Madras High Court

Unknown vs The Registrar Of Societies on 23 October, 2024

Author: P.Velmurugan

Bench: P.Velmurugan

                                                                        W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED:23.10.2024

                                                      CORAM :

                               THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
                                                 AND
                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN

                                     W.A.(MD).Nos.464, 465 and 466 of 2019
                                                     and
                                     C.M.P.(MD).Nos.3869 and 3870 of 2019

                     W.A.(MD).No.464 of 2019:
                     Kalpothu Muthalipatti Nadar Uravinmurai,
                     (Registration No.26 of 2010)
                     represented by its Secretary,
                     Door No.165,
                     P.C.Complex,
                     Chithirakara Street,
                     Madurai-625 001.                                    ... Appellant
                                                       Vs.
                     The Registrar of Societies,
                     Madurai Road,
                     Virudhunagar                                     ... Respondents


                     PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
                     praying this Court to set aside the order dated 19.02.2019, passed in W.P.
                     (MD).No.19744 of 2015.


                     1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                           W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019


                                   For Appellant       : Mr.J.Barathan

                                   For Respondent      : Mr.P.Subbaraj
                                                         Special Government Pleader

                     W.A.(MD).No.465 of 2019:

                     1.P.Panneerselvam
                     2.P.Dharmaraj                                    ... Appellants
                                                       Vs.
                     1.Sree Arunachaleswarar Vidyasala
                            Middle School Managing Committee,
                        (Registration No.5 of 2004)
                       represented by its Secretary,
                       K.Vinayagamurthy,
                       S/o.V.Kasirajan
                       Door No.2/190,
                       Kalpothu Muthalipatti,
                       Sivakasi Taluk,
                       Virudhunagar District.


                     2.The District Registrar of Societies,
                        Madurai Road,
                        Virudhunagar.


                     3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
                        Virudhunagar District,
                        Virudhunagar.                                    ... Respondents

                     2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                         W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019


                     PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
                     praying this Court to set aside the order dated 19.02.2019, passed in W.P.
                     (MD).No.23192 of 2017.
                                   For Appellants      : Mr.J.Barathan
                                   For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali (for R1)
                                                        Mr.P.Subbaraj (For R2 and R3)
                                                        Special Government Pleader

                     W.A.(MD).No.466 of 2019:


                     S.Panneer Selvam                                ... Appellant

                                                       Vs.
                     1.Sree Arunachaleswarar Vidyasala
                            Middle School Managing Committee,
                        (Registration No.5 of 2004)
                       represented by its Secretary,
                       K.Vinayagamurthy,
                       S/o.V.Kasirajan
                       Door No.2/190,
                       Kalpothu Muthalipatti,
                       Sivakasi Taluk,
                       Virudhunagar District.


                     2.The Registrar of Societies,
                        Madurai Road,
                        Virudhunagar.                                ... Respondents

                     3/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                               W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019


                     PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
                     praying this Court to set aside the order dated 19.02.2019, passed in W.P.
                     (MD).No.23225 of 2015.


                                        For Appellant   : Mr.J.Barathan
                                        For Respondents : Mr.R.Mulali (for R1)
                                                          Mr.P.Subbaraj (For R2 and R3)
                                                          Special Government Pleader

                                                         JUDGMENT

[Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.]

This intra court appeals have been filed challenging the writ court

orders in W.P.(MD).Nos.19744 of 2015, 23192 of 2017 and 23225 of

2015, dated 19.02.2019.

2.The facts of the case:

2.1.In Kalpothu Muthalipatti village, there is a school namely, Sree

Arunachaleswarar Vidyasala Middle School, and the same was managed

by namely, Sree Arunachaleswarar Vidhyasala Middle School Managing

Committee, Kalpothu Muthalipatti. The said school was started in the

year 1929. The said Committee was elected by the members of the

“Kalpothu Muthalipatti Nadar Uravinmurai”. That being the situation, as

per the requirement of the law and the requirement of the statue, the said

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019

Kalpothu Muthalipatti Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam was registered in the

name of Sree Arunachaleswarar Vidhyasala Middle School Managing

Committee, Kalpothu Muthalipatti, in the Registration No.5 of 2004

under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. Bylaws stated

that the committee should be selected by the members of the “Kalpothu

Muthalipatti Nadar Uravinmurai”.

