[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Viswadarshini Charitable Society, ... vs Rajagopalanachari on 7 January, 2026
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 1 2026:KER:138
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 17TH POUSHA, 1947
RSA NO. 468 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.04.2025 IN A.S. NO.26
OF 2023 OF SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 29.09.2023 IN O.S. NO.915 OF 2018 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,
NEDUMANGAD
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF :
1 VISWADARSHINI CHARITABLE SOCIETY, REGD.NO.1254/2002,
POOVACHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SUBHASH, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O. SUBRAMANIYAN ACHARI, RESIDING AT KRISHNALAYAM,
URIYACODE, PUNALAL P.O, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE,
KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695575
2 SUBRAMANIYAN ACHARI
AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN ACHARI,
PRESIDENT, VISWADARSHINI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,
REGD.NO.1254/2002, POOVACHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
RESIDING AT KRISHNALAYAM, URIYACODE,
PUNALAL P.O, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, KATTAKADA TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695575
3 SUBHASH
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAMANIYAN ACHARI,
SECRETARY, VISWADARSHINI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,
REGD.NO.1254/2002, POOVACHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
RESIDING AT KRISHNALAYAM, URIYACODE, PUNALAL P.O.,
PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, KATTAKADA TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695575
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
SHRI.ATUL MATHEWS
SMT.GAYATHRI S.B.
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 2 2026:KER:138
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT :
RAJAGOPALANACHARI
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O.CHELLAPPAN ACHARI, A.R.BHAVAN,
KONNIYOOR, PUNALAL, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE,
KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695575
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.M.A.ZOHRA
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.12.2025, ALONG WITH RSA NO.463/2025, THE COURT ON 07.01.2026
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 3 2026:KER:138
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 17TH POUSHA, 1947
RSA NO. 463 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.04.2025 IN A.S. NO.27
OF 2023 OF SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD, ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 29.09.2023 IN O.S. NO.837 OF 2019 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
COURT, NEDUMANGAD
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANT 2 AND 3 :
1 SUBRAMANIYAN ACHARI
AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN ACHARI,
RESIDING AT KRISHNALAYAM, URIYACODE,
PUNALAL P.O, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE,
KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695575
2 SUBHASH
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAMANIYAN ACHARI,
RESIDING AT KRISHNALAYAM, URIYACODE,
PUNALAL P.O, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE,
KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695575
BY ADVS. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
SHRI.ATUL MATHEWS
SMT.GAYATHRI S.B.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS AND 1ST DEFENDANT :
1 VISWADARSHINI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,
REGD.NO.1254/2002, POOVACHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.M.AUGUSTIN
S/O.MANUEL, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANTHOPPIL VEEDU,
PUNALAL P.O., PERUMKULAM VILLAGE,
KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695575
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 4 2026:KER:138
2 M.M.AUGUSTIN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.MANUEL, RESIDING AT MANTHOPPIL VEEDU,
PUNALAL P.O., PERUMKULAM VILLAGE,
KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695575
3 VISWADARSHINI CHARITABLE SOCIETY REGD.NO.1254/2002
POOVACHAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR YATHEENDRARAJ,
S/O.SUKUMARAPANICKER, AGED 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SMRITHILAYAM, PARUTHIPALLY,
MANNOORKARA VILLAGE, KATTAKADA TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695575
4 RAJAGOPALANACHARI
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O.CHELLAPPAN ACHARI, A.R.BHAVAN,
KONNIYOOR, PUNALAL, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE,
KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695575
BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.M.A.ZOHRA
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.12.2025, ALONG WITH RSA NO.468/2025, THE COURT ON 07.01.2026
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 5 2026:KER:138
EASWARAN S., J.
