Shri Brij Kishore Sharma & Anr. vs Akhil Bhartiya Jangid Brahmin ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 4410 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+


%                                       Judgment delivered on : July 25, 2012
+      CS(OS) No. 1324/2007

SHRI BRIJ KISHORE SHARMA & ANR.                                           ..... Plaintiffs
                   Through: Mr. Puneet Bhatnagar, Adv.

             versus
AKHIL BHARTIYA JANGID BRAHMIN MAHA SABHA                                 ..... Defendant
                    Through: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                           JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CS(OS) 1324/2007 & IAs 8214/2007(O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC), 387/2008(O.39 R.2A CPC)

1. This is a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiffs are members of

defendant No.1, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act.

Initially, the suit was filed against four defendants but later on, considering the plea

taken in the written statement of defendants 3 &4, they were deleted from the array

of defendants.

2. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that the Constitution of defendant No.1

Society, which could have been amended only by its Mahasabha, in a meeting

where at least 2/3rd of its members are present, has been amended by the Working

Committee which has no jurisdiction to amend the Constitution. According to the

plaintiffs, it was in a meeting held at Ludhiana on 27.08.2006, that the Working

Committee passed a resolution amending the Constitution. The plaintiffs have

accordingly sought a declaration that the Constitution passed by the Executive

Committee of defendant No.1 Society in its meeting held at Ludhiana on

27.08.2006 is illegal and ulta vires the Constitution of the Society dated

28.11.1993. They have also sought declaration that whatever decisions/actions

have been taken on the basis of the impugned Constitution dated 27.08.2006 are

illegal. They have also sought an injunction restraining the defendants from

enforcing the Constitution dated 27.08.2006.

3. A perusal of the order dated March 5, 2008 would show that on that date

there was appearance on behalf of defendants No.1 & 2 and the counsel stated that

the Constitution dated 28.11.1993 was enforced and they were not adopting or

implementing the Constitution of 2006. Vide order dated November 20, 2008, the

right of defendants No.1 & 2 to file the written statement was closed and they were

proceeded ex-parte.

4. The plaintiffs have filed the affidavit of plaintiff - Arvind Sharma by way of

ex-parte evidence. In his affidavit, he has supported on oath the case set out in the

plaint and has also exhibited the Constitution of 1993 as also the Constitution

amended by the Working Committee on 27.08.2006. He has further stated that the

Constitution dated 27.08.2006 was never put up in the meeting held on that date

and was never proposed in that meeting. In any case, according to him, the

Constitution, having been passed by the Executive Committee, is not valid.

5. Clause 11 of the Constitution of 1993 Ex.PW-1/1 provides that Mahasamiti

is authorized to amend the permanent Constitution of the Society but that would

require presence of 2/3rd total members and would come into force immediately on

being approved by the Mahasamiti. A perusal of the Ex.PW-1/2 which is the

Constitution approved on 27.08.2006 would show that the same was approved by

the Working Committee (Karya-Samiti) and not by Mahasabha. In view of the

provisions contained in clause 11 of the Constitution of 1993, the Executive

Committee was not authorized to amend the Constitution. Therefore, the

amendment carried out on 27.08.2006 is ultra vires the Constitution of defendant

No.1 Society.

6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, a decree for declaration is passed

declaring that the amendment to the Constitution of defendant No.1 Society to the

extent it was carried out in the meeting of the Working Committee held on

27.08.2006 is ultra vires the Constitution of defendant No.1 Society and, therefore,

is not enforceable. No other relief is pressed by the learned counsel for the

plaintiffs. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

The suit and all pending applications stand disposed of.

V.K. JAIN, J

JULY 25, 2012 'sn'