IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 SA.No. 85 of 1996() ------------------- AS.57/1991 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY OS.101/1986 of PRL.M.C.,KANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. N SADANANDAN, PRESENT PRESIDENT, DESA SEVA SANGHAM, CHIRAKKAL, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT SUMA SADAN, BALIAPATTAM, CANNANORE. 2. K. RAMACHANDRAN, PRESENT SECRETARY, DESA SEVA SANGHAM, CHIRAKKAL, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN, RESIDING AT GOPAL NIVAS, CHIRAKKAL, CANNANORE. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SRI. K. RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------ KIZHAKKE VEETTIL KUNHAPPA, S/O. APPA, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT GOPAL NIVAS, CHIRAKKAL, CANNANORE. BY ADV. MR. T.A. RAMADASAN THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON 24/06/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 183 OF 1996 IN S.A. NO.85 OF 1996. DISMISSED. 24.6.2009. SD/- P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.A. No. 85 of 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Plaintiff in the suit claims to be a life member of the first defendant Sangham, which was registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is a service oriented organisation. The administration and management of the Sangham is governed by rules and regulations. The plaintiff claimed to be a life member of the Society. The administration of the Society is to be carried on by a governing body to be elected by the general body. Pointing out that for a long time the general body meeting had not been convened and there is dereliction of duty on the part of the governing body and also claiming a declaration that he is a life member, the suit was laid. 2. The defendant resisted the suit and pointed out that the plaintiff was not a member of the society at all and he has no locus standi to file a suit. They also denied the other allegations in the plaint. S.A.85/1996. 2 3. Court below for the purpose of the suit had P.W.1 examined and Exts.A1 to A5 marked. The defendants had D.W.1 examined and Exts.B1 to B6 marked. On an appreciation of the evidence in the case, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is a life member of the Sangham and accordingly granted the declaration prayed for. There was also a direction to convene the general body meeting within one month from the date of the judgment and decree. The society was also restrained from alienating the properties of the Sangham unless proper administrative body is constituted. 4. Against the judgment and decree, the defendants went up in appeal, A.S. 57 of 1991 before the Sub Court, Thalassery. The appellate court on an independent consideration concurred with the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Of course, there was some confusion regarding the question whether the plaintiff was only a member of the society or a life member. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court, the appellants have come up in second appeal. S.A.85/1996. 3 5. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, notice was issued on the questions of law formulated in the appeal memorandum. 6. It needs to be noticed that the question that was involved in the suit was whether the plaintiff was a life member of the Society and whether annual general body meetings were being convened as is required under the rules and regulations of the society. Both the courts below on an independent appreciation of the evidence have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is a member of the Society and also that there have been defaults in convening the general body meeting. In fact, the courts below have found that the administration and management of the society are in total disarray and it needs to be streamlined. 7. The main questions of law formulated are whether the courts below are justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was a member of the society and whether the findings of the courts below that the general body meetings have not been convened is justified. S.A.85/1996. 4 8. I am unable to see any question of law much less any substantial question of law arising in the appeal. The question as to whether the plaintiff is a member of the society and also whether general body meetings have been convened as per the rules and regulations are questions of pure fact and there is no law involved as such in determining these issues. As already stated, there is concurrent finding regarding both these aspects by both the courts below. 9. I find no error, either of law or in appreciation of evidence, committed by the courts below. The result is that the appeal is without merits and it is liable to be dismissed. I do so with costs to the respondent. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb. S.A.85/1996. 5 P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.A. No. 85 of 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 24.06.2009.