2.2.Subsequently, the appellant in order to maintain the school

registered the society in the name of Kalpothu Muthalipatti Nadar

Uravinmurai, under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act,1975,

before the Registrar Societies, Madurai South, Madurai, with registration

No.26 of 2010, on 17.02.2010. Thereafter, the members of the said

society No.26 of 2010 selected the committee members of Sree

Arunachaleswarar Vidhyasala Middle School Managing Committee.

2.3.Subsequently, the expelled members of the appellant society in

W.A.(MD).No.464 of 2019 registered another society with the same

name before the respondent in W.A.(MD).No.464 of 2019, on 24.03.2010

and Registration No.107 of 2010 was assigned. Thereafter, the appellant

society filed writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.13164 of 2012 before this

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019

Court to cancel the said registration on the ground that there is a bar

under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, to

register two societies in the same name and the same also amounts to

offence. The said writ petition was allowed by writ Court, dated

03.01.2013 and the same was confirmed by the division bench of this

Court.

2.4.Parallely, pending the above proceedings, both the appellant

and the respondents themselves conducted the Annual General Body

meeting and submitted Form VII before the Registrar of the Societies,

Madurai Road, Virudhunagar, to approve the same and the registrar of

the societies, on 29.10.2015 returned the said form and advised to

approach the civil Court. Challenging the same, the first respondent in

W.A(MD).No.465 of 2019, filed the writ petition before this Court in

W.P.(MD).No.23225 of 2015 along with stay petition and this Court

granted stay. Challenging the same, the secretary of the appellant society

filed writ appeal in W.A.(MD).No.38 of 2016 along with prayer for ad

interim injunction and the stay petition and the same were considered by

the Division Bench of this Court and granted stay and injunction.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019

2.5.Pending the same, the private respondents filed the writ

petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.19744 and 23225 of 2015 and 23192 of 2017

before this Court challenging the rejection of the Form VII. All were

clubbed together and taken into consideration and the learned single

judge of this Court also had held that the appellant has no right to file

form VII. The respondent society is the jurisdictional society and hence,

they alone have right to file form VII on behalf of the society bearing

Registration No.5 of 2004. Therefore, registrar had acted mechanically

by returning form VII. Therefore, the impugned order was quashed and

the matter was remitted to the first respondent to pass fresh order in

accordance with law. The first respondent was permitted to satisfy

himself whether the Form VII is in respect of the society. The learned

judge also held that three bodies are claiming ownership and control over

the Educational Institution namely Sree Arunachaleswarar Vidhyasala

Middle School,which is being run at Kalpothu Muthalaipatti and further

stated that the acceptance of form VII submitted by any society cannot by

itself have any leverage, in the matter of the approval or recognition at

the hands of the District Element Educational Office, Virudhunagar. The

claimants will have to independently establish their claim before the

jurisdictional civil Court in an appropriately instituted suit. Finally

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019

learned judge dismissed the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.19744 of 2015,

filed by the appellant and partly allowed the writ petition in W.P.

(MD).No.23225 of 2015 filed by the first respondent with direction to

the first respondent to consider the Form VII of the private respondent

herein. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants and others filed the

present writ appeals.

3.The appellant made the following submissions:

The society is registered earlier to the third respondent society.

This Court already declared as third respondent society as invalid one.

The appellant's formVII was already accepted by the authorities and they

acted as the recognized members of the society. Therefore, learned judge

also without taking into consideration of the petitioner's request, closed

his representation regarding the acceptance of the form VII, which is not

correct. The learned Judge also committed jurisdictional error in

remanding the matter to consider the third respondent society, which not

at all existed. It belongs to the ten members of the family and they

intended to hijack the property of the Educational Institution, leaving the

majority of the people.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019

3.1.The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Judge

passed an order declaring that the appellant has no right to file the form

VII. Only the third respondent has power to submit the form VII. This is

not in accordance with the law. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the same.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in W.A.

