Bangalore District Court
Smt.Geetha vs Sri.Gururaj on 13 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.No.27), AT BANGALORE.
PRESENT:SRI.BHAIRAPPA SHIVALING NAIK, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl),
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
DATED: THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2016
O.S.No.8878/2012
Plaintiff:- Smt.Geetha
Venaktesh,
w/o. A.k.Venkatesh,
aged about 54 years,
r/at.No.94/1/1,
T.R.Shamanna Road,
5th Main Road,
3rd block,
Thayagarajanagar,
Bengaluru -560028.
(By Smt.Rajeswhari
Devi.C, Advocate)
-VS-
Defendant:- 1. Sri.Gururaj
Association(regd)
Sri. Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt,
No.53, Model House
Street, Basavangudi,
2 O.S.No.8878/2012
Bengaluru -04,
Represented by its
President K.R.Vyasaraj.
(By Sri.S.S.Srinivasa
Rao, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 14/12/2012
Nature of the suit : Declaration suit
Date of commencement of
recording of the evidence : 27/11/2014
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 13/04/2016
Total Duration Years Months Days
: 03 03 30
(BHAIRAPPA SHIVALING NAIK)
XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration against the defendant association.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant association was registered in the year 1942 under the provisions of Mysore Societies Registration Act. The aims and objects of 3 O.S.No.8878/2012 the Association is to perform pooja, homa, aaraadhane, jayanthi, weekly special pooja and poornima pooja every year and every month. The defendant association has got its own byelaws in respect of the conduct of the association, regulations relating to membership etc. The plaintiff is the member of the 1st defendant having become the member bearing membership No.767 in the year 2001. The plaintiff has also served as a Treasurer of the defendant from 2001 to 2011. The 1st defendant society has become one of the notable association and has performed many devotional and service activities headed by the plaintiff.
3. The facts being so, during the year 2011, a new Committee came into existences and one Venkateshaiah became the President, Sri.Srinivasamurthy the Secretary and the Treasurer respectively. However the plaintiff being the member of the defendant association continued to existed her help for the smooth running of the association. But unfortunately, certain persons who are inimically disposed towards the plaintiff started making false, frivolous and reckless allegations against her regarding misappropriation of the funds of the defendant. Though the plaintiff has never indulged in any acts much less the act of 4 O.S.No.8878/2012 misappropriation. The persons who had jealous about the work of the plaintiff, started making frivolous allegations against her and gave false complaint to the Committee. That Committee without appointing any professional auditor alleged that the plaintiff is guilty of misappropriation of funds belong to the defendant without being any material proof. The defendant association appears to have had a report from Committee which never made note to the plaintiff and wrongly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is guilty of misappropriation of the funds of the defendant association. The plaintiff by way of representation dated.5.5.2012 offered her explanation and made it clear by facts and figures that there is no misappropriation in the funds of the defendant. It was also demonstrated before the Managing Committee that there is no misappropriation of funds either from the hands of the plaintiff or anybody.
4. Under such circumstances, the general body was called which was scheduled to be held on 06.05.2012. In that meeting, even though misappropriation of the plaintiff is also subject which was never taken up in view of the threshold between the new Committee and other members 5 O.S.No.8878/2012 of the Committee. The President- Venkataiah resigned from the post of Presidentship and in his place; K.R.Vyasaraj became the President of the defendant.
5. The plaintiff has further asserted that the 2nd defendant without any reasons whatsoever appears to have called General Body meeting on 10.6.2012 which was not intimated to the plaintiff as required under law. Absolutely, no notice was given to the plaintiff intimating the date of General Body Meeting. As per the information gathered by the plaintiff, General body was conducted on 10.6.2012 and no proceedings were initiated. Even though the plaintiff has sought for proceedings dated.10.6.2012 but the same has not been furnished by the defendant. As such, when no General Body held on 10.6.2012 and then the plaintiff has not expelled from the 1st defendant. The plaintiff with shock and surprise received a letter from the 1st defendant dated.16.8.2012 stating that the plaintiff has been removed from the primary membership of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff was neither heard nor offered any opportunity and abruptly sent letter dated.16.8.2012 without following due course of law. There is a prescribed procedure for the removal of membership in the byelaw of the 1st defendant 6 O.S.No.8878/2012 but, no such procedure was followed and without any reasons, the plaintiff was removed from the primary membership of the defendant association which is contrary to the bye-law. The right of the plaintiff to be a member of the defendant has been infringed by the illegal act of the defendants by expelling the plaintiff in the alleged Special General Body Meeting held on 10.6.2012. Hence the plaintiff has been constrained to file the suit to declare that the declaration made in the alleged Special General Body Meeting held on 10.6.2012 canceling the membership of the plaintiff is null and void and contrary to the bye-laws of the 1st defendant Society.