--------------------------------
R.S.A. Nos.463 & 468 of 2025
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
These appeals arise from the common judgment in O.S. Nos.915
of 2018 and 837 of 2019 on the files of the Principal Munsiff Court,
Nedumangad and in A.S. Nos.26 and 27 of 2023 on the files of the
Sub Court, Nedumangad. The appellants in R.S.A No.468 of 2025 are
the plaintiffs in O.S. No.915 of 2018, and the appellants in R.S.A
No.463 of 2025 are the defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No.837 of 2019.
The dispute in the present appeals pertains to the management of a
charitable society by name Viswadarshini Charitable Society (the
society, for short) registered under the provisions of the Travancore
Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act,
1955. O.S. No.915 of 2018 was instituted for an injunction restraining
the defendants from interfering into the affairs of the society. In the
said suit, the plaintiffs claimed that the 2nd plaintiff is the validly
elected President of the society and the 3rd plaintiff, his son, is the
Secretary of the society. In the other suit, O.S. No.837 of 2019, one
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 6 2026:KER:138
M.M. Augustine, who was arrayed as the 2nd plaintiff, claimed that
he is the validly elected Secretary and the 3rd plaintiff being the
Director. The appellants are questioning the concurrent findings
rendered against them and therefore sans a detailed narration of
facts. The primary question which this Court is called upon to decide
is whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration in
the present appeals, warranting admission of the appeals.
2. O.S. No.915 of 2018 was necessitated, according to the
appellants, because the 1st defendant in the said suit, who was the
Principal of the Teachers Training Institute, had misappropriated the
funds of the society and hostel fee of the students and allegedly
withdrawn an amount of Rs.12,66,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Sixty
Six Thousand only) and later resigned from the post of Principal. A
meeting was held on 30.11.2014 to elect new office bearers of the
society, and out of the twenty (20) members, sixteen (16) members
attended the same and the 2nd plaintiff was elected as the President
and the 3rd plaintiff was elected as the Secretary. Consequently, in the
election held on 29.11.2015, the 2nd defendant was elected as the
President and the 3rd defendant as the Secretary. The 1st defendant
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 7 2026:KER:138
ceased to be even an ordinary member and also the Secretary of the
society with effect from 30.11.2014, due to non-remittance of the
subscription fee since 2014. Though the 1st defendant filed O.S. No.35
of 2015 before the Principal Munsiff Court with a prayer of injunction,
that application was dismissed, and later, a CMA was filed. By virtue
of an order in W.P.C. No.10832 of 2018 filed by the 1st defendant, he
managed to file a list of office bearers before the Registrar of
Societies, and since this Court found that the dispute could be
resolved only through a properly constituted civil suit, and that the
said direction is being challenged in appeal, the suit for injunction is
preferred. At that point of time, the second suit was lodged by the
plaintiffs therein, contending that they are the legally elected office
bearers of the society. Both suits were tried jointly, and after scanning
through the voluminous documents, the trial court concluded that the
plaintiffs in O.S. No.837 of 2019 are the legally elected office bearers
of the society and accordingly dismissed O.S. No.915 of 2018 and
decreed O.S. No.837 of 2019. Aggrieved, two appeals, A.S. Nos.26 and
27 of 2023, were preferred before the Sub Court, Nedumangad and
both the appeals were dismissed subsequently by a common
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 8 2026:KER:138
judgment. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeals.
3. Heard Sri. T. Krishanunni, the learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants, assisted by Sri. G.P. Shinod,
the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Smt. M.A.
Zohra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on caveat.
4. Sri. T. Krishnanunni, the learned Senior Counsel, strenuously
contended that the findings of the courts below are perverse and
hence require reconsideration. According to the Senior Counsel, the
courts below erred egregiously in holding that the plaintiffs in O.S.
