Regular Second Appeal No.923 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.923 of 2009 Date of Decision:-26.7.2011 Devi Bala Sundri Mandir Society ...Appellant Versus The Registrar of Firms and Societies, Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Anjum Ahmed, Addl. A.G. Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, are that Devi Bala Sundri Mandir Society (Registered) appellant-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff-Society”) filed the suit for a decree of declaration, with a consequential relief of permanent/mandatory injunction, inter-alia pleading that although the petitioner- Society is duly registered under the provisions of The Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”), but respondent-defendant No.1 is not issuing the registration certificate and its amended rules, without any legal right. 2. The defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff-Society and filed their separate written statements, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, cause of action and locus standi of plaintiff-Society. The defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and Regular Second Appeal No.923 of 2009 -2- prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-Society with costs, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 27.9.2007. 4. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff-Society filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 3.10.2008. 5. The appellant-plaintiff-Society still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the instant regular second appeal. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present appeal in this context. 7. As is evident from the record that plaintiff-Society has miserably failed to prove that it was the actual society and has superseded the earlier Devi Bala Sundri Mandir Society. The trial Court has recorded the finding of fact based on the evidence that the alleged members of the General Body did not sign the proceeding book, so much so, the quorum of the members was also not complete in the meeting held on 7.4.1995 and 1.5.1995, as claimed by the plaintiff-Society. 8. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the Ist appellate Court, which, in substance, is (paras 33 and 36) as under:- “33. Learned trial Judge has rightly concluded that it was for the plaintiff to prove that the members who attended the general body meeting on 7.4.1995 and on 1.5.1995 wherein proposed amendments in the Rules were taken out for office bearers vide in fact the members of the general body or not as per Rule 7 of the Rules governing the business of the society. Learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion after comparison of Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 and Ex.D1 that two members namely Chanda Singh and Sampuran Singh were the members and no other member of the general body had signed the proceedings book and that made the basis for the learned trial Judge who correctly reached to the conclusion that the Rules Regular Second Appeal No.923 of 2009 -3- and regulations were amended as per Rule 17 governing the business of plaintiff society. The quorum 1/4th strength of the general body was also not present in the above referred meeting held on 7.4.1995 and 1.5.1995. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 36. Learned trial Court compared the names and signatures of the persons with Ex.P10 and Ex.D1 and it has been observed that only two members of general body Ex.D1 attended the meeting and other persons were not the members of the general body. Hence the meeting dated 7.4.1995 is not valid meeting as according to bye laws 1/4th members of general body are required to approve the proceedings according to Rule 9 of Rules and Regulations which is Ex.P4. The quorum of the meeting of the general body on 7.4.1995 was not according to Rule 9 as there were only two members of the general body and requirement of the quorum was to approve the proceedings of 6 to 7 members. As such the governing body as well as new amended Rules which are Ex.P45 and Ex.P46 are invalid and cannot be said to follow the Rule 8 of the bye laws. Learned trial Judge has rightly held that the alleged general body as shown in Ex.P10 is not valid and cannot seek the permission for amendment of bye laws and also to form the new governing body. This is why, respondent no.1 has not rightly given its approval to invalid documents which were sent to him vide Ex.P5.” 9. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff-Society did not point out any material, much less cogent, as to how and in what manner, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant connection. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, both the courts below have recorded the above-mentioned concurrent findings of fact. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff-Society, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision Regular Second Appeal No.923 of 2009 -4- already arrived at by the Courts below, in this context. 10. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to assail the findings of the Courts below in this regard. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant, in this relevant direction, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 26.7.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No