Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 651 (HP)

Adarsh Shiksha Samiti Ghumarwin v. Subhash Thakur

2025-04-07

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2025
Judgment : (Satyen Vaidya, J.) This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2014, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.69/13 of 2013, whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, Ghumarwin in Civil Suit No.533/1 of 2011/06 has been affirmed. 2. The appellants were the plaintiffs in original suit and for the sake of convenience, the parties hereafter shall be referred to by the same status as they hold in the original Court. 3. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants seeking decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the working of plaintiff No.1-Society. 4. It was averred that plaintiff No.1 was a registered society. It was running an educational institution known as Adarsh School Ghumarwin. Plaintiffs No.2 to 6 claimed themselves to be the elected office bearers of governing body. They alleged that the defendants were the strangers and defendant No.13 was the Headmaster of the school, but he wanted to grab powers of governing body in violation of Rules and Regulations of the Society. In this pursuit, defendant No.13 allegedly had connived with other defendants with a motive to take over the control of affairs of plaintiff No.1-society. 5. The defendants contested the suit. It was alleged that the school was receiving the grant-in-aid to the extent of 95% from the State Government. Defendant No.13 was also paid by the State Government to the extent of 95% of his salary. It was further alleged that plaintiffs No.2 to 6 were not the elected members of governing body. As per the defendants, plaintiff No.1- society was constituted in the year 1987 and since then no elections of the governing body had been conducted in accordance with bye laws of the society. It was also the case of the defendants that the general body of the society had elected the defendants as governing body members and thus, they were vested with the powers to run and manage the society. 6. Learned trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for?...OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? ...OPD 3. 6. Learned trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for?...OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? ...OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his acts, conducts and deeds as alleged? ...OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as alleged?...OPD. 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? ...OPD. 6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present suit as alleged? ...OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as alleged/...OPD 8. Relief.” 7. Issue No.2, 4 and 5 were answered in affirmative and rest of the issues were negated. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. 8. This appeal was admitted on 06.07.2015 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether on account of misappreciation of the pleadings, misreading and misconstruction of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and law also, the findings recorded by both Courts below are erroneous and as such the judgment and decree impugned in the main appeal being perverse and vitiated, is not legally sustainable?” 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 10. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their right over management and affairs of plaintiff No.1-society. It was also held by the trial Court that the general house of plaintiff No.1-society had dissolved the earlier governing body and had elected a new governing body in the year 2006, which included the defendants. Learned trial Court also found that the entire record was with defendant No.13. Plaintiffs No.2 to 6 were also held to be not entitled to file suit in absence of compliance of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act . 11. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.69/13 of 2013 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. 11. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.69/13 of 2013 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. Learned first appellate Court, affirmed the findings recorded by learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 12. Both the Courts have arrived at concurrent findings of fact that in the year 2006 a meeting of general body of plaintiff No.1-society was held in which the earlier governing body was dissolved and the new governing body was elected. It was held that the defendants were the members of new governing body. In this manner, it was found that the plaintiffs were not entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as they were not managing the affairs of society or the school. Both the Courts also found that on the date of institution of suit, the affairs of the society were being run by the defendants and all the records were available with defendant No.13 as the Principal of the school. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to establish that the aforesaid findings recorded by learned trial Court and learned first appellate Court were either based on inadmissible evidence or on the material not available on record. 14. The plaintiffs had tried to prove their case by oral evidence. Plaintiffs No.3 and 6 had appeared as PWs 2 and 3. While facing the cross-examination, they could not satisfactorily establish that the society had been run in accordance with Societies Registration Act and the Rules and bye laws of the society. In fact, the admission was made that no meeting of the society has been conducted for the last 5-6 years. It had also been admitted that the cash book and other records of the school were with defendant No.13. PW-3 had even admitted that he had not visited the school for the last 5-6 years and it was the Headmaster i.e. defendant No.13 who was running the school. 15. Thus, no fault can be found with the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. No illegality or perversity in such findings can be made out. 16. Further, it can be noticed that Rules and Regulations of the society Ext.PW-1/C provided for election of members of governing body every year. 15. Thus, no fault can be found with the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. No illegality or perversity in such findings can be made out. 16. Further, it can be noticed that Rules and Regulations of the society Ext.PW-1/C provided for election of members of governing body every year. The elected members were to hold office for one year and in the case of elections being not held regularly, the previous governing body would continue. 17. The alleged cause of action on which suit was filed had occurred in the year 2006 and 19 years have elapsed thereafter. During the course of hearing, a query was put to learned counsel for the appellants as to the present status of society and the elections, if any, held after 2006 to the governing body, but he showed his inability to provide the details. Since, the Rules and Regulations of society provide for the life of governing body to be one year, it cannot be presumed that there is no change in the governing body of the society during long period of 19 years. It is also difficult to comprehend that the cause of action, as alleged in the plaint, will still survive in the given facts and circumstances. 18. The substantial question of law is accordingly answered. 19 In light, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.