Kerala High Court
K.K.Surendran vs Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam on 30 January, 2020
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 10TH MAGHA, 1941
FAO.No.98 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER IN O.P.No.(Scheme) 1/2017 DATED 12-04-2018
OF SUB COURT AT PUNALUR, KOLLAM.
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 K.K.SURENDRAN, S/O.KUNJUPILLAI, AGED 65 YEARS,
RESIDING NOW AT VEENA, VILAKKUVATTAM, VALACODE
VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, MEMBER NO.362 OF THE
PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM.
2 ABRAHAM MATHEW, S/O.ABRAHAM V.MATHAI, AGED 55 YEARS
EX-MUNICIPAL COUNCILLOR, VILLIESE COTTAGE,
VILAKKUVATTAM, VALACODE VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK,
MEMBER NO.2612 OF THE PATHANAMPURAM TALUK SAMARAM.
3 K.M.YOHANNAN, AGED 64 YEARS, EX-MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
KAVUMKAL HOUSE, (KAVUVILA HOUSE), BHARANIKKAVU,
PUNALUR VILLAGE, MEMBER NO.3768 OF THE PATHANAPURAM
TALUK SAMAJAM.
4 N.JOEY (JOEY LUKKOSE), S/O.LUKKOSE, AGED 48 YEARS
CHARUVILA VEEDU CHERMMANTHOOR PUNALUR TALUK
MEMBER NO.3120 OF THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM.
SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
SRI.K.JAGADEESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM, VALACODU.P.O.,
PUNALUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
2 N.P.JOHN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, CHITHIRA,
THOLICODU.P.O. PUNALUR, PRESIDENT OF THE
PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM, VALACODU.P.O., PUNALUR.
3 ASHOK.B. VIKRAMAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
VIKRAMSILA, PUNALUR.P.O. PUNALUR,
SECRETARY OF THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM,
VALACODE.P.O, PUNALUR.
FAO.No.98 OF 2018
2
4 N.MAHESAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, KOLLAMPARAMBIL
VEEDU MATHRA.P.O., THOLICODE PUNALUR SCHOOL
MANAGER OF THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM.
5 ADOOR.N.JAYAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, ISWARYA
BHARANIKKAVU PUNALUR COMMITTEE MEMBER OF THE
PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM, PUNALUR.
6 PRADEEP CHADNRAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AMBADIYIL
MATHRA.P.O. COMMITTEE MEMBER OF THE PATHANAPURAM
TALUK SAMAJAM, PUNALUR.
7 S.M.KHALEEL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PUNALUR ESTATE
BUNGALOW, VALACODU.P.O PUNALUR, COMMITTEE MEMBER OF
THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM, PUNALUR.
8 VIJAYAMKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, K.ELLUKATTU
VEEDU, ARAMPUNNA, PUNALUR, COMMITTEE MEMBER OF THE
PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM, VALACODE.P.O, PUNALUR.
9 C.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, VADAKKEKKARA
VEEDU, MANIYAR, PUNALUR, COMMITTEE MEMBER OF THE
PATHRNAPURAM TALUK SAMANJAM, VALACODU.P.O, PUNALUR.
10 C.P.SAMUEL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, CHAMKKARA PUTHEN
VEEDU, KARAVALOOR.P.O., COMMITTEE MEMBER OF THE
PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM, VALACODE.P.O, PUNALUR.
11 KADAVIL BABU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, KADAVIL
THOLICODU.P.O. PUNALUR, CO-OPTED COMMITTEE MEMBER
OF THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM, VALACODE.P.O,
PUNALUR.
12 S.NOWSHARUDEEN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NABEEZATHU
BUILDING, PUNALUR, CO-OPTED COMMITTEE MEMBER OF THE
PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM, VALACODE.P.O, PUNALUR.
13 PUNALUR TALUK SAMAJAM, VALACODU.P.O., PUNALUR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
R5-10, R12 BY ADV. SRI.S.ARAVIND
R1-4, R13 BY ADV. SRI.N.SATHEESH
R11 BY ADV. SRI.TELFIN.C.JOSE
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
FAO.No.98 OF 2018
3
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.No.(Scheme) 01/2017 on the files of the Subordinate Judge, Punalur, which was filed by them seeking that a Scheme be framed for the purpose of the management of the "Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam", which they say is a Public Trust under the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC').
2. The appellants say that they had filed the petition on the specific allegation that the first respondent -
"Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam" is a Public Trust but that it had been illegally re-registered as a society under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 by its Trustees and that thus its affairs were being grossly mismanaged by them. The appellants submit that, however, without considering any of their allegations and the evidence let by the parties in its proper perspective, the court below has, through the impugned order, rejected the petition, incorrectly concluding that the first respondent - "Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam" has only changed its name as "Punalur Taluk FAO.No.98 OF 2018 4 Samajam"; thus therefore, that the terms of its Trust Deed has not been violated and further holding that no case of mismanagement has been properly established. The appellants say that these findings are per se incorrect and pray, therefore, that this appeal be allowed.
3. I have heard Sri.P.B.Sahasranaman, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, but there was no appearance on behalf of the respondents, thus constraining me to dispose of this appeal without hearing their version.
4. I have assessed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants by Sri.P.B.Sahasranaman and I have also examined the impugned order, as well as the evidence available on record and the testimonies of the witnesses.
5. It is ineluctable from the records that Exts.A1 to A12 have been marked on behalf of the appellants; while Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the respondents before the court below.
6. The court below, after an evaluation of the documents and evidence, has come to the conclusion that the allegations of the appellants, that the Trust has been re-registered as a FAO.No.98 OF 2018 5 society, is not tenable and that only the name of the Trust had been changed from "Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam" to "Punalur Taluk Samajam", based on Ext.B2 copy of the minutes of the former, dated 26.09.2015.
7. However, when I examine Ext.A1, which is the copy of the bye-law of the "Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam" registered in the year 1982 and Ext.A2, which is the copy of the bye-law with memorandum of the "Punalur Taluk Samajam", it is unmistakable that the latter has been registered under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. Obviously therefore, when Ext.A2 refers to the registration under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, the court below ought to have considered the said document more carefully to verify if the original Trust had been altered and its constitution changed as a society, which certainly would then give rise to a cause of action under Section 92 of the CPC.
8. I am guided to the afore prima facie impression also because, when I see clause 10 of Ext.B2, which is the minutes of the Trust recorded on 26.09.2015, it states clearly that the FAO.No.98 OF 2018 6 "Punalur Taluk Samajam" will be the successor of "Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam" and that all the assets and properties of the latter would vest in the former. All the above give rise to a legitimate suspicion that the "Punalur Taluk Samajam" has been registered as a new entity under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955; and if this is true, then certainly the appellants have made out a case for consideration by the court below under Section 92 of the CPC.
9. Of course, when I say this, I am fully aware that the court below has found that there is no case of mismanagement established by the appellants and that they had, in fact, taken part in the elections to the "Punalur Taluk Samajam", but had lost it thus, impelling them to file the petition. However, whatever be the intentions of the appellants, the fact remains that if the "Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam", which is concededly a registered Trust, had been altered in its nature through the subsequent registration of the "Punalur Taluk Samajam" under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, then certainly the court below ought to have considered this before rejecting the original petition preferred by the appellants. In other FAO.No.98 OF 2018 7 words, the court below ought to have specifically considered Exts.A1 and A2 and B1 with greater amount of care, before conclusions, as made in the impugned order, could have been finalised.
In the afore circumstances and in such perspective, I am certainly of the view that the court below must reconsider the original petition, based on the evidence, documents and depositions already available on record, leading to an appropriate fresh order, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.
In the nature of the factual circumstances noticed herein, I make no order as to costs and direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Stu JUDGE