6. In response to the suit summons, the defendant association appeared through its President as authorised representative and resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement. The defendant association has denied all the averments and allegations made in the plaint as false. However it is admitted that the plaintiff was a member of the defendant till 10.6.2012. The plaintiff was also member of the Governing Committee and also was the Treasurer of the defendant association till 2011. The plaintiff and her other colleagues in the Governing 7 O.S.No.8878/2012 Committee during the said tenure were responsible for causing huge financial loss to the defendant by Committing misappropriation of funds and due to mal-administration by the erstwhile Governing Committee during their tenure. The defendant has specifically denied that the defendant had formed a Committee and obtained a report and wrongly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had committed misappropriation and that the plaintiff has offered her explanation dated.5.5.2012 stating that there is no misappropriation of funds.
7. The defendant has submitted that when the then Governing Committee showed all eagerness to get the accounts of the years 2007 to 2011 approved at ones in the General Body Meeting dated,3,6,2011 the members opposed to the said act of the Governing Committee and demanded for a review of the accounts for the said years by a team. On the basis of the said demand by the members a Sub- Committee was constituted to review the account for the said years and to place its report before the General Body of the defendant. The Sub-Committee reviewed the accounts of the defendant after having gathered the information and material, placed its report to the Special General Body 8 O.S.No.8878/2012 dated.6.5.2012. In that report indicated various instances of maladministration and misappropriation of funds by the Governing Committee during the said tenure. Thereafter, a few members of the Governing Committee tendered their resignation to membership of the defendant owing their moral responsibility. The defendant has also informed the plaintiff by a notice of intimation dated.18.4.2012 to offer her explanation/defence to audit report and to personally appear before the General Body on 6.5.2012 to appeal to the said General Body. Despite of that fact, the plaintiff has approached this court with false and frivolous contentions. As the plaintiff did not choose to appeal to the Special General Body, after a detailed discussion in the Spl. General Body held on 10.6.2012, the plaintiff and others were dismembered from the defendant for their willful acts and omission resulting in huge financial loss to the defendant. The said K.V.Venkateshaiah, the then President who had presided over the said General Body meeting walked out of the meeting when the members demanded for a serious action against the members of the previous Governing Committee including a relative of K.V.Venkateshaiah for the huge financial loss caused to the defendant due to which, the meeting was called off. 9 O.S.No.8878/2012 Thereafter, on 10.6.2012 a Spl. General Body Meeting was held with prior intimation to all the members. In the meeting, the decision to dismember the plaintiff and others were taken after a detailed discussion in accordance with the provisions of the bye-law of the defendant. The plaintiff has appeared and submitted her explanation before the sub- Committee constituted for review of accounts. Even the copy of the report on review of the account was furnished to the plaintiff and her explanation to the same was sought in which the plaintiff has tendered her reply dated.5.5.2012. The Special General Body Meeting intimation is also served upon the plaintiff and only after a detailed deliberation in the Special General Body Meeting dated.10.6.2012 the plaintiff and other few were dismembered from the defendant as an action which could be a deterrent to those who venture to cause loss to the defendant as a charitable institution.
8. The defendant has further submitted that the suit is not maintainable in law as the provisions of the bye-law provide for the General Body against the expulsion of the member. The plaintiff without even attempting to exhaust that remedy has approached this court with twisted fact to suit 10 O.S.No.8878/2012 her unchaste design. The defendant has acted in strict adherence to the byelaw but not without any vindictive approach. The plaintiff in active connivance with the other members of the then Governing Committee has acted adverse to the interest of the defendant, abused the authority vested in her, misappropriated the funds of the defendant caused breach of Trust and thereby caused a huge loss to the defendant. The plaintiff is also responsible for not with-holding General Body Meeting as prescribed in the bylaw. No procedures were followed by the plaintiff and her colleagues in the Governing Committee as prescribed in the bylaw. The accounts are not maintained and not placed before the General Body. Elections were held even after completion of the tenure which resulted in a huge loss running to several crores of rupees to the defendant. The maladministration and misappropriation at the hands of the said members of the Governing Committee has been categorically pointed out in the audit report.
9. The defendant has further submitted that plaintiff has no right whatsoever to seek any right under Right to Information Act and there is no obligation upon the defendant to share any information under the said act. 11 O.S.No.8878/2012 There is no cause of action to the suit. This court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplory costs.
10. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were formulated on 25.02.2014:-
ISSUES
1. Does the plaintiff proves that, she has never misappropriated the funds of defendant association as contended in the plaint?
2. Does the plaintiff proves that, termination of her membership by the defendant association in the General Body Meeting held on 10.06.2012 is null and void and contrary to the byelaw of the defendant association?
3. Does the plaintiff proves that, she is entitled for the relief sought for?
4. Does the defendant proves that, the Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit as contended in para No.15 of the written statement? 12 O.S.No.8878/2012
5. What order or decree?
11. Thereafter, the plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 and adduced documentary evidence from Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The defendant has cross-examined P.W.1 and also got marked documentary evidence from Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 by confronting the same to P.W.1. However, the defendant has not chosen to adduce any other evidence in support of its defence.
12. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.
13. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Negative
Issue No.2: In the Negative
Issue No.3: In the Negative
Issue No.4: In the Affirmative
Issue No.5: As per final order
for the following:-
/REASONS/
14. Issues No.1 to 3:- Since these issues being interlinked
with each other, in order to avoid repetition of discussions, are taken up together for consideration.
13 O.S.No.8878/2012
15. The plaintiff being member of the defendant association is constrained to file the suit to declare that the declaration made in the alleged Special General Body Meeting held on 10.6.2012 canceling the membership of the plaintiff as null and void and contrary of byelaws of the first defendant society. The plaintiff is relying on her oral and documentary evidence placed on record. P.W.1 has reiterated the averments made in the plaint in the course of her examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit. It is evident from the cross-examination of P.W.1 that the plaintiff had elected as member of Managing Committee of defendant in the year 2001. The plaintiff became the Treasurer of the defendant in the year 2005. The election was again conducted in the year 2006 and she was elected as member. The term of Elected Committee would be 2 years. There was an election conducted between 2001 and 2005. Infact, the plaintiff was continued as a Treasurer since 2006 till 2011 and no election was conducted after 2006 before 2011. There is a rule to hold in the General Body Meeting in the association of the defendant. There might be two or three General Body Meeting held during the period between 2001 and 2011. P.W.1 has clearly admitted that purpose of 14 O.S.No.8878/2012 holding annual General Body Meeting is to take assent of all the members of the association by placing the accounts to discuss about the affairs of the association. It is also admitted that at the time of Annual General Body Meeting held in the year 2011 election was also conducted. The plaintiff did not contest in that election as she was not eligible for the same. According to P.W.1, they placed all the accounts for the period from 2001 to 2011 before the members, but none of the members was agreed for the same in that meeting and after deliberation, decision was taken to hold detailed enquiry regarding accounts of the association and audit report was formed during that meeting. It is also admitted that audit Committee was empowered to verify the accounts and get information from concerned. The audit Committee asked the plaintiff some information and she also gave information to that effect. P.W.1 did not know whether some of the Managing Committee members had resigned to their membership. It is a fact that the plaintiff has verified the audit report as deposed by P.W.1. Even then the plaintiff did not take any steps against that audit report. The plaintiff was said to have suggested to place the audit report before the General Body Meeting since the General Body is superior to 15 O.S.No.8878/2012 that of Managing Committee of the association and the General Body can take all the decisions which are to be taken by the Managing Committee.
