Madras High Court
G.Nammalvar vs Registrar Of Societies on 11 March, 2022
A.S(MD).No.128 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 11.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
A.S(MD).No.128 of 2016
and C.M.P(MD)No.8821 of 2016
G.Nammalvar .. Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Registrar of Societies,
District Collector's Office Complex,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli-2.
2.Secretary,
The Literary Association,
Door No.5, Bungalow Street,
Khadi Office Buildings Backside,
Kovilpatti-628 501.
3.The Literary Association,
Kovilpatti,
rep. by its President and Secretary,
Office at No.5, Bungalow Street,
Khadi Office Buildings Backside,
Kovilpatti-628 501. ,,Respondents/Defendants
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD).No.128 of 2016
Prayer : This Appeal Suit is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 and 2 and r/w
96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed
in O.S.No.4 of 2013 dated 28.04.2016 on the file of the First Additional
District Court, Thoothukudi.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Saravanan
For R1 : Mr.C.Satheesh
Government Advocate
For R2 & R3 : Mr.V.Karthikeyan for
For Mr.S.V.Sampathkumar
JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree
in O.S.No.4 of 2013 dated 28.04.2016 passed by the First Additional
District Court, Thoothukudi and pray to set aside the same.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the suit for
directing the defendants to confer the membership on him in the third
defendant/Society; the second defendant is the secretary of the third
respondent/society, which is registered under the first defendant; the
society has been formed for serving the cause of the members in creating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD).No.128 of 2016
unity and good relation; it is functioning for more than 20 years; the
plaintiff requested the second defendant to admit himself as a member in
the third defendant society in order to participate in its activities and to
happily engage his retired life at Kovilpatti; the second defendant
permitted the plaintiff to participate in its activists and accepted him as a
guests member by collecting daily fee; the plaintiff wanted to become a
regular member in the third respondent/society and applied for regular
membership on 22.02.2010.
2.1 The second defendant in his letter dated 04.03.2010 informed that
they stopped adding new members to the society and hence, new requests
cannot be entertained; the by law of third defendant/society provided the
new membership; the plaintiff once again applied and the same was
rejected by observing that he was acting against the interest of the
society; thus the defendants 2 and 3 have taken contradictory stand in
rejecting his membership with some ulterior motive; hence, the plaintiff
has filed the suit for directing the defendants to confer the membership on
him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD).No.128 of 2016
3. The second defendant contested the suit by stating that the third
defendant/society never gave any assurance to the plaintiff that he would
be admitted as a regular member in the society, when he was coming to
the society as a guest member; the new members will be admitted, only if
it is approved in the general body meeting by way of passing a resolution;
if the General body bans the new membership, the second defendant
cannot act on his own; the society would act only according to its by-
laws and resolution passed by the general body from time to time; the
plaintiff acted against the interest of the society by way of giving false
complaint before the police authorities many times; there is no cause of
action for the suit; suit itself is a frivolous one and it should be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the trial Court judge had framed
the following two issues:-
i) 2k; gpujpthjp r';fj;jpy; thjpia cWg;gpduhf ,izj;Jf;bfhs;s cj;jutpl
ntz;Lk; vd;W thjp nfhhpa[s;s ghpfhuk; thjpf;F fpilf;ff; Toajh?
ii) thjpf;F fpilf;ff; Toa ,ju ghpfhu';fs; vd;d?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD).No.128 of 2016
5. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses
were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 11 documents were marked as
Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. On the side of the defendant, one witness was
examined as D.W.1 and 6 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to B6. The
learned trial Judge, after examining the evidence available on record
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over that, the plaintiff has preferred this
appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant /plaintiff applied an application for membership and it was
negated by the defendants 2 and 3 with some ulterior motive; so long as
he was the guest member, there was no allegation against him; since he
wanted himself to include as a regular member, it is alleged that he is
acting against the interest of society; the defendants wantonly refused to
admit the plaintiff as a member; the learned trial Judge without
appreciating the claim of the plaintiff in proper perspective, dismissed the
suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD).No.128 of 2016
7. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that he is only a
formal party and it is true that the third respondent society has been
registered with him.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the
affairs of the society are being managed in accordance with by law and it
is the General body, who has to take a call on the inclusion of new
members; the suit filed against the society by a person, who has caused
troubles to the society by giving various false complaints; the learned trial
Judge had rightly dismissed the suit and it does not require any
interference.
9. The following point for consideration would arise on the basis of the
rival submissions made by the parties to the appeal.
Whether the judgement of the trial court in dismissing the suit
is fair and proper?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD).No.128 of 2016
10. The third respondent/society has been registered under the Societies
Registration Act with the first respondent with some objectives. The
appellant/plaintiff himself admits that he was going to the Society for
three months as a guest member by paying daily fee. The grievance of the
appellant is that when he applied for permanent membership, he was not
accepted. Since the affairs of the society are conducted by the elected
office members in accordance with by-laws of the society, it is at the
disposal of the society either to accept or reject the member.
11. The learned trial Judge has observed that the plaintiff has given
complaints against the society. No society would like to invite troubles
by adding members who are hostile to its functions. Further, the
Secretary or President cannot act on his own for adding or dismissing any
member without the approval of the General Body. Since the appellant
requested to add himself as the member in the society and his request
could not get the approval of the General body, the society cannot
respond to him favourably.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD).No.128 of 2016
12. The Plaintiff has stated that he wanted to spend his retired life
peacefully at Kovilpatti by becoming a member of the Society and his
right cannot be denied. One’s inclusion in a Society or any other
Association cannot be considered as the legal basis for retired life. The
denial of a membership in any society or Association cannot be
considered as an infringement of one’s legal right and hence no cause of
action would arise to maintain this suit.
13. In fact the prayer in the suit itself is not clear and pleadings in the
plaint do not disclose any violation of legal right. The trial Court ought
not to have entertained this suit and spend its valuable time in trying the
same. However, the observation of the trial Judge that the plaintiff has
got no cause of action is correct. Since the plaintiff cannot compel any
Society, more particularly, the third defendant Society to add him as a
member against the wishes of his members. Since the suit itself is not
maintainable, it is right for the trial Judge to dismiss the same. In my
considered view, the judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any
factual or legal infirmity and it does not warrant any interference. Thus
the point is answered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD).No.128 of 2016
In the result, this Appeal Suit is dismissed and the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.4 of 2013 dated 28.04.2016 on the file of the learned
First Additional District, Thoothukudi, is confirmed. No Costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
11.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
tta
To
1. The First Additional District Judge,
Theni.
2.The Section Office,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD).No.128 of 2016
R.N.MANJULA, J.
tta
A.S(MD).No.128 of 2016
11.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