(MD).No.465 of 2019 submitted that even though they registered in the

year 2010, the appellant society members are not the villagers of the said

Kalpothu Muthalaipatti. They all colluded together and taken the

management of the school, without any legal right. Therefore, the learned

Judge has correctly held that they have no right to submit the form VII

and this respondent alone has right to submit the form VII. There is no

error in the said approach of the learned Judge. The third respondent is

the member of the village and he only has right over the management of

the school. The learned counsel further submitted that after the

declaration of the learned single Judge that the society registered by them

was illegal and writ appeal was preferred and in the writ appeal, there

liberty was given to submit the registration in some other name. The

same was submitted in some other name and the society was formed.

Therefore, they have right to submit the form VII. The authority, without

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019

looking into the same, simply stated that form VII submitted by both

groups and the civil Court alone could decide the issues. He further

submitted that as per the finding of the learned judge and also there is no

evidence to prove that the appellant society is not valid society and

hence, the learned Judge correctly discussed the issues that he has no

authority to hold as office bearers of the society. Hence, he seeks for the

dismissal of writ appeals.

5.This Court considered the trial submissions made on either side

and perused the records and earlier proceedings that took place between

the parties.

6.Admittedly, the unregistered body namely, Kalpothu

Muthalipatti Nadar UravinMurai have been existing for more than 100

years. The said Uravinmurai also owns school namely Sree

Arunachaleswarar Vidyasala Middle School at Kalpothu Muthalipatti.

The said school was started in the year 1929. The school was managed

by the unregistered body. The member of the said unregistered body,

there was no record produced by either of the party to show that the

appellant and respondents are the members of the said unregistered body.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019

The party to the proceedings admitted the registration of the said Sree

Arunachaleswarar Vidyasala Middle School Managing committee

Registration No.5 of 2004 dated 27.01.2004. They also admitted the

following provisions of the bylaw:

8.,e;j gs;spf; fkpl;bahdJ fy;NghJ Kjypgl;b ehlhh; cwtpd;Kiwapd; %yk;

ngUk;ghd;ikapd;Nghpy; epiwNtw;wg;gLk;

jPh;khdj;jpw;Ff; fl;Lg;gl;ljhFk;.

9.jPh;khdq;fs; epiwNtw;Wjy;> gs;spia eph;tfpj;jy;;> Mrphpah; epakdk;

KjyhdJfspy; VNjDk; tpthjq;fs; fUj;J NtWghLfs; Iaq;fs; vokhapd; fy;NghJ Kjypgl;b ehlhh; cwtpd;Kiwahy;

nfhz;Ltug;gLk; rpwg;Gj; jPh;khdk; %yk;

KbT nra;ag;gl Ntz;Lk;.

7.Now, the dispute is who are the Kalpothu Muthalipatti Nadar

Uravinmurai. Both the parties claimed that they are the Kalpothu

Muthalipatti Nadar Uravinmurai. The appellant registered the society in

the name of Kalpothu Muthalipatti Nadar Uravinmurai, with the

Registration No.26 of 2010. Subsequently, the first respondent Society

registered the same bearing Registration No.107 of 2010. Even though

the appellant filed a writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.13164 of 2012

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019

declaring the Registration No.107 of 201, as null and void, this Court

declared the society as null and void. Aggrieved over the same, the

respondent filed the writ appeal in W.A.(MD).No.363 of 2013 and the

writ Court disposed of the same granting liberty to register the society in

some other name. Subsequently, the respondent Society registered the

society in some other name. In the meantime, both the parties submitted

the form VII. Therefore, the contention of the appellant namely registered

society bearing registration No.26 of 2010 that the authority has no right

to refer the matter to civil dispute on the grounds that there was no rival

claim among the members of the registered society bearing registration

No.26 of 2010 appealable. But, the grievance of the respondent, who also

got registration in some other name and claimed that they are the original

Kalpothu Muthalipatti Nadar Uravinmurai. In the said circumstances,

even though the learned writ Court found that the form VII submitted by

the registered society bearing registration No.26 of 2010 is not valid on

the grounds that they have no locus standi to file the form VII is

erroneous, they have no right to hold the post of management when the

respondent also claimed that they are the members of the Kalpothu

Muthalipatti Nadar Uravinmurai. The dispute is purely a civil dispute

between the two groups, who are entitled to manage the school and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019