16. It is evident from the further cross-examination of P.W.1 that the plaintiff knows the bye-law clause 8.Aa. Accordingly Managing Committee had to take action, but the same was taken up before the General Body Meeting as it was decided in the previous General Body Meeting. Though the plaintiff has denied the service of notice of General Body Meeting held on 6.5.2012 and 10.6.2012, yet she has duly admitted that she has signed the attendance register extract as member No.767 at Sl.No.38 at Ex.D1(a) on Ex.D1. The extract of the attendance on 6.5.2012 and also clearly admitted that she has attended General Body Meeting held on not only 6.5.2012, but also on 10.6.2012 at Ex.D1(a) on Ex.D1 and Ex.D2(a) on Ex.D2 and she knew the proceedings held in those meetings, but she was not allowed to speak in that meeting. It is also admitted that the plaintiff has not at all pleaded this fact in her plaint. Besides, the plaintiff received a letter from defendant association after two months of General Body Meeting. Meanwhile, the 16 O.S.No.8878/2012 plaintiff wrote a letter to the association but that letter was not received by any of the association concerned. There is no pleading in this regard in the plaint. As admitted by P.W.1, even such letter as deposed by P.W.1 is also not placed on record. The plaintiff also knew the fact that there is a provision for appeal against the order of dismembering the member. According to P.W.1, no opportunity was given to her appeal and she was not allowed to attend the General Body Meeting. Even this fact is also not pleaded in the plaint so as to take into consideration. P.W.1 has further clearly and unequivocally admitted the important fact that the audit Committee has submitted it's report as per Ex.D3. The plaintiff after thought produced Annual report of defendant association and joint reply submitted by one K.B.Krishna Murthy and plaintiff to the President of defendant as per Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 respectively.
17. The plaintiff has been relying on certain documentary evidence in support of her claim. The bye-law of the defendant association at Ex.P1 particularly, Clause-8 reads thus:-
"8. Removal from the membership: 17 O.S.No.8878/2012
(a) Any members with his own will and volition gives resignation to the membership, then under such circumstances members name shall be deleted from the membership records.
(b) Any member/Director violates the rules and regulations of the Society or cause irreparable damage to the Society or causing damage to the prestige of the society, if such act comes to the knowledge of administrative authorities, Under such circumstances, after seeking explanation from the said member/Director, then after verification of the explanation, if the said explanation is found to be not valid, then the Committee members have to write their decision and remove the name of the said member from the registry. Under such circumstances the member shall be given an opportunity to appeal to the General Body Meeting. After considering the facts, circumstances, if they get the satisfactory explanation from the said member, then 18 O.S.No.8878/2012 after taking a valid decision, direct the Committee to take action as per the said decision."
18. Ex.P2 is a letter dated.16.8.2012 addressed to the plaintiff by the Secretary of the defendant, thereby informed the plaintiff that her primary membership was cancelled forth- with in pursuance to the decision which was taken up by the Special General Body Meeting on dated.10.6.2012. The plaintiff has challenged the resolution dated.10.6.2012 passed in the Spl. General Body Meeting in the suit.
19. Ex.P3 Membership I.D. card issued by the defendant association discloses that the membership No.767 is pertaining to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had applied for issuing certified copy of meeting proceedings book, attendance book, audio and video C.D. pertaining to the Spl. General Body Meetings held on 6.5.2012 and 10.6.2012 to the President/Secretary of the defendant association on 24.9.2012 as per Ex.P4. The postal receipt and postal acknowledgment at Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 also reflect that the plaintiff sent a letter to the Deputy Registrar for Co- Operative Societies, Chamarajapet through RPAD and the same was served upon the addressee, but no letter 19 O.S.No.8878/2012 addressed to the said addressee is produced before the court to take into consideration.
20. Ex.P7 the 54th Annual report of the defendant association discloses that the said A.K.Gururaja Rao was the President and the plaintiff herein was Treasurer during the period from 14.06.2006 to 23.02.2011 along with other Managing Committee members. Ex.P7 discloses that the accounts of the defendant association were audited by the Chartered Accountant concerned for the period from 31.03.2008 to 31.3.2011 in the month of June 2011 and submitted Audit report pertaining to said period of four years on 9.6.2011 itself.
21. Though the plaintiff has denied the service of notice of General Body Meeting held on 6.5.2012 and 10.6.2012, yet she has admitted in the course of her cross-examination extract of attendance registers at Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. Accordingly, the plaintiff was personally attended both the meeting as she has signed the attendance register pertaining to membership No.767 at Sl.No.38 and 42 respectively as it is evident from Ex.D1(a) and Ex.D2(a) respectively.
20 O.S.No.8878/2012
22. The audit Committee appointed at the Annual General Body Meeting on 3.7.2011 regarding accounts from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2011 submitted findings to the President of the defendant association. It is further observed by the Audit Committee appointed at the 54th Annual General Body Meeting of defendant association that even though the reference was upto 31.3.2011, they have in process of their review come across certain documents even beyond 31.3.2011 which they feel and also be reviewed, since the previous Managing Committee was upto 3.7.2011. They were of the view that the accounts pertaining from 01.04.2011 to 03.07.2011 should also be independently checked, so that a clear picture of the entire period of the previous Managing Committee is known to the General Body. The Audit Committee has given findings to the following effect:-
The total working and method of recording transaction lacks transparency. There were no bills from the book keeper. The Managign Committee including the office bearers and the internal auditor has taken a very casual approach to proper maintenance of accounts. The members of sub-Committee have not followed the basic 21 O.S.No.8878/2012 principles of joint efforts/joint decisions and allowed individual sub-Committee member to procure the materials without involving other sub- Committee members as well as not producing the proper vouchers/bills, inspite of the Managing Committee having full knowledge about the same. The amounts have been paid to staff without obtaining signatures. These observations were made by the Audit Committee on the normal working of the mutt which does not include expenses of Aradhana. As decided by the General Body, the review of the accounts was to be done for the last 10 years by the Audit Committee. It is also reported that the purported accountant M/s K.R. associates or the persons representing them have not gone through the accounting entries and have not applied their mind and have failed to report this matter to the Managing Committee. There was no proper control over the withdrawal of cash from the bank and they have not obtained the approval for the pre-closure of fixed deposits. In accordance with the bye- laws, Managing Committee has to submit an 22 O.S.No.8878/2012 annual report along with the annual accounts. The Managing Committee has failed to submit an annual report. Instead they have submitted a consolidated report for all the four years which is not in accordance with the bye-laws. The Managing Committee has failed to give the full details of the donations including gold, silver and cash received for the creation of assets and not even mentioned in the Annual Report the Total Amount received as donations. Ultimately the audit Committee has suggested, since the Committee had no proper documents to check during the period from 1-04-2007 to 31- 03-2011 as the Aradhana accounts were not made available, they were of the view that a thorough investigation must be conducted by independent agency with full powers to investigate all the transactions.
23. It is relevant to note hear that the plaintiff being ex-
Treasurer and K.V. Krishnamurthy Ex-Secretary jointly replied letter dated 18-04-2012 regarding audit Committee report which bears the endorsement of the President of 23 O.S.No.8878/2012 defendant association. Ex.P.8 is nothing to do with the instant suit filed by the plaintiff so far termination of her membership by the defendant association is concerned.
24. It is proved from the evidence on record particularly, the cross-examination of PW1 coupled with documentary evidence adduced by both the parties that, the Managing Committee elected in the year 2006 was continued upto 2011. Neither Managing Committee nor any of the members of the defendant association did care to hold annual General Body Meeting and elect new Managing Committee members for better management and administration of the defendant association in accordance with bye-laws. Besides, the report of the audit Committee as referred to supra itself clarifies that the Managing Committee has not only failed to maintain books of accounts but also get the accounts be audited from time to time atleast once in a year for the period from April 2007 to March 2011 for the reasons best known to them. As noticed by the audit Committee, the accounts of the defendant were not properly maintained. There were no vouchers regarding certain transactions. All these facts themselves go to show that funds of the defendant association were not properly utilized either by 24 O.S.No.8878/2012 the concerned members or the Managing Committee. The plaintiff and other members were terminated by way of resolution passed in General Body Meeting held on 10-06- 2012 due to mismanagement/misappropriation of funds of the defendant association within the knowledge of the plaintiff. The each and every allegations made in the plaint by the plaintiff against the newly elected Managing Committee has been falsified by the cross-examination of PW1 itself. Though plaintiff was personally attended the meeting held on 06-05-2012 and 10-06-2012, yet the plaintiff has purposely and deliberately withheld these material facts before the court. It is a fit case to draw an adverse inference against the plaintiff for having concealed true facts before the court just to suit her purpose. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that the plaintiff has never misappropriated the funds of defendant association. On the other hand, it is proved from the documentary evidence on record itself that, the defendant association has terminated the membership of the plaintiff in the General Body Meeting held on 10-06-2012 strictly in terms of Bye-laws of the defendant association. The resolution dated. 10-06-2012 is strictly in accordance with aforesaid Clause-8 of the Bye-laws of the defendant 25 O.S.No.8878/2012 association which is binding on the plaintiff. Hence, without much discussion I answer Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the Negative.
25. Issue Nos. 3 and 4:- The specific defence of the defendant is that the membership of any of the members of the defendant shall be removable in view of either clause-8(a) or 8(b). The membership of the plaintiff has been terminated in accordance with Clause 8(b) of Bye-law of the defendant association due to violation of rules and regulations of the association which caused irrepairable damages to the society. Immediately after such an act came to the knowledge of the administrative authorities, the defendant association sought explanation from the plaintiff in writing and after verification of the explanation, the decision of removal of the name of the member from the registry was also sent to the plaintiff giving an opportunity to appeal to the General Body. Inspite of which, the plaintiff did not exhaust the remedy of appeal provided under the said bye-law and the plaintiff has directly approached this court without any cause of action. On this ground alone the suit of the plaintiff is not 26 O.S.No.8878/2012 maintainable and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the plaintiff.
26. In the instant case the plaintiff inspite of service of notice, failed to submit her remarks on the report of the audit. Further, after removal of her membership from the register of the defendant association, the plaintiff has failed to prefer an appeal before General Body as provided under Clause 8(b) of the bye-laws of the defendant association against her exclusion of her membership. As admitted by P.W. 1 the plaintiff has not questioned the audit report before the competent authority. It is clearly mentioned in the audit report that there is maladministration so far funds of the defendant association are concerned. Ex.D.3 itself clarifies that the plaintiff and other Managing Committee members were caused huge financial loss to the first defendant association due to their maladministration during the period from 2006 to 2011. The plaintiff has failed to exhaust efficacious remedy available to her in pursuance to clause 8(b) of the bye-law by filing an appeal and directly approached this court seeking the relief of declaration without any cause of action. Looking from any angle the suit of the plaintiff being without any cause of action is not maintainable and 27 O.S.No.8878/2012 this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in the present form. As such the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as sought against the defendant association. Hence, I answer Issue No. 3 in the Negative and Issue No.4 in the Affirmative.
27. Issue No.5:- In view of my findings on the issues No.1 to 4 and the reasons stated therein, in the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.
Draw up a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 13th day of April 2016.) (BHAIRAPPA SHIVALING NAIK) XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore 28 O.S.No.8878/2012 A N N E X U R E I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: Smt. Geetha Venaktesh
(b) Defendant's side : NIL II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff' side :
Ex.P1: Bye-laws of defendant association Ex.P2: Notice issued by defendant association Ex.P3: Membership card Ex.P4: Copy of letter issued by defendant association Ex.P5: Postal receipt Ex.P6: Postal acknowledgment Ex.P7: Annual report of defendant association Ex.P8: Acknowledgment regarding joint reply
(b) For defendant's side:-
Ex.D1: Extract of Attendance Register
Ex.D1(a): Relevant portion in Ex.D1
Ex.D2: Extract of Attendance register
Ex.D2(a): Relevant portion in Ex.D2
Ex.D3: Audit report
(BHAIRAPPA SHIVALING NAIK)
XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
29 O.S.No.8878/2012
(Judgment pronounced in open court)
The suit of the plaintiff is
dismissed with costs.
Draw up a decree
accordingly.
(vide Judgment passed)
XII ACCJ;Bangalore