No.837 of 2019 are the legally elected office bearers of the society. The
2nd plaintiff in O.S. No.915 of 2018 is the person who had gifted the
property for formation of the society and thereafter he entrusted the
management with his own brother, the defendant therein and that
after finding that he has misappropriated the funds of the society and
the hostel fees of the students, he was removed from the post of
Principal of the Teachers Training Institute. The trial court erred in
holding that the plaintiffs in the connected suit, O.S. No.837 of 2019,
are the legally elected office bearers of the society, especially since all
the documents produced were after the filing of the suit, and
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 9 2026:KER:138
therefore any election of the office bearers of the society after the
filing of the suit has no relevance at all. There were enough materials
before the trial court to hold that the appellants are the legally elected
office bearers of the society. A reference is made to the application
filed before the CBSE Board, New Delhi, for the purpose of extension
of the affiliation of the Viswadarshini Public School run by the society.
It is further contended that the first appellate court could not have
granted the recovery of possession of the property without any prayer
and issues being framed by the trial court, and also the decision
allowing the cross objection by the first appellate court is wrong, and
thus these appeals require admission.
5. Per contra, Smt. M.A. Zohra, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents on caveat, countered the submissions of
Sri. T. Krishnanunni, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants and submitted that the findings rendered by the courts
below are purely on the question of fact and no substantial question
of law arises for consideration. This Court cannot reappreciate the
evidence and find otherwise while exercising the powers under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is thus pointed out that
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 10 2026:KER:138
in the absence of any relief in the form of a declaration sought for by
the appellants, O.S. No.915 of 2018 have to necessarily fail.
6. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the bar
and have perused the judgments rendered by the courts below and
the records of the case.
7. These appeals were extensively heard on the question of
whether it requires admission on multiple occasions, which led this
Court to call for the records in order to ascertain as to whether any
substantial question of law arises for consideration or not. Though
the learned Senior Counsel vehemently pointed out that the appeals
require admission on multiple questions, this Court is not impressed
by the said submissions.
8. Before proceeding further, this Court noticed a severe
infirmity in the framework of O.S. No.915 of 2018, which led this
Court to call for the records in order to ascertain as to whether there
is any substance in the submissions of the appellants. The infirmity
which this Court felt would be substantial is due to the peculiar
framework of the suit. It is indisputable that the litigation stemmed
out when the rival groups submitted the list of office bearers to the
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 11 2026:KER:138
Registrar of the Societies. W.P.C. No.10832 of 2018 was filed by the
defendant in O.S. No.915 of 2018, wherein this Court had directed the
Registrar to accept the list submitted by him provisionally, subject to
the dispute being finally resolved through a properly constituted civil
suit.
9. Though an appeal was preferred by the appellants herein
before the Division Bench, it is stated that the said appeal was not
pressed subsequently. Thus, the list submitted by the defendant in
O.S. No.915 of 2018 got the approval of the Registrar of the Societies,
subject to the finalisation of the dispute by the civil court.
10. In this peculiar scenario, when O.S. No.915 of 2018 was
instituted, surprisingly, the appellants did not seek for declaration
that they are the validly elected office bearers of the society. Though
there is an assertion in the plaint that out of the twenty (20) members,
sixteen (16) attended the general body meeting held on 30.11.2014,
no documents were produced by them to show that the meeting was
properly constituted. The appellants in their suit assumed that they
were the validly elected members of the society, conveniently
forgetting the fact that the defendant had also claimed that he was the
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 12 2026:KER:138
validly elected Secretary pursuant to convening of a general body
based on which the list was submitted, which this Court directed the
Registrar to provisionally accept. Therefore, essentially, the dispute
centred around which faction had validly convened the general body
meeting. Therefore, it was imperative for the appellants/plaintiffs in
O.S. No.915 of 2018 to have sought for a declaratory relief. For
reasons best known, the appellants did not seek any declaration with
regard to the fact that the meeting conducted by them is a properly
constituted general body meeting and therefore, the election of the
office bearers based on the said general body is entitled to manage the
affairs of the society.
11. That apart, in O.S. No.915 of 2018, what is sought is only an
injunction restraining one Rajagopal Achari, the sole defendant, from
meddling with the affairs of the society. It is an admitted case that Sri.
Rajagopal Achari ceased to be a regular member of the society
because of the non-payment of the dues. That being so, sans a relief
in the form of a declaration, it is incomprehensible as to how a simple
suit for injunction against the defendant, who is not even an office
bearer of the society, would be maintainable.
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 13 2026:KER:138
12. With these infirmities, pending consideration of the suit, the
second suit O.S. No.837 of 2019 was lodged by the existing members
of the society, claiming that they were the validly elected office
bearers of the society. Documentary evidences were produced before
the trial court to show that they were the elected office bearers of the
society. Perhaps finding that the documents produced in O.S. No.837
of 2019 would prove detrimental to the sustenance of O.S. No.915 of
2018, it appears that the appellants have gone ahead and convened a
general body meeting and recorded the minutes. There again, the
infirmity in the said document is clearly evident from the fact that no
supporting materials were produced before the Court to show that
notices were issued to all the members of the society, and they have
participated in the meeting with clear knowledge of the opposite
group. Thereafter, it appears that the list so drawn was submitted
before the Registrar. The endorsement contained in Ext.B43(a)
clearly shows that the Registrar had noticed that the said list cannot
be accepted because of the pendency of the other suit. Therefore,
when the appellants were clearly put to notice that the list submitted
by them will not be approved by the Registrar of the Societies
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 14 2026:KER:138
necessarily, it was inevitable for them to have sought for a declaratory
relief in order to sustain their claim that as on the date of dispute in
the year 2014, the faction lead by the appellants/plaintiffs in O.S.
No.915 of 2018 were the legally elected office bearers of the society
because all the consequential actions stemmed out of the dispute that
arose in the year 2014. Therefore, irrespective of the consequential
elections being conducted during the pendency of the suits, unless
and until the basic question regarding who are the validly elected
office bearers of the society is not decided, the appellants cannot
sustain their claim. Moreover, even assuming that the suit is
maintainable, no decree could be granted in favour of the appellants
because, admittedly, the sole defendant in the suit Sri. Rajagopal
Achari ceased to be the office bearer of the society. That be so, this
Court is inclined to conclude that the framework of O.S. No.915 of
2018 itself being bad, no relief could be granted to them.
13. As regards the contention of the learned Senior counsel that
a simple suit for injunction is maintainable, this Court cannot
subscribe to the said contention because of the reasoning stated
above. Lastly, it is pointed out that the courts below could not have
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 15 2026:KER:138
granted a relief of recovery of possession. This Court fails to
comprehend as to how the said plea could be sustained. A perusal of
the judgment of the first appellate court shows that the first appellate
court has not granted any relief in the form of recovery of possession.
When it is proved that the respondents/plaintiffs in O.S. No.837 of
2019 were in possession, there was no need for granting any recovery
of possession in their favour.
14. Before concluding the arguments, Sri. G.P. Shinod, the
learned counsel assisting Sri. T. Krishnanunni, the learned Senior
Counsel, with the permission of this Court, raised an additional point
that the courts below failed to adjudicate who are the actual office
bearers of the society. Initially, this Court felt that there was some
substance in the said submission. But then, on a close exploration of
the facts disclosed in the appeal would lead this Court to conclude
that the said submission has no force at all, especially in the light of
the frame work of O.S. No.915 of 2018 which this Court has already
found cannot be sustained and the failure of the appellants to seek for
declaration is detrimental to the cause projected by them.
Unfortunately, the appellants were not able to sustain their plea that,
R.S.A. No.463 and 468 of 2025 16 2026:KER:138
on the date on which the dispute arose till the filing of the suit, they
were the validly elected office bearers of the society. Moreover, the
plaintiffs in O.S. No.837 of 2019 were not consciously made parties
to O.S. No.915 of 2018, and thereby no effective decree could have
been passed in their favour.
Therefore, concluding the discussions, this Court holds that no
substantial questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals.
These appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
NS
