Skip to content


S. Nesamony Nadar Vs. Nidalam Government High School, Improvement Committee - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies;Commercial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1921 of 1975
Judge
Reported inAIR1978Mad383
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 1, Rule 12
AppellantS. Nesamony Nadar
RespondentNidalam Government High School, Improvement Committee
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
- .....is one a. g. bhaskaran nair who claims to be the president of the nidalam government high school improvement committee, and claims to represent the said committee. a loan of rs. 500 was given by the said committee to the revision-petitioner herein for putting up a thatched roof. this amount was to be repaid by the revision petitioner on receipt of the same from the government grant. the fact that such an amount was paid to him is not denied by the revision petitioner. the fact that he has been subsequently reimbursed by the government which gave a grant also has not been disputed by him. his con-tention was that he had repaid this amount to the secretary of the said nidalam government high school improvement committee. in addition, he contended that the suit by the president, a. g......
Judgment:
ORDER

Suryamurthy, J.

1. This is a civil revision petition against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, dismissing A. S. No. 92 of 1972, preferred against the judgment of the learned District Munsif of Padmanabhapuram, who decreed O. S. No. 450 of 1969 on the file of his court, instituted by the respondent Committee for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 500.

2. The plaintiff is one A. G. Bhaskaran Nair who claims to be the President of the Nidalam Government High School Improvement Committee, and claims to represent the said Committee. A loan of Rs. 500 was given by the said Committee to the revision-petitioner herein for putting up a thatched roof. This amount was to be repaid by the revision petitioner on receipt of the same from the Government grant. The fact that such an amount was paid to him is not denied by the revision petitioner. The fact that he has been subsequently reimbursed by the Government which gave a grant also has not been disputed by him. His con-tention was that he had repaid this amount to the Secretary of the said Nidalam Government High School Improvement Committee. In addition, he contended that the suit by the President, A. G. Bhaskaran Nair, alone is not maintainable. The courts below held that the suit by the President alone is maintainable. In this view they are wrong. It is not alleged in the plaint that Nidalam Government High School Improvement Committee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is not a corporate body. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that if such a contention, as is now put forward by the counsel for the revision petitioner, had been raised at the stage of the trial, he would have produced the documents necessary to prove that this Committee has been duly registered under the Societies Registration Act. I offered to adjourn this revision petition for hearing till he is able to produce such a document. He confesses that he cannot give me any guarantee that he will be able to produce any such record. If the Nidalam Government High School Improvement Committee is a registered Society, the Articles of Association should have been produced along with the plaint and the particular provision of the same under which the President can sue or be sued on behalf of the Society also should have been stated in the plaint. That has not been done. Therefore, there is no doubt about the fact that the plaintiff is not a Society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, and is not, therefore, a corporate body.

3. In such circumstances, the question to be considered is whether only one member of the Society, whether he be the President or Secretary or something more than both, can maintain a suit on behalf of the Society. In my opinion, he cannot. The money was not advanced by him from his pocket. The Committee is a mere association of some gentlemen for a special purpose, viz., the improvement of the High School referred to above, whatever be the improvement that they hope to effect. The money belonged to all the members of the Committee and not to the President. He is not, therefore, entitled to the money exclusively. He has not been given a power of attorney by the other members to institute the suit on their behalf also. Therefore, the suit by the President of an unregistered Society isnot maintainable without a power of attorney being given by all the members of the Committee empowering him to institute a suit. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in A. S. No. 92 of 1972 and that of the learned District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram in O. S. No. 450 of 1969 are set aside and this civil revision petition is allowed, and the suit in O. S. No. 450 of 1969 is dismissed without costs. There will be no order as to costs in this revision petition.

4. The institution of a fresh suit by all the members of the Committee or by the President or any one else with a power of attorney or powers of attorney given by all the members of the Committee empowering him or them to file a suit will not be barred by this judgment.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //