Case: T. P. Daver Vs. Lodge Victoria No. 363, S. C. Belgaum

1. This appeal on certificate relates to an internal dispute of the members of a Masonic Lodge called the "Lodge Victoria No. 363 S.C." at Belgaum2. There is a Scottish institution known as "Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Scotland" at Edinburgh, hereinafter called the "Grand Lodge of Scotland." Under its supervision there are Provincial or District Grand Lodges spread throughout the world. There are Daughter Lodges under the superintendence of the District Grand Lodges. The Grand Lodge of Scotland is governed by its own written Constitution and Laws. There is also a separate Constitution and Laws for every District Grand Lodge. One such District Grand Lodge known as "The Grand Lodge of All Scottish Freemasonry in India and Pakistan" has its headquarters at Bombay. The afore said daughter Lodge at Belgaum is directly under the said District Grand Lodge and is governed by the Constitution and Laws of the latter3. The appellant was a member of the Lodge Victoria, having joined it in the year 1948. On 16/10/1952 the second respondent made a complaint against the appellant to the Master, Lodge Victoria, alleging that the appellant was guilty of 12 masonic offences. It was alleged therein that, as the appellant had committed masonic offences, he should be tried by the Lodge for the charges levelled against him under Law 198 of the Constitution. On 20/10/1952 notice of the said complaint was issued to the appellant and he was required to send to the Secretary of the Lodge his answers to the charges within 14 days from the date of the notice. He was also informed that he was entitled to be present and to state his defence at the special meeting to be held on 8/11/1952. On the same day, the Secretary of the Lodge sent notices to all the members of the Lodge asking them to attend the said special meeting convened for considering and passing judgment on the said complaint. On 27/10/1952 the appellant submitted his answer in extenso to the various charges levelled against him in the complaint; in that answer he requested that "my complete replies be read in toto to the brethren assembled to decide this matter and I be informed of the total number of brethren present and the number of votes cast one way or the other." A perusal of that reply also shows that the appellant understood the charges levelled against him as relating to certain offences alleged to have been committed by him and his reply proceeded on that basis. On 8/11/1952 the special meeting of the Lodge was held and the minutes show that 18 members attended the meeting, that each charge was read at the meeting, that comments of the members were invited and that decision was taken on each of the charges. Each of the charges was put to vote and the members present unanimously held that every one of the charges levelled against the appellant was established. In the result they passed a resolution excluding the appellant from the Lodge until the exclusion was confirmed by the District Grand Lodge under Law 199 of the Constitution. On 15/11/1952 the said decision was communicated to the appellant. On 24/11/1952 the appellant preferred an appeal against that order to the District Grand Lodge. On 5/10/1953 a meeting of the District Grand Lodge was convened to consider the appeal and the appeal was dismissed. It was noted in the proceedings of the District Grand Lodge that though earlier an adjournment was given to enable the appellant to appear in person at the meeting, he remained absent. On a further appeal to the Grand Lodge of Scotland, the said Lodge considered the sentence imposed on the appellant as one of "suspension sine die" and recommended to the Lodge Victoria to review the suspension after a period of 12 months is the appellant applied for reinstatement. It does not appear that the appellant filed any application for review. On 7/09/1954, the appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Belgaum, for a declaration that the resolution of the Victoria Lodge dated 8/11/1952 was illegal and void and that he continued to be a member of the Lodge despite the resolution, for an injunction to restrain the officers and servants of the said Lodge from preventing him from exercising his rights therein, and for recovery of damages. To that suit he made the Victoria Lodge, the first defendant; the complainant, the second defendant; the Secretary of the Lodge, the third defendant; and the District Grand Lodge, Bombay, the fourth defendant. The defendants contested the suit. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the appellant to the High Court of Mysore was also dismissed. The present appeal has been filed on a certificate issued by the said High Court.

Reasoning:
9. The following principles may be gathered from the above discussion. (1) A member of a masonic lodge is bound to abide by the rules of the lodge; and if the rules provide for expulsion, he shall be expelled only in the manner provided by the rules. (2) The lodge is bound to act strictly according to the rules, whether a particular rule is mandatory or directory falls to be decided in each case, having regard to the well settled rules of construction in that regard. (3) The jurisdiction of a civil court is rather limited; it cannot obviously sit as a court of appeal from decisions of such a body; it can set aside the order of such a body, if the said body acts without jurisdiction or does not act in good faith or acts in violation of the principles of natural justice as explained in the decisions cited supra1t is, therefore, said that, as in the complaint the appellant is alleged to have committed masonic offences, the proper forum is the District Grand Lodge and not the Daughter Lodge. It is common case that the expressions "offence" and "masonic complaints" have not been defined in the Laws. In its legal significance an offence means an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. The expression "masonic complaint" is a comprehensive term; it may mean any complaint pertaining to Masonic matters. It is not necessary to decide whether the expression "masonic complaint" is wide enough to take in an "offence". But Law 198 expressly confers a jurisdiction on a Daughter Lodge to try a member if he commits an offence; the jurisdiction conferred on it cannot be excluded by Law 128, which is a general law. The question therefore is whether the allegations made against the appellant constituted "offences" within the meaning of Law 198. The word "offence" in the context of that can only mean the infringement of the Daughter Lodge. As all the Laws have not been placed before us, we are not in a position to hold whether the allegations amounted to "offences" or not in the aforesaid sense. But the complainant, the appellant and the members of the Lodge, including its office bearers, proceeded on the basis that the appellant committed "offences". The complaint discloses as many as 12 charges. The appellant answered them seriatim. Indeed, in his answer he specifically stated : "Further if my accuser and others of his mind have thought this alleged "offences" serious enough to be included in this complaint, why did they not take any action in the matter immediately instead of raking it up after sleeping over it for no less than 3 - years?" This shows that even the appellant proceeded on the basis that the allegations, if established, would amount to "offences" within the meaning of the said law. In the special meeting of the Lodge it was held that the charges have been established; and on that basis punishment was imposed on the appellant. The appellant did not take any objection either that the allegations did not amount to "offences" within the meaning of Law 198 or that the Lodge had no jurisdiction to decide whether he committed the offences. It is, therefore, manifest that all the parties concerned in the matter accepted the position that if the acts alleged to have been committed by the appellant were established he would have committed "offences" under the Laws. If the allegations against the appellant amounted to "offences" Law 198 is immediately attracted. If that be so, neither Law 128 nor Law 56, which deal with the jurisdiction of a District Grand Lodge in respect of "masonic complaints", can oust the jurisdiction expressly conferred on the Daughter Lodge. We therefore, hold that the Daughter Lodge had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent against the appellant and decide it on meritsAs we have already indicated in the narration of facts, notice was issued to the members fixing the date of the special meetings along with the notice issued to the appellant i.e. the notice was issued to the members before the appellant filed his answer in respect of the allegations made against him in the complaint.It is, therefore, contended that the notice of the special meeting issued to the members was not in strict compliance with the saidLaw.We do not see any contravention of theLaw.The Law does not say that notice to the members should be issued only after the answer was lodged by the person against whom a complaint was made. But what it says is that the matter of the complaint shall be brought before the Lodge for consideration after the answer was lodged or on the expiry of the time for doing so. It also does not prescribe that the answer should be communicated to the members, but only indicates that the notice shall state the fact that the complaint and the answer, if any, will be brought before the Lodge for consideration and judgment. To put it in other words, the gist of the relevant part of the Law is that in the special meeting convened for the purpose or at a regular meeting of the Lodge, the matter of the complaint shall be brought for consideration and judgment. In the present case it is not disputed that the prescribed notice was given to the members and at the meeting all of them had considered the complaint as well as the answer lodged by the appellant. Therefore, the law in this regard has been strictly complied withIt is obvious that the appellant was not prejudiced. He never made a complaint of it. Indeed in his answer he made it clear that he would not be present at the enquiry. The law itself enabled him to apply for further time, but he did not ask for it, as he did not want to appear at the meeting. He did not raise this objection either in the appeal before the District Grand Lodge or in the second appeal before the Grand Lodge of Scotland. Before the said appellate Lodges he took the decision on merits. Indeed, by his answer and subsequent conduct he clearly waived the said requirement of theLaw.Can he now be allowed to rely upon a breach of the procedural rule to invalidate the proceeding? In our view, he cannot do so. There is a distinction between the jurisdiction of a Lodge and the irregular exercise of it in the matter of the taking of procedural steps. A party to a dispute can certainly waive his objections to some defects in procedure. In this case, the appellant could have taken objection for his being given a shorter period of notice than prescribed under the Law for his appearance before the meeting of the Lodge. He did not do so. The appellant has, by his aforesaid conduct, clearly waived his right under the saidLaw.Having waived it, he is now precluded from relying upon the said defect. We, therefore, hold that it is not open to the appellant to rely upon the said defect for invalidating the proceeding16. The argument that the members of the Lodge were both the prosecutors and the judges, and therefore the principles of natural justice have been violated has not much force in the context of the present enquiry. We are dealing with a case of a Lodge and not with that of a tribunal or a court. It is true that the earlier resolution, Ex 114, shows that 11 members of the Lodge were not well disposed towards the appellant; but here we are concerned with the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. Notice of the complaint was given to all the members of the Lodge. It may be that some of them did not like the appellant, and one of them is the complainant himself. But 22 members of the Lodge met and unanimously held, after considering the complaint and the answer given by the appellant that he was guilty. If the appellant had any objection for one or some of the members taking part in the meeting he could have raised an objection, but he did not do so. The rules governing tribunals and courts cannot mutatis mutandis be applied to such bodies as Lodges. We have to see broadly in the circumstances of each case whether the principals of natural justice have been applied. In the circumstances of this case, particularly when we find that the appellant had not raised any objection, we cannot say that the resolution passed by the Lodge Victoria is bad for violating any principles of natural justice17. Lastly an attempt was made to persuade us to resurvey the entire material and test the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the Lodge. As we have pointed out earlier, civil courts have no jurisdiction to decide on the merits of a decision given by a private association like a Lodge. Both the courts below have held that the Daughter Lodge has acted in good faith in the matter of the complaint against the appellant. That is a concurrent finding of fact; and it is the practice of this Court not to interfere ordinarily with concurrent findings of fact. There are no exceptional circumstances for our departing from the said practice.