whether they are the original Kalpothu Muthalipatti Nadar Uravinmurai

and the same has to be resolved before the civil Court. In the said

circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge that the appellant

has no right to submit the form VII is not correct. Same way, recognizing

the right of the respondent Society is also erroneous. More particularly,

when the appellant's form VII was accepted and the same was also

observed by the learned Judge and there was no accrued right on the date

of the submission of the form VII to the Respondent Society, this Court

inclines to set aside the learned Single Judge's order. The observation of

the learned single Judge that the appellant Society has no right to submit

the form VII is not correct and the same is liable to be set aside. The

order of the learned single Judge conferring the right of the private

respondent, who got registered subsequently in some other name, after

the declaration of their Society registered No.107 of 2010 is null and

void, has no locus to submit the form in view of the dispute between both

the appellant Society and the third Respondent who are the “real

Kalpothu Muthalipatti Nadar Uravinmurai”.

8.In view of the dispute between both the groups, who are the

“real Kalpothu Muthalipatti Nadar Uravinmurai”, in the interest of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019

Educational Institution, which is a prestigious institution started in the

year 1929, this Court is inclined to appoint the Administrator to the

school to resolve the dispute between the two parties. This Court feels

that this is an extraordinary circumstance in the extraordinary situation of

the case and the Constitutional Court has power to mould the Law so as

to serve the needs of time in order to maintain peace in the administration

of education agency and welfare of the Nadar Uravinmurai adopting the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:

Lord Denning B.P.Achala Anand v. S. Prithipal Singh v. once said: Appi Reddy, (2005) 3 SCC State of Punjab:

313 2012(1)SCC10 “Law does not 9.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme “50.Extraordinary stand still; it moves Court in held as follows: situations demand continuously. Once “Unusual fact situation posing extraordinary remedies.

this is recognised, issues for resolution is an While dealing with an then the task of a opportunity for innovation. Law, unprecedented case, the judge is put on a as administered by courts, Court has to innovate higher plane. He transforms into justice. the law and may also must consciously The law does not remain static. It pass an unconventional seek to mould the does not operate in a vacuum. As order keeping in mind law so as to serve social norms and values change, that an extraordinary the needs of the laws too have to be reinterpreted, fact situation requires time.” and recast. Law is really a extraordinary dynamic instrument fashioned by measures.” society for the purposes of achieving harmonious adjustment, human relations by elimination of social tensions and conflicts.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019

9.Since both groups have been spending majority of time and their

energy to rule over the administration of the Educational Institution

without taking interest of Uravinmurai collective interest, there was

choas in administration. Therefore, this extraordinary situation arises and

the same warrants the appointment of the Administrator. Now, the

question is who is competent person to be appointed as Administrator

since this institution belongs to the Nadar community. This Court

inclined to appoint an Advocate, who belong to the said community

Mr.V.Sasikumar, Advocate, 28-Kasim Residency, Y.Othakadai, Madurai,

as Administrator of the said school. This Court issues direction to

Mr.V.Sasikumar as Administrator to render this service to his community

without receiving any remuneration. Hence, these writ appeals are

allowed in the following terms:-

9.1.The order passed in W.P.(MD).Nos.19744 of 2015, 23192 of

2017 and 23225 of 2015, dated 19.02.2019, is set aside.

9.2.The order of the official Respondent is in accordance with law.

9.3.Mr.V.Sasikumar, Advocate, 28-Kasim Residency, Y.Othakadai,

Madurai, is appointed as the Administrator of the said school. The

Administrator has every power to manage the school.

9.4.The school authority is directed to cooperate with the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019

Administrator as per law.

Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous appeals are closed.

[P.V.J.,] & [K.K.R.K.J.,]

23.10.2024 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No vsg

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD).Nos.464 to 466 of 2019

To: