to be not maintainable and by order dated November 26, 2007 directed that the plaint be returned to be presented before proper court. Petitioner challenged that order in C.M.A. No.3 of 2008 in the court of learned Additional District Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram. Learned Additional District Judge has confirmed the order of trial court. Hence this petition C.R.P. No.187 of 2010 -: 2 :- challenging the order of learned Munsiff as confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that courts below were under a wrong impression of fact and law involved as to the application of Sec.25 of the Act. According to the learned counsel on the averments in the plaint and reliefs prayed for, there is no scope for applying Sec.25 of the Act and instead it being a suit of a civil nature coming under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Parayakadu Nalukulangara Devaswom v. Padmanabhan Harshas and Others (1983 KLJ 232) and Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi v. Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi (2004 [1) KLT 756). In response it is contended by learned counsel for respondents that as it is, there is a governing body for the Society of which respondents are the office bearers and hence in essence and effect prayer in the suit is to remove governing body of the Society which comes under Sec.25(1) of the Act. In the circumstances courts below are justified in holding that the suit is not maintainable and accordingly directing the plaint to be returned. C.R.P. No.187 of 2010 -: 3 :- 2. To understand the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to Sec.25 of the Act. That provision confers a special jurisdiction on the District Court within the jurisdiction of which the Society is registered to enquire into and on being satisfied that it is just and equitable pass any of the following orders: (a) Removing the existing general body and appoint a fresh general body; or (b) Frame a fresh scheme for the better and efficient management of the Society, or (c) Dissolving the Society. The pre-condition for District Court conducting an enquiry and passing any order as above stated is that the application for the purpose must have been made either by the State Government or by at least 10% of members on the rolls of the Society concerned. 3. Dealing with the above provision this Court in Parayakadu Nalukulangara Devaswom v. Padmanabhan Harshas and Others (supra) stated that Sec.25 conferred a C.R.P. No.187 of 2010 -: 4 :- special power on the District Court to pass orders of the nature referred to as above and that it did not take away jurisdiction of the civil court under Sec.9 of the Code. In that case election was challenged by filing a suit before the civil court. It was argued that the civil court has no jurisdiction in view of Sec.25 of the Act. This Court held that Sec.25 of the Act has application and the District Court is required to conduct an enquiry only when any of the three reliefs referred to above are asked for. The same view is taken in Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi v. Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi (supra). There also, dispute involved election of office bearers of the society. In paragraph 24 it was held that in respect of matters falling outside the scope of Sec.25 of the Act, civil court has jurisdiction under Sec.9 of the Code and in respect of such matters it is within the competence of the civil court to try and dispose of the suit. In that case reliefs prayed for were in respect of the election held to the District Committee of the society. No relief was claimed either directly or indirectly for removing the governing body of the society or for appointing a fresh general body in its place or for framing a scheme. In that view of the matter it was held that the civil court alone has jurisdiction and it is not a case where application could be preferred in the District Court under Sec.25 of the Act. C.R.P. No.187 of 2010 -: 5 :- In the light of the above decisions and provision under Sec.25 of the Act I shall refer to the factual situation in the present case. 4. Petitioner claimed that respondents Nos.1 and 3 to 5 were former office bearers of the Thiruvananthapuram District Committee of the Society for the period from 1997-2005. While so, respondent No.2 was suspended from membership of the Society for alleged misconduct on 15.12.2003 as per decision of the State Committee of the Society which met on 14.12.2003. In paragraph 5 of the plaint it is averred that a new Committee was elected for Thiruvananthapuram District of the Society in its Annual General Body meeting held on 09.04.2005. It is further averred that respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5 thus ceased to be office bears of the District Committee of the Society. In paragraph 6 it is alleged that in the circumstances respondents being former office bearers of the Society were to return the minutes book, accounts books and other records of the Society. In paragraph 8 it is contended that on 13.05.2005 the then General Secretary of the Society received a notice through Advocate at the instance of respondent No.4 alleging misconduct against the State office bearers of the Society. In paragraph 11 it is alleged that on 15.05.2005 a news item was seen published at the instance of the respondents that a meeting of the Society was C.R.P. No.187 of 2010 -: 6 :- convened at Hassan Maraikkar Hall at Thiruvananthapuram and a new ad hoc committee was formed for better administration of the Society. Petitioner alleged that respondents having ceased to be members of the Society have no business with the Society and that election allegedly held thereafter is not valid. It is in the above circumstances that petitioner prayed for a declaration that the alleged acts undertaken by the respondents in the name of the Society as its office bearers on the strength of the election held on 14.05.2005 at Hassan Maraikkar Hall are null and void and not binding on the Society. Petitioner also prayed for a mandatory injunction to direct respondents to hand over the account books and other records of the Society and a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain respondents, their agent or anybody claiming under them from convening any meeting of the Society. Question is whether in the light of the above averments and reliefs prayed for, it could be said that reliefs claimed came under the purview of Sec.25 of the Act so that, jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted. 5. I referred to the specific reliefs which the District Court under Sec.25 of the Act can grant on an application moved by the State Government or by not less than 10% of members of the Society. According to the learned counsel for respondents C.R.P. No.187 of 2010 -: 7 :- now that respondents claimed to have been elected as office bearers as per the election held on 14.05.2005, in effect and essence reliefs claimed is removal of the General Body. I am unable to accept the argument. It is not a case where petitioner accepted and acknowledged election of any of respondents as office bearers of the Society in the meeting held on 14.05.2005 and accepting that election, petitioner request for their removal as office bears. It is a case where petitioner disputes validity of the election held on 14.05.2005 and other acts of the respondents and seek a declaration that the said election and acts are invalid. That is not a matter coming within any of the provision in Sec.25 of the Act so that the District Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. On the other hand, going by Sec.25 of he Act averments in the plaint and reliefs prayed for leave me in no doubt that it is a suit coming under Sec.9 of the Code and hence only the civil court can grant the reliefs prayed for. If that be so, courts below went wrong in holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction in the matter and returning the plaint. Resultantly this petition is allowed as follows: (i) The order dated November 26, 2007 in O.S. No.29 of 2006 of the court of learned Principal C.R.P. No.187 of 2010 -: 8 :- Munsiff, Neyyattinkara holding that suit is not maintainable and returning the plaint, as confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram vide judgment dated November 22, 2008 in C.M.A. No.3 of 2008 is set aside, holding that the suit is maintainable. (ii) Learned Munsiff is directed to proceed with the suit and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear in the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Neyyattinkara on 25.01.2011. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv