Allahabad High Court
Shri Ram Chandra Mission Thru. ... vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 6 May, 2022
Bench: Rajesh Bindal, Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Chief Justice's Court Serial No.357 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***
(1) Special Appeal No.676 of 2015 (Arising out of Writ-C No.5034 of 2010) Pronounced on: May 06, 2022 Shri Ram Chandra Mission through President and others ...Appellants
Through:- Mr. Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Prakash Paul, Advocate vs. State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Through:- Ms. Meenakshi Singh, State Law Officer for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Ajit Kumar with Mr. Krishna Mohan Garg, Advocates for respondent Nos.4 and 5 With (2) Special Appeal No.699 of 2015 (Arising out of Writ-C No.41630 of 2012) Shri Ram Chandra Mission through President and others ...Appellants Through:- Mr. Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Prakash Paul, Advocate vs. State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Through:- Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Ajit Kumar with Mr. Krishna Mohan Garg, Advocates for respondent Nos.4 and 5 With (3) Special Appeal No.700 of 2015 (Arising out of Writ-C No.30767 of 2014) Shri Ram Chandra Mission through President and others ...Appellants Through:- Mr. Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Prakash Paul, Advocate vs. State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Through:- Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Mr. Ajit Kumar with Mr. Krishna Mohan Garg, Advocates for respondent Nos.4 and 5 With (4) Special Appeal No.701 of 2015 (Arising out of Writ-C No.69081 of 2005) Shri Ram Chandra Mission through President and others ...Appellants Through:- Mr. Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Prakash Paul, Advocate vs. State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Through:- Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Mr. Ajit Kumar with Mr. Krishna Mohan Garg, Advocates for respondent Nos.4 to 7 With (5) Special Appeal No.702 of 2015 (Arising out of Writ-C No.24212 of 2011) Shri Ram Chandra Mission through President and others ...Appellants Through:- Mr. Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Prakash Paul, Advocate vs. State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Through:- Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Ajit Kumar with Mr. Krishna Mohan Garg, Advocates for respondent Nos.3 and 4 With (6) Special Appeal No.708 of 2015 (Arising out of Writ-C No.41631 of 2012) Shri Ram Chandra Mission through President and others ...Appellants Through:- Mr. Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Prakash Paul, Advocate vs. State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Through:- Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Ajit Kumar with Mr. Krishna Mohan Garg, Advocates for respondent Nos.4 and 5 With (7) Special Appeal No.709 of 2015 (Arising out of Writ-C No.24214 of 2011) Shri Ram Chandra Mission through President and others ...Appellants Through:- Mr. Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Prakash Paul, Advocate vs. State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Through:- Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Ajit Kumar with Mr. Krishna Mohan Garg, Advocates for respondent Nos.3 and 4 With (8) Special Appeal No.710 of 2015 (Arising out of Writ-C No.40035 of 2004) Shri Ram Chandra Mission through President and others ...Appellants Through:- Mr. Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Prakash Paul, Advocate vs. State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Through:- Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Ajit Kumar with Mr. Krishna Mohan Garg, Advocates for respondent Nos.4 and 5 With (9) Special Appeal No.711 of 2015 (Arising out of Writ-C No.48669 of 2013) Shri Ram Chandra Mission through President and others ...Appellants Through:- Mr. Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Prakash Paul, Advocate vs. State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Through:- Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Ajit Kumar with Mr. Krishna Mohan Garg, Advocates for respondent Nos.4 and 5 With (10) Special Appeal No.712 of 2015 (Arising out of Writ-C No.8950 of 2001) Shri Ram Chandra Mission through President and others ...Appellants Through:- Mr. Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Prakash Paul, Advocate vs. State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Through:- Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Standing Counsel for the respondents With (11) Special Appeal No.713 of 2015 (Arising out of Writ-C No.66631 of 2005) Shri Ram Chandra Mission through President and others ...Appellants Through:- Mr. Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Prakash Paul, Advocate vs. State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Through:- Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Standing Counsel for the respondents With (12) Writ-C No.7139 of 2016 Shri Ram Chandra Mission through President and others ...Petitioners Through:- Mr. Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Prakash Paul, Advocate vs. State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Through:- Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Ajit Kumar with Mr. Krishna Mohan Garg, Advocates for respondent Nos.3 and 4 Coram : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, JUDGE * * * * Index of the contents Sr. Nos.
Particulars Page No.
1. Memo of Parties 1-6
2. Introduction 7
3. Brief facts 8-13
4. Arguments on behalf of the Appellants/petitioners 13-14
5. Arguments on behalf of the respondents 14-23
6. Rejoinder 23
7. DISCUSSION
- History of previous litigations
- Litigations claiming right on the basis of Will dated December 30, 1976
- Will dated June 7, 1999 allegedly executed by Umesh Chandra Saxena
- Impleadment of the Parties
- Conclusions
- Concealment of Facts 24 25-45 45-46 46-47 47-48 48-52 52-63
8. Order 63 RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
1. This order will dispose of a bunch of 11 Special Appeals and one writ petition. The Special Appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated July 10, 2015. The writ petition, inter alia, challenges the orders dated February 21, 2015 and October 12, 2015 whereby the list of the members of the working committee for the year 2015-16 has been approved and the registration certificate of Ram Chandra Mission (Society) for the year 2015-2020 has been renewed.
2. The issue primarily pertains to control and management of Shri Ram Chandra Mission, namely, appellant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Mission'). It is said to be a spiritual society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act').
3. At the time of hearing, it was not disputed that there are two rival groups, who are seeking to retain the management of the Mission. One set of persons is the appellants (hereinafter referred to as ''Group-I') whereas another set is the private respondents (hereinafter referred to as ''Group-II').
BRIEF OF THE WRIT PETITIONS, ORDERS PASSED WHEREIN ARE SUBJECT MATTER OF CHALLENGE IN PRESENT SPECIAL APPEALS
4. The details of the parties and the prayers made in the writ petitions (giving rise to the present Special Appeals), are summed up herein below.
(1) Writ-C No.8950 of 2001 (Special Appeal No.712 of 2015) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission through Surendra Kumar Dixit, claiming himself to be duly elected Treasurer of the Mission, along with others (members of Group-I) impleading the State, Registrar and Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits as respondents. The prayer made in the aforesaid writ petition was for a direction to respondent No.3 to handover the renewed certificate of registration of the Mission for the year 2000-2005 to the duly elected working committee of petitioner No.1 and not to any other person. Further prayer was that in case any such recognition had been given to Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari, the nominee President (member of Group-II), the same may be quashed.
(2) Writ-C No.40035 of 2004 (Special Appeal No.710 of 2015) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission through Navneet Kumar Saxena, claiming himself to be elected President of the Mission, along with K.V. Reddy and Puneet Kumar Saxena (members of Group-I) impleading the State, Registrar and Assistant Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits and Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and Uma Shankar Bajpai (members of Group-II) as respondents. Challenge in the aforesaid writ petition was to the order dated June 19, 2004 whereby the application of Puneet Kumar Saxena, for amendment in the constitution and bye-laws of the Mission, was rejected. Further challenge was to the order dated August 9, 2004 whereby the application filed by Puneet Kumar Saxena seeking recall of the order dated June 19, 2004, was rejected. Further prayer was for a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to recognise and declare petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely, Navneet Kumar Saxena and K.V. Reddy as the President and the Secretary of the Society/Mission as per Sections 3A(4) and 4 of the Act.
(3) Writ-C No.66631 of 2005 (Special Appeal No.713 of 2015) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission through Amresh Kumar, claiming himself to be elected Member of the working committee (member of Group-I), impleading the State, Assistant Registrar, Societies, Chits and Funds and Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari (member of Group-II) as respondents. The prayer in the aforesaid writ petition was for a direction to respondent No.2 to accept the list of the elected working committee/managing body for the period 2005-2006. Further prayer was for direction to respondent No.2 to act in accordance with Section 3A of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.
(4) Writ-C No.69081 of 2005 (Special Appeal No.701 of 2015) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission through Navneet Kumar Saxena, claiming himself to be elected President of the Mission, along with K.V. Reddy and Amresh Kumar (members of Group-I) impleading the State, Registrar & Assistant Registrar, Societies, Chits and Funds along with Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and others (members of Group-II) as respondents. Challenge in the aforesaid writ petition was to the order dated October 10, 2005 whereby registration certificate of the Society/Mission was renewed in favour of respondent No.5, namely, Uma Shanker Bajpai (member of Group-II) for the year 2005-2010.
(5) Writ-C No.5034 of 2010 (Special Appeal No.676 of 2015) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission through Navneet Kumar Saxena, claiming himself to be elected President of the Mission, along with K.V. Reddy and Amresh Kumar (members of Group-I) impleading the State, Registrar & Assistant Registrar, Societies, Chits and Funds along with Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and others (members of Group-II) as respondents. Challenge in the aforesaid writ petition was to the order dated December 19, 2009 whereby list of the members of the working committee for the year 2009-2010 was approved.
(6) Writ-C No.24212 of 2011 (Special Appeal No.702 of 2015) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission through Navneet Kumar Saxena claiming himself to be elected President of the Mission, along with Amresh Kumar (members of Group-I) impleading the State, Assistant Registrar, Society, Firm, Chits and Funds along with Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and U.S. Bajpai (members of Group-II) as respondents. Challenge in the aforesaid writ petition was to the order dated October 27, 2010 whereby registration certificate of the Society/Mission was renewed in favour of respondent No.4, namely, Uma Shanker Bajpai (member of Group-II) for the year 2010-2015.
(7) Writ-C No.24214 of 2011 (Special Appeal No.709 of 2015) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission through Navneet Kumar Saxena, claiming himself to be elected President of the Mission along with K.V. Reddy and Amresh Kumar (members of Group-I) impleading the State, Assistant Registrar, Society, Firm, Chits and Funds along with Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and Uma Shanker (members of Group-II) as respondents. Challenge in the aforesaid writ petition was to the order dated March 16, 2011 whereby, while rejecting the claim of the petitioners, the list of the members of the working committee for the year 2010-2011 submitted by respondent Nos.3 and 4 (members of Group-II) was approved.
(8) Writ-C No.41630 of 2012 (Special Appeal No.699 of 2015) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission through Navneet Kumar Saxena claiming himself to be elected President of the Mission along with K.V. Reddy and Amresh Kumar (members of Group-I) impleading the State, Registrar and Assistant Registrar, Societies, Firms, Chits and Funds along with Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and Uma Shanker (members of Group-II) as respondents. Challenge in the aforesaid writ petition was to the order dated May 5, 2011 whereby list of the members of the working committee submitted by respondent Nos.4 and 5 for the year 2011-2012 (member of Group-II) was approved.
(9) Writ-C No.41631 of 2012 (Special Appeal No.708 of 2015) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission through Navneet Kumar Saxena, claiming himself to be elected President of the Mission, along with K.V. Reddy and Amresh Kumar (members of Group-I) impleading the State, Registrar and Assistant Registrar, Societies, Firms, Chits and Funds along with Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and Uma Shanker (members of Group-II) as respondents. Challenge in the aforesaid writ petition was to the order dated January 18, 2012 whereby the list of the members of the working committee for the year 2012-2013 submitted by respondent No.4 (member of Group-II) was approved.
(10) Writ-C No.48669 of 2013 (Special Appeal No.711 of 2015) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission through Navneet Kumar Saxena, claiming himself to be elected President of the Mission, along with K.V. Reddy, Amresh Kumar and Dinesh Kumar (members of Group-I) impleading the State, Registrar and Assistant Registrar, Societies, Firms, Chits and Funds along with Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and Uma Shanker Bajpai (members of Group-II) as respondents. Challenge in the aforesaid writ petition was to the order dated April 24, 2013 whereby the list of the members of the working committee for the year 2013-2014 submitted by respondent No.5, namely, Uma Shankar Bajpai (member of Group-II) was approved.
(11) Writ-C No.30767 of 2014 (Special Appeal No.700 of 2015) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission through Navneet Kumar Saxena, claiming himself to be elected President of the Mission, along with Amresh Kumar (members of Group-I) impleading the State, Assistant Registrar, Societies, Firms, Chits and Funds along with Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and Uma Shanker Bajpai (members of Group-II) as respondents. Challenge in the aforesaid writ petition was to the order dated April 19, 2014 whereby the list of the members of the working committee for the year 2014-2015 submitted by respondent No.4, namely, Uma Shankar Bajpai (member of Group-II) was approved.
5. The aforesaid writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide common impugned judgment.
6. Writ-C No.7139 of 2016 was also heard along with the bunch of aforesaid Special Appeals. It has been filed by Navneet Kumar Saxena claiming himself to be the elected President of the Mission along with Dinesh Kumar and Amresh Kumar (members of Group-I) impleading the State, Assistant Registrar, Societies, Firms, Chits and Funds along with Kamlesh Desaibhai Patel and Uma Shanker Bajpai (members of Group-II) as respondents. Inter alia, prayer in the aforesaid writ petition is for quashing the orders February 21, 2015 and October 12, 2015.
7. By order dated February 21, 2015, the list of members of the working committee for the year 2015-2016 submitted by respondent No.4, namely, Uma Shankar Bajpai was approved and by order dated October 12, 2015 the registration certificate of the Society/Mission for the period 2015-2020 was renewed in favour of respondent No.4.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS
8. Mr. Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Prakash Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, referred to the bye-laws of the Mission which, according to him, provided that the headquarter of the Mission shall be at Shahjahanpur. It shall work under the guidance and control of the founder or his spiritual representative in the direct line of succession. The entire powers are vested with the President of the Mission.
9. An amendment was carried out in the Act by the State of Uttar Pradesh by U.P. Act No.52 of 1975 vide which Section 3-A was added, which provided that certificate of registration of a society shall be valid for a period of two years. Thereafter renewal will be required, which is granted subject to fulfilment of the requisites.
10. Section 25 of the Act provides for resolution of dispute regarding election of office bearers. As in the case in hand also, the dispute is pertaining to management of the society with reference to election, the matter was required to be referred to the competent authority in terms of Section 25 of the Act. Reference was also made to the Statement of Object and Reasons for carrying out the amendments in the Act vide U.P. Act No.52 of 1975.
11. Further, reference was made to the amendment carried out in the Act vide U.P. Act No.13 of 1978, which received assent of the Governor on April 27, 1978, by which a proviso was inserted in Section 25 of the Act to even specify the grounds on which the election can be set-aside. Earlier, no such grounds had been specified.
12. Reference was also made to the subsequent amendment made in the Act by U.P. Act No.11 of 1984, which received assent of the Governor on April 29, 1984. In terms of the aforesaid, amendment was carried out in Section 3A of the Act, which provided that at the time of filing of application for renewal of the certificate, the application shall be accompanied by a list of members of the managing body.
13. The argument is that ever since the aforesaid amendments, which provided for election in any society, the elections are being carried out in terms thereof, whereas the claim of the respondents is that the elections were never held and are not required to be held as such.
14. Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge had gone wrong in opining that the election would also mean nomination. The provisions of the Act have not been properly appreciated. The amendments made in the Act and the spirit thereof were totally ignored.
15. Reference has been made to the previous litigations between the parties. However, the same was properly explained before the learned Single Judge. The submission is that in terms of the amendment carried out in the Act, elections were required to be held. It is the definite case of the appellants that elections have regularly been held. However, the case set up by the respondents is of nomination and not election in terms of the provisions of the Act. In case, the Society fails to hold the elections, it is for the Registrar to do the needful. Even the Registrar has failed to discharge his statutory duty.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
16. On the other hand, Mr. Ajit Kumar, along with Mr. Krishna Mohan Garg and Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocates, appearing for the respondents submitted that Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj was the first President of the Mission, who had constituted the same. He died on April 19, 1983. The appellant No.2, is his grandson. Ever since the death of Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj, the litigation started for control of the Mission. The appellants wanted to retain its control treating the same to be their private property.
17. The first suit, bearing Original Suit No.200 of 1983, was filed on December 26, 1983 by some of the followers of the Mission, namely, Uma Shanker, Basudeo Singh and Bhagwan Dayal, in the group of the appellants. The prayer made therein was that defendant No.1 Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari be restrained from being the President of the Mission. The learned trial court granted ex-parte interim injunction, which was confirmed vide order dated January 4, 1984. The same was impugned by Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari by filing First Appeal From Order No.439 of 1984 before this Court. The interim injunction granted in the suit was vacated by this Court vide judgment and order dated February 25, 1985. As a result thereof, Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari continued as the President of the Mission. Against the aforesaid order, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7773 of 1985 was filed, which was dismissed vide order dated September 27, 1985 with the observation that the respondents Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari and others shall not alienate or dispose of any part of the property belonging to the Mission and the Headquarter of the Mission will not be changed to any other place from Shahjahanpur. The aforesaid suit was transferred to this Court. An application was filed in the said suit by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, namely, Uma Shanker and Basudeo Singh, to withdraw the suit unconditionally whereas plaintiff No.3 Bhagwan Dayal prayed that the suit may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one, in case the cause of action still survived. Though the withdrawal application, as prayed for by the plaintiffs, was allowed vide order dated July 10, 1997, however, cost of ₹4,000/- was imposed as the defendants in the suit had contested the same for a period of about 14 years.
18. Reference was made to an order passed by this Court on an application filed by the plaintiffs in the aforesaid Original Suit No.200 of 1983 for amendment in the plaint and for impleading Umesh Chandra Saxena as defendant. Vide order dated May 24, 1996, the application filed for impleadment of Umesh Chandra Saxena to represent the Mission as its President was dismissed. Observation was made by this Court in the aforesaid order that no plea was taken earlier in any litigation that Umesh Chandra Saxena was the President of the Mission. It was an afterthought. Special Appeal No.561 of 1996 was filed against the aforesaid order dated May 24, 1996, which was dismissed by a Division Bench on November 24, 1998.
19. Further, reference was made to Original Suit No.142 of 1986 filed by the Mission through its Secretary S.A. Sarnad praying for restraining the defendants, namely, Basdeo Singh, Bhagwan Dayal, Uma Shanker Arya and others from interfering in functioning of the Mission. Umesh Chandra Saxena was impleaded as defendant No.5 in the aforesaid original suit. It is claimed that the aforesaid suit was dismissed as withdrawn, as the defendants had accepted the claim made therein.
20. Reference was made to Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22657 of 1991 filed by the Mission through its Secretary B.D. Mahajan, praying for recognition of the working committee of the Mission. The same was dismissed as withdrawn on July 10, 1997. Further, reference was made to another writ petition bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.37023 of 1994 filed by the Mission through its President Umesh Chandra Saxena praying for quashing of the order dated September 29, 1994 by which it was directed that P. Rajagopalachari shall continue to work as President of the Mission till the dispute regarding nomination was decided by this Court. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court on July 10, 1997. Against the aforesaid order, Special Appeal No.580 of 1997 was filed, which was dismissed on November 24, 1998. Reference was made to the pleadings in the aforesaid writ petition wherein it was claimed that the matter regarding nomination of the President of the Mission was considered in the meetings of the General Body held on February 6, 7 and 8, 1984. P. Rajagopalachari abstained from the meeting. Name of Umesh Chandra Saxena was proposed as President of the Mission, which was accepted.
21. Further, reference was made to Testamentary Suit No.8 of 1993 (converted into Testamentary Suit No.1 of 1994) filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena and Sarvesh Chandra Saxena, both sons of Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj. The Mission was also impleaded through its Secretary B.D. Mahajan as applicant No.3. The prayer made in the aforesaid suit was that Umesh Chandra Saxena be granted Letter of Administration with reference to the properties as mentioned in the suit, he should be declared as President of the Mission and applicant No.2 Sarvesh Chandra Sexana, another son of Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj, be declared as Secretary of the Mission. The aforesaid plaint was rejected by this Court vide order dated October 16, 1995. Special Appeal No.829 of 1995 filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena and others against the aforesaid order, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated November 24, 1998.
22. As the appellants had not succeeded in its efforts to usurp the properties of the Mission by filing one or the other litigations, another Suit No.697 of 1995 was filed by the Mission through its President Umesh Chandra Saxena praying for a declaration that P. Rajagopalachari is not the President of the Mission and he be restrained from acting as such. It was claimed that during his lifetime, the founder President Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj had nominated plaintiff No.2, namely, Umesh Chandra Saxena as the spiritual representative in the direct line of succession and as his successor President of the Mission. The aforesaid suit was dismissed on May 31, 1999 on the application filed by defendant No.1 P. Rajagopalachari under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. Against the aforesaid judgment of the learned trial court, Civil Appeal No.219 of 1999 filed before the learned lower appellate Court, was dismissed on January 11, 2001. Second Appeal No.884 of 2001 filed against the aforesaid judgment, was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated November 26, 2001. Yet another effort of the appellants to retain control over the Mission and usurp its properties failed. In the aforesaid suit, claim made by Umesh Chandra Saxena was on the basis of his nomination as President by Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj during his lifetime. No election was claimed.
23. Another case, bearing Suit No.4 of 1999, was filed by D. Krishna and Bhagwan Dayal, claiming themselves to be the Office Superintendent and Manager of the Mission, impleading Umesh Chandra and P. Rajagopalachari as defendants praying that a decree be passed against the defendants declaring the plaintiffs as Office Superintendent and Manager of the Mission pursuant to the Will deed dated April 10, 1982. The said suit is stated to have been dismissed on May 10, 1999 and Civil Appeal No.90 of 1999 filed against the same was also dismissed on January 5, 2004. The aforesaid orders have not been referred to from record.
24. As the litigation was to continue one after another, Suit No.403 of 2003 was filed by the Mission through K.V Reddy, claiming himself to be elected Secretary, against P. Rajagopalachari (died on December 20, 2014) challenging nomination of P. Rajagopalachari as President of the Mission on March 23, 1974. A decree of permanent injunction was prayed for restraining him from claiming himself to be the President of the Society/Mission. The aforesaid civil suit was dismissed on February 10, 2010. It is claimed that the aforesaid order is under challenge before the lower appellate court. Though K.V. Reddy, who was representing the Mission in the aforesaid case and the sole defendant Rajagopalachari, both had expired, however, till date, no application for substitution has been filed.
25. Forum shopping was the another device used by the appellants, as a writ petition bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3091 (M/S) of 2010 was filed by the Mission through Navneet Kumar Saxena, son of late Umesh Chandra Saxena, claiming himself to be the elected President of the Mission, and Amresh Kumar, claiming himself to be elected Member of the working committee. Only the State of U.P., Registrar and Assistant Registrar of the Societies were impleaded as respondents in the said writ petition. Though the jurisdiction to entertain the lis was with principal seat of this Court at Allahabad, still the writ petition was filed at Lucknow assailing the direction issued to the Assistant Registrar by the Registrar dated November 4, 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of on May 21, 2010 directing the Assistant Registrar to hear all the concerned parties and take a decision without being influenced with the direction issued by the Registrar vide letter dated November 4, 2009. When the respondents came to know about passing of the aforesaid order, an application for recall thereof was filed. The aforesaid order was recalled vide order dated May 30, 2012 and the writ petition was dismissed with a cost of ₹10,000/-. It was observed therein that when Writ Petition No.5034 of 2010 was pending at Allahabad, there was no occasion for the writ petitioners therein to have moved Lucknow Bench. Special Appeal against the aforesaid order is stated to be pending (as submitted by learned counsel for the appellants).
26. Reference was also made to Original Suit No.587 of 1999 filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena, which was dismissed as withdrawn on November 26, 2001 unconditionally. No fresh suit for the purpose could be filed.
27. While referring to a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated November 24, 1998 vide which four Special Appeals bearing Special Appeal Nos.829 of 1995, 561 of 1996, 580 and 594 of 1997 were dismissed, it was submitted that the issues sought to be raised by the appellants in the present appeals were taken up in the aforesaid appeals and were rejected. The issue regarding election was also raised and rejected. Hence, there is no occasion for this Court to deal with the same time and again. The Mission is a spiritual society where members do not pay any fee, hence, no question of any elections.
28. Reference was also made to a suit bearing Civil Suit No.360 of 2000 filed by certain followers of the Mission praying for restraining the defendants including Umesh Chandra Saxena from interfering in the activities of the Mission, in which interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants from interfering in the activities of the Mission or representing the same. Writ petition bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.53330 of 2000 filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena impugning the order dated November 27, 2000 by which application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint of Suit No.360 of 2000 was rejected, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated November 19, 2002. Certain adverse observations were also made by this Court against Umesh Chandra Saxena. Against the aforesaid order, Review Application was filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena, which is pending. During pendency of the Review Application, Special Leave Petition No.6585 of 2003 was filed before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on July 25, 2003. Umesh Chandar Saxena died on November 3, 2003.
29. Subsequent to the death of Umesh Chandra Saxena, an application was filed for impleadment of his sons as legal representatives in Original Suit No.360 of 2000. The same was allowed vide order dated January 30, 2004. A revision bearing Civil Revision No.66 of 2004 was filed against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed on July 19, 2005. Even the review application was also dismissed on April 8, 2010. After the legal representatives of Umesh Chandra Saxena were impleaded in the suit, specific order dated January 30, 2004 was passed that the interim injunction already granted would continue against newly impleaded defendants.
30. The Constitution, Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws of the Mission were referred to. It was argued that the Mission functions under the sole guidance and control of its founder or its spiritual representative in the direct line of succession and he shall be the President of the Mission. Clause 4(h) of the Memorandum of Association provides that the President shall nominate, amongst his spiritual successors, any person as his representative, who will enjoy all the power and authority vested in the President of the Mission. Clause 6 clearly provides that there is no fee for being a member of the Mission. As there is no fee for being a member of the Mission, no one has right to cast vote and no elections are to be held, if seen in light of Section 15 of the Act.
31. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that as all efforts of Umesh Chandra Saxena to usurp and misuse the properties of the Mission had failed, during his life time, before his death on November 3, 2003, he had executed a Will on June 7, 1999 stating that after his death, with reference to the Mission, he nominates his three sons who will jointly appoint the President. This clearly establishes that he was treating the property of the Mission as his personal property. In fact, on account of pending litigations, he did not have any right even to manage the working of the Mission what to talk of bequeathing the same by way of a Will. This clearly shows that he was under the impression that properties of the Mission are his private properties. It is not a case of either nomination or election.
32. Though, one writ petition was filed, before the death of Umesh Chandra Saxena, in the year 2001, however, all other writ petitions were filed after his death by the persons, who did not have any authority to file the same.
33. All the appeals were filed after the death of Umesh Chandra Saxena in the year 2015. In fact, in terms of the order dated November 27, 2011 passed by the trial court directing that interim injunction restraining Umesh Chandra Saxena from acting and treating himself to be the President of the Mission will continue even against his legal representatives, who were impleaded in the aforesaid Original Suit No. 360 of 2000, they did not have any right to file or prosecute any litigation on behalf of the Mission. He has further referred to list of the working committee of the Mission while submitting that none of the members affected has challenged the same, rather it is Umesh Chandra Saxena who was aggrieved as he was treating the property of the Mission as his private property.
34. He further referred to the discrepancies in the stand taken by Puneet Kumar Saxena son of Umesh Chandra Saxena in the written statement filed in Original Suit No.360 of 2000, as verified on September 17, 2010, where in paragraph 50, he affirmed that Navneet Kumar Saxena was nominated by his late father Umesh Chandra Saxena as per the wish of Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj in terms of the Will dated June 7, 1999 executed by him. Thereafter, Navneet Kumar Saxena was elected as President.
35. He further submitted that in the Will executed by Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj, he had specifically stated that part of his property would go to the Mission whereas part thereof will go to his legal heirs. On the property, which had been assigned to the Mission, the appellants cannot claim the same to be their property as the same has been given to the spiritual body.
36. Further, the contention raised is that the prayers made in the Special Appeals have been rendered infructuous and even the relief claimed. Though the appellants were indulged in lot of litigations for the last about four decades, in three writ petitions, namely, Writ-C Nos.8950 of 2001, 69081 of 2005 and 24212 of 2011 challenge was to the renewals of recognition of the Society for the years 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and 2010-2015. The period being already over, the aforesaid writ petitions had been rendered infructuous, especially if considered in the light of the fact that subsequent renewals for the period 2015-2020 and 2020-2025 have not been challenged.
37. Further, argument is that in six writ petitions, namely, Writ-C Nos.5034 of 2010, 24214 of 2011, 41630 of 2012, 41631 of 2012, 48669 of 2013 and 30767 of 2014, the challenge was to the orders of approval of the list of members of the working committee of the Mission for six years from 2009-2010, to 2014-2015. The period being already over, the aforesaid writ petitions had also been rendered infructuous, especially if considered in light of the fact that subsequent approvals of the list of members of working committee have not been challenged. The submission is that annual applications had regularly been filed along with list of members of the working committee for its approval, which were approved, with appellants no where in picture.
38. Writ Petition No.40035 of 2004 was filed on behalf of the Mission through Navneet Kumar Saxena for quashing the order dated June 19, 2004 passed by the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits rejecting the amendment sought in bye-laws of the Society through an application filed by Puneet Kumar Saxena. Writ Petition No.66631 of 2005 was filed on behalf of the Mission through Amresh Kumar, claiming himself to be elected Member of the working committee, praying for a mandamus to accept the list of the Members of the working committee submitted by the petitioners therein and renew the registration certificate of the society.
39. It was further argued that the appellants are not entitled to any relief as there is concealment of material fact. It is so discussed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, however, not taken to its logical end.
REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS
40. In response, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that no formal elections are required, if there is no nomination except one for the post. However, the argument seems to be double edged as there is other side, which is refuting such a claim of the appellants. As regards the challenge to the renewal of the registration certificate of the working committee, reference was made to Writ-C No.7139 of 2016 in which renewal of the working committee for the year 2014-15 was challenged. The said writ petition forms part of this bunch of cases. Another writ bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.16788 of 2021 is also stated to be pending. In the said writ petition prayer was to quash the orders dated October 9, 16 and December 20, 2020 whereby the list of the Members of the working committee of the Mission for the year 2020-2021 was registered and registration certificate of the Society was renewed. It is further submitted that gist of the entire litigation is available in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
41. Further, the argument raised is that in terms of Section 6 of the Act a society can sue or be sued in its claim but in the case in hand, in none of the cases, writ petitions filed by the appellants, the society was impleaded as a respondent, rather the society is the writ petitioner, though the Members, who are representing the Mission, are not approved by the Registrar of the Societies.
DISCUSSIONS
42. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials referred to.
43. What emerges from the documents on record, as have been referred to by learned counsel for the parties, is that Shree Ram Chandra Ji, Fatehgarh was a spiritual person. One disciple was Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj of Shahjahanpur. He opted to carry on spiritual mission of his Guru. He got a society registered in the name of Shree Ram Chandra Mission of Shahjahanpur. The registration certificate was issued on July 21, 1945. It is the control and management of the aforesaid Mission, which is in dispute after the death of Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj of Shahjahanpur. He expired on April 19, 1983. He is survived by:
Sri Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj (Died on April 19, 1983 Prakash Chandra Saxena (now dead) Umesh Chandra Saxena (Died on November 3, 2003) Sarvesh Chandra Saxena (alive) Sharad Saxena (alive) Naveneet Kumar (son) (alive) Puneet Kumar (son) (alive) Suneet Kumar (son) (alive) Amita Kumar (wife) (alive)
44. It has come on record that there was a document of nomination dated March 23,1974 whereby the founder President claimed to have nominated Sri Parthasarthi Rajgopalachari as President of Mission/Society. The founder President died on April 19, 1983. The nomination aforesaid obviously would become operative after the death of the founder President. It is not disputed that Sri Parthasarthi Rajgopalachari took the charge as President of Mission/Society and started managing its affairs. Firstly, his authority was challenged by Sri Prakash Chandra Saxena, one of the three sons of founder President, and the matter was examined in working committee of the Mission/Society in its meeting dated July 10, 1983. The claim of Sri Prakash Chandra Saxena was doubted in the aforesaid meeting. The matter was posted to October 23, 1983 giving opportunity to Sri Prakash Chandra Saxena to substantiate his claim. In the meeting held on October 23, 1983, the working committee did not accept claim of Sri Prakash Chandra Saxena. The nomination document of March 3, 1974 was honoured and Sri Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari continued to function as the President.
HISTORY OF PREVIOUS LITIGATIONS
45. Brief facts from the previous litigations between the parties are summed up herein.
(A) Suit No.200 of 1983(i) After the death of Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj on April 19, 1983, the aforesaid suit was filed on December 26, 1983 by the persons from Group-I at Shahjahanpur. An application was also filed under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. seeking permission to prosecute the same in representative capacity. The followers of the Mission in Group-II including P. Rajagopalachari were impleaded as defendants. The relief prayed for in the aforesaid suit was for grant of injunction restraining P. Rajagopalachari from interfering in the functioning of the Mission. It was pleaded that the founder President Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj had not nominated him as the successor. The document, if any, of nomination cannot be treated as Will of the founder President, as the same is manufactured one. The suit was contested by the defendants therein. The trial court vide order dated January 4, 1984 granted ex-parte interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs therein. The aforesaid order was challenged by the defendants in the suit including P. Rajagopalachari by filing First Appeal From Order No.439 of 1984. The same was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated February 25, 1985 finding the case set up by the defendants therein to be established. The interim injunction was vacated. The plaintiffs in the suit challenged the aforesaid order passed by this Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7773 of 1985, which was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated September 27, 1985 with the observation that the defendants in the suit will not alienate or dispose of any part of the property belonging to the Mission.
(ii) Later on the aforesaid suit was transferred to this Court.
(iii) An application was filed by the plaintiffs therein seeking permission to withdraw the same with liberty to file fresh one. The apparent reason for withdrawing the suit was that they had failed to achieve the objective, for which the same was filed, for a period of 14 years. There were three plaintiffs in the suit. As is evident from the order dated July 10, 1997 passed by this Court on an application filed by the plaintiffs therein for withdrawal of the suit, the issues had been framed therein but it was still at the stage of evidence of the plaintiffs. Before leading any evidence, two applications were filed. First by Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 for withdrawal of the suit without any liberty to file fresh suit and second by Plaintiff No.3 seeking withdrawal of the suit with permission to file fresh suit.
(iv) As far as the first application filed by Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 is concerned, the same was allowed by this Court. As the prayer made in the second application filed by Plaintiff No.3, namely, Bhagwan Dayal was for permission to file a fresh suit, the same was considered on merits. The order dated July 10, 1997 passed by this Court records that in the aforesaid suit, Umesh Chandra Saxena had filed an application for being impleaded as party pleading that he was nominated as President of the Mission vide deed dated April 16, 1982 whereas defendant No.1 P. Rajagopalachari and his associates were trying to usurp the management of the Mission on the basis of a forged deed dated March 23, 1974 claimed to be executed by late Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj. The application for impleadment of Umesh Chandra Saxena was rejected on May 24, 1996.
(v) The order dated May 24, 1996 passed by this Court rejecting the application filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena for being impleaded as party to the aforesaid suit, shows that prayer made therein was that the Mission and Umesh Chandra Saxena be impleaded as defendants in the suit. Thereafter they should be transposed as plaintiffs, to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Amendment in the plaint was also sought. This Court found that neither the Mission nor Umesh Chandra Saxena were necessary parties to the litigation. The plaintiffs in the suit, in fact, had not sought any relief against the applicants, who were seeking to be impleaded as defendants. From the application for amendment in the suit filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena, it was evident that by his impleadment as party in the suit, he wanted to prosecute his own case by getting the declaration that he was the President of the Mission. Any such pleading would have changed the nature of the suit.
(vi) Another important fact, which was noticed by this Court in the aforesaid order dated May 24, 1996, is that the controversy regarding succession to the office of President arose immediately after the death of Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj. A meeting for the purpose was held in July, 1983. In the said meeting, P. Rajagopalachari staked claim on the basis of his nomination in the year 1974. P.C. Saxena son of Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj staked the claim of his son Sarad Saxena. It was also noticed that Umesh Chandra Saxena was present in the said meeting but he never claimed that he was the nominated President, though at that time it was sought to be pleaded that nomination was done on April 16, 1982. The next meeting was scheduled for December 27, 1983 at Hydrabad. As the members of Group-I did not want to face the meeting to settle the controversy regarding succession of the Mission, they filed a suit on December 26, 1983. It was further noted therein that in the amendment application filed, the reason assigned by Umesh Chandra Saxena was that, due to oversight, the aforesaid facts could not be incorporated in the plaint. It is further relevant to note that though the proceedings of the aforesaid suit at interim stage was contested up to Hon'ble the Supreme Court but no such plea was raised.
(vii) Another fact noticed in the aforesaid order dated May 24, 1996 is that in the year 1993 Umesh Chandra Saxena had filed a testamentary suit claiming his right on the basis of Will executed by Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj in the year 1976. Even at that stage, no application was made to get the plaint amended. Further, this Court noticed that Umesh Chandra Saxena having failed to achieve the objective of having control over the Mission despite previous litigations, filed Suit No.697 of 1995. In that suit, it was claimed that he was the President of the Mission.
(viii) The application for impleadment was held to be not bonafide and the same was dismissed. The aforesaid order was challenged by Umesh Chandra Saxena by filing Special Appeal No.561 of 1996 before this Court. However, the same was dismissed as infructuous on November 24, 1998, as the suit itself stood withdrawn on July 10, 1997.
(ix) The fact remains that the aforesaid suit was filed on December 26, 1983 by persons of Group-I, after the death of Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj on April 19, 1983, but still there was no pleading that Umesh Chandra Saxena had been nominated as President of the Mission, though the document is stated to be executed on April 16, 1982 in his favour prior to filing of the suit. The permission for withdrawing the suit was sought on the ground that proper parties had not been impleaded, hence there were technical defects. The suit was permitted to be withdrawn on behalf of Plaintiff No.3, namely, Bhagwan Dayal with permission to file fresh, in case, cause of action still survived. Cost of ₹4,000/- was also imposed on the aforesaid application to be paid to the contesting defendants, as the defendants were made to contest the suit for a period of about 14 years.
(B) Original Suit No.142 of 1986
(i) The aforesaid suit was filed in the court of Civil Judge, Shahjahanpur by the Mission and its Secretary against the followers of Group-I. Three sons of Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj including Umesh Chandra Saxena and other followers of Group-I were impleaded as defendants.
(ii) Prayer was for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering in the working of the Mission, from realising any amount in the name of the Mission and from using or utilizing any property thereof. Inter alia, a decree was sought against the defendants therein directing them to handover the money utilized from April 19, 1983. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, it was pleaded as under:-
"4. That in the Society the Office of President has occupied by the Master till his Mahasamadhi and after his Mahasamadhi only the spiritual nominee/Representative of the master and none else would have occupied the office the President of the Society. The Spiritual Representative nominee of the Master was and is Sri Parthasaarthi Rajagopalachari of Madras who after the Mahasamadhi of the Master become the President of the Society and is discharging the functions as such. Master transmitted and conferred his spiritual power in the aforesaid Sri Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari."
(iii) A perusal of the aforesaid pleadings shows that after the death of Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj, P. Rajagopalachari was pleaded to be nominated as President of the Mission.
(iv) In the written statement dated August 21, 1986 filed by defendant No.5 in the said suit, namely, Umesh Chandra Saxena admitted the contents of paragraph 4 of the plaint. The pleadings in the written statement were quite evasive. No plea was taken that Umesh Chandra Saxena was ever nominated as President of the Soceity.
(v) It was contended that claim made in the suit having been accepted by the defendants, the same was withdrawn.
(C) Writ Petition No.22657 of 1991
(i) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission through B.D. Mahajan, a member of Group-I, against the State, the Registrar and the Assistant Registrar of Firms, Societies and Chits for a direction to recognise the working committee of the Mission.
(ii) The aforesaid writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated July 10, 1997.
(D) Testamentary Suit No.8 of 1993-Testamentary Suit No.1 of 1994
(i) The Testamentary Suit No.8 of 1993 converted into Testamentary Suit No.1 of 1994, was filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena and Sarvesh Chandra Saxena, sons of Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj and also impleading the Mission as Plaintiff No.3 (members of Group-I). P. Rajagopalachari and another son of late Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj, namely, Prakash Chandra Saxena including others were impleaded as respondents.
(ii) The relief prayed for was for grant of Letter of Administration in favour of Umesh Chandra Saxena and declaring him as the President of the Mission and Petitioner No.2 Sarvesh Chandra Saxena as Secretary. Apparent idea was clearly to grab the property of the Mission. The claim was made on the basis of Will dated December 30, 1976, allegedly executed by late Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj.
(iii) Though the main argument raised is that after the amendment in the Act, the President could be elected, however, the prayer made in the aforesaid suit was for appointment of President as per the Will allegedly executed by Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj.
(iv) Respondent Nos.8 to 12 in the aforesaid suit filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. seeking rejection of the plaint. The application was allowed vide order dated October 16, 1995. The suit was dismissed finding that the relief prayed for by Umesh Chandra Saxena could not possibly be granted, as the same was misconceived. He was seeking inheritance of the properties of the Mission and not to administer the estate. The Mission was sought to be claimed as a private property.
(v) The dismissal of the aforesaid suit on acceptance of the application filed by respondents No.8 to 12 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. shows that Umesh Chandra Saxena failed in yet another attempt to usurp the properties of the Mission. As he did not want to leave any stone unturned, rather to take all the chances, the order dated October 16, 1995 was challenged by filing Special Appeal No.829 of 1995, which was dismissed by this Court on November 24, 1998 with cost. The plea raised by Umesh Chandra Saxena, that he along with other heirs of late Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj was entitled to inherit the properties of the Mission, was found to be totally misconceived, as after the properties were given to the Mission, the same were not inheritable by individuals.
(vi) It is noticed in paragraph 46 of the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge that in the aforesaid special appeal, Sarvesh Chandra Saxena, real brother of Umesh Chandra Saxena, filed an affidavit that nomination of P. Rajagopalachari as President of the Mission was valid and claim of Umesh Chandra Saxena is based on forged document.
(E) Writ Petition No.37023 of 1994
(i) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission including Umesh Chandra Saxena and Sarvesh Chandra Saxena, sons of late Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj and two other followers of Group-I against the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, also impleading P. Rajagopalachari, Prakash Chandra Saxena, another son of late Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj including others as respondents.
(ii) For the first time, it was pleaded in the aforesaid writ petition that on April 16, 1982 late Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj had nominated Umesh Chandra Saxena as successor President. It was stated in the aforesaid writ petition that various blank papers bearing signatures of late Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj were taken and being misused by P. Rajagopalachari. The document dated December 30, 1976 claiming to be nomination deed executed by Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj nominating P. Rajagopalachari as successor was stated to be forged.
(iii) The prayer made in the aforesaid writ petition was for quashing the order dated September 29, 1994.
(iv) It was further claimed that in the meetings of the Mission held on February 6, 7 and 8, 1984 Umesh Chandra Saxena was appointed as successor President where P. Rajagopalachari did not participate. Further a declaration was sought that Umesh Chandra Saxena was the successor President. The main ground of challenging the order dated September 29, 1994 was that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to Umesh Chandra Saxena. This Court recorded that he was not even party before respondent No.3, namely, Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits as he was watching the proceedings sitting at the fence and some other person was canvassing his cause.
(v) The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court by a detailed judgment dated July 10, 1997.
(vi) Meaning thereby the claim of Umesh Chandra Saxena to have been nominated/elected President of the Mission was not accepted by this Court.
(vii) In paragraph 50 of the written statement September 17, 2010 filed on behalf of members of Group-I in Original Suit No.360 of 2000, it was pleaded that Umesh Chandra Saxena as per the wishes of founder of the Mission late Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj, vide his Will dated June 7, 1999 nominated his son Navneet Kumar Saxena as the President of the Mission. Navneet Kumar Saxena was minor at the time of death of Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj. What wish the founder could have expressed at that time for nominating a minor as President of spiritual Mission. Had that been so, the same would have very well been mentioned by him in his Will executed on December 30, 1976. The aforesaid written statement was filed in the year 2010 and the stand taken therein was that Navneet Kumar Saxena was nominated as President by way of a Will executed by late Umesh Chandra Saxena, though now the claim made is that the President of the Mission has to be elected. The appellants cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath and take whatever pleas suit them at different times having failed in all their efforts by adopting different means to usurp the properties of the Mission.
(F) Original Suit No.127 of 1994
(i) Reference of the aforesaid suit is available in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No.829 of 1995 decided along with Special Appeal Nos.561 of 1996, 580 and 594 of 1997 vide judgment and order dated November 24, 1998. The aforesaid suit was filed on behalf of the Mission through its President Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari (member of Group-I) against Umesh Chandra Saxena and two others (members of Group-II) praying for restraining the defendants from holding any function in the name of the President or other office bearers of Shri Ram Chandra Mission and further for restraining defendant No.1, namely, Umesh Chandra Saxena from holding the birthday function of Babu Ji Maharaj from April 29, 1994 to May 1, 1994. In the said suit, the plaintiff Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari filed an application to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh, which was allowed subject to payment of ₹2000/- as costs to be paid to defendant No.1.
(G) Special Appeal Nos.829 of 1995, 561 of 1996, 580 and 594 of 1997
(i) Special Appeal No.829 of 1995 arose out of the order dated October 16, 1995 passed by this Court in Testamentary Suit No.1 of 1994. The aforesaid suit was filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena and others for issuing Letter of Administration to Umesh Chandra Saxena in respect of properties of the Mission and also for declaration that Umesh Chandra Saxena was the President of the Mission. This Court holding that the reliefs claimed in the suit cannot be granted in a testamentary proceedings, rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. vide order dated October 16, 1995 against which the aforesaid appeal was filed.
(ii) Special Appeal No.561 of 1996 arose out of the order passed by this Court dated May 24, 1996 in Original Suit No.200 of 1983. The aforesaid suit was between Uma Shanker and others (members of Group-I) and Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and others (members of Group-II). In the aforesaid suit an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was filed for amendment in the plaint. The said application was rejected by this Court vide order dated May 24, 1996 against which the aforesaid appeal was filed.
(iii) Special Appeal No.580 of 1997 arose out of judgment and order dated July 10, 1997 passed in Writ Petition No.37023 of 1994. Two writ petitions were decided by the aforesaid order, namely, Writ Petition Nos.22657 of 1991 and 37023 of 1994. The first writ petition was filed by the Mission through B.D. Mahajan (member of Group-I) claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Mission challenging the validity of action of the Registrar and Assistant Registrar of Firms, Societies and Chits, who had refused to recognise the working committee of the Mission headed by members of Group-I. The second writ petition was also filed on behalf of the Mission through Umesh Chandra Saxena claiming himself to be the President of the Mission impleading Registrar, Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits along with Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and others as respondents. Challenge in the second writ petition was to the order dated September 29, 1994 passed by the Assistant Registrar. A mandamus was also sought for a declaration that Umesh Chandra Saxena was the successor President of the Mission. Further declaration was sought that the deed dated April 16, 1982 was valid and the nomination deed dated March 23, 1974 was forged and invalid. These two writ petitions were connected with Testamentary Suit No.1 of 1994. After decision in Testamentary Suit No.1 of 1994, there was a direction that aforesaid two writ petitions be listed along with Original Suit Nos.200 of 1983 and 127 of 1994. The aforesaid suits were decided separately. Writ Petition No.22657 of 1991 was not pressed and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Writ Petition No.37023 of 1994 was dismissed on merits giving rise to Special Appeal No.580 of 1997. The following observations made by the Division Bench of this Court are quite relevant for the issues sought to be raised:-
"According to the Rules of the Society, the post of the President was not an elective one, nor were the members of the working committee to be elected. The rules required the President to nominate the members of the working committee. The Act requires that a Society is to be formed by a memorandum of association and registration by at least seven persons associated with the society. The memorandum of association is to contain the name of the society, the objects of the society, and the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body to whom, by the rules of the society the management of its affairs is entrusted. A copy of the rules and regulations of the society, certified to be a correct copy by not less than three of the members of the governing body, is to be filed with the memorandum of association. When such memorandum and certified copy of the rules with the required particulars are presented by the Secretary of the Society before the Registrar, he shall certify under his hand that the society is registered under this Act. A registration fee is to be paid for this purpose. Section 3-A of this Act speaks of renewal of certificate of registration. Once a society is registered and a certificate of registration is issued, it would remain in force for a period of five years from the date of issue. If any question arises whether any society is entitled to get itself registered in accordance with Section 3 or to get the certificate of registration renewed, the matter shall be referred to the State Government, as provided in Section 3-B of the Act. Section 4 of the Act requires that once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day which, according to the rules of the society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting in the month of January, a list shall be filed with the Registrar giving the names, addresses and occupations of the governors council, directors, committee, or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society. If at all the managing committee is elected, then the signatures of the old elected members shall be obtained in the list. As observed the rules of the society do not speak of an elected President or an elected working committee. Section 25 of the Act covers disputes regarding election of office-bearers and the Registrar's intervention is possible on his satisfaction that any election of office-bearers of a society has not been held within the time specified in the rules. If there be no election provided in the rules, naturally Section 25(1) or (2) of the Act would not come into play. The applications before the Registrar, however, proposed an interference under Section 25(2) of the Act and the Registrar refused to interfere not on the ground that no election was necessary but on another ground that the matter was sub judice before the High Court. It is true that the Registrar in this application had no authority to direct any body to continue in office, but that is to be read not as a direction but as a reiteration of an interim order given by the High Court. Looking from this angle the very application before the Assistant Registrar for action under Section 25(2) of the Act was untenable and so was the writ petition against the order of the Registrar, when the Registrar had no authority to take action under Section 25(2) of the Act, a writ could not have been issued for performance of any duty under that section. Although this approach to the subject and the reasoning for this order are different from the approach and reasoning of the Hon'ble single Judge, we are of the view that the writ petition was rightly dismissed as not tenable."
(iv) Special Appeal No.594 of 1997 arose out of order dated July 10, 1997 passed by this Court in Original Suit No.127 of 1997 on an application filed for dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh. The said application was allowed permitting withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh subject to payment of ₹2,000/- as costs.
(v) The aforesaid four Special Appeals were dismissed with costs vide common judgment and order dated November 24, 1998 in conformity with the observation made by the learned Single Judge in the judgments and orders impugned therein.
(vi) It may be relevant to note here that all the arguments raised by Umesh Chandra Saxena regarding election/nomination as President of the Mission were considered and it was opined that the writ petitions were totally misconceived and were rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
(vii) The argument with reference to Section 25 of the Act regarding election/nomination as President of the Mission/Society was considered and rejected. It was held therein that once the bye-laws and constitution of the Mission did not provide for any election, the provisions of Section 25 of the Act could not be invoked. The aforesaid judgment attained finality as it was not challenged. The same issue cannot be permitted to be addressed again claiming that the office of the President was an elected office especially when there is no fee prescribed for membership, the society being spiritual.
(H) Original Suit No.697 of 1995
(i) The aforesaid suit was filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena (member of Group-I) claiming himself to be the President of the Mission against Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and two other followers of the Mission.
(ii) The relief claimed therein was for declaring him as President of the Mission and further for restraining the defendant No.1 Parthasarthi Rajgopalachari from interfering in the peaceful working of the Mission. The suit was filed much after the amendment in the Act, claiming nomination as President though now argument raised is that elections are required to be held.
(iii) In the aforesaid suit, an application was filed by the defendants for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. The aforesaid application was allowed and the plaint was rejected vide order dated May 31, 1999.
(iv) The aforesaid order was challenged by Umesh Chandra Saxena by filing Civil Appeal No.219 of 1999. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed vide order dated January 11, 2001 on the ground that no cause of action had been disclosed and the same was also time barred.
(v) Still not satisfied, Second Appeal No.884 of 2001 was filed against the aforesaid orders of the court below, which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated November 26, 2001.
(I) Original Suit No.4 of 1999(i) The aforesaid suit was filed by two followers of the Mission impleading Umesh Chandra Saxena and Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari as defendant Nos.1 and 2 respectively, claiming that the plaintiffs are the Manager and Office Superintendent of the Mission. It was stated that though defendant No.1 in the suit, namely, Umesh Chandra Saxena was appointed as President of the Mission vide Will deed executed by late Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj on April 16, 1982, still he was refusing to accept the status of the plaintiffs as such.
(ii) A perusal of the plaint shows that it was pleaded therein that late Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj executed a Will on December 30, 1976 on a plain paper nominating Umesh Chandra Saxena and his younger brother Sarvesh Chandra Saxena as his legal heirs. As late Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj apprehended that the aforesaid Will deed dated April 16, 1982 could be misused, he made another declaration dated April 17, 1982 on the letter pad of the Mission giving exclusive right of the Mission to defendant No.1 (Umesh Chandra Saxena) only.
(iii) It was yet another device coined by Umesh Chandra Saxena to succeed in its ulterior motive to usurp the properties of the Mission after failing in the Testamentary Suit No.1 of 1994 filed by him claiming inheritance on the basis of will allegedly executed by late Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj on December 30, 1976.
(iv) The aforesaid suit was dismissed on May 10, 1999. The appeal against the aforesaid order was also dismissed on January 5, 2004.
(J) Original Suit No.587 of 1999
(i) Reference of the aforesaid suit is available in paragraph 50 of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is stated to be a suit filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena. The same was dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally on November 26, 2001. Meaning thereby, any further suit for the same relief will not be maintainable.
(K) Original Suit No.360 of 2000
(i) The aforesaid suit was filed by certain followers of the Mission praying for restraining Umesh Chandra Saxena from interfering in the working of the Mission. Vide order dated November 27, 2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) the defendants were restrained from collecting any donation on behalf of the Mission and also from showing any relation with the Mission. They were further restrained from damaging the properties of the Mission or changing the nature thereof.
(ii) In the aforesaid suit, Umesh Chandra Saxena (defendant) filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. which was dismissed on November 27, 2000. The aforesaid order was challenged by Umesh Chandra Saxena by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.53330 of 2000 before this Court. The same was dismissed vide judgment dated November 19, 2002 (reported in 2002 All.C.J. 1510). Meaning thereby, rejection of the application filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was upheld and the interim stay granted in favour of the plaintiffs therein was confirmed. Strong observation was made by this Court in paragraph 52 of the aforesaid judgment, which is extracted below:-
"52. So far as the question as to whether the suit is barred by the provisions of the Societies Registration Act is concerned, it may be stated that according to the plaint allegations, the petitioner who is defendant in the suit, had not been successful in his effort to claim himself as President of the Mission as legally elected, nominated President of the Mission as would be clear from a series of litigations referred to above. The petitioner has not brought any material on record to establish his claim that he is the elected/nominated President of the Mission. Mere claiming that he is President of the Mission without any material in support thereof would not be sufficient to invoke the provisions of the Societies Registration Act in so far as the relief of election dispute is concerned. Thus, the provisions of the Societies Registration Act would not be applicable in a case, which has been filed against the rank trespasser who has no connection at all with the society and is interfering in the affairs of the Society by raising funds in the name of the Society by claiming himself to be President thereof."
(emphasis supplied)
(iii) It has been observed in the aforesaid judgment that Umesh Chandra Saxena had not been successful in his efforts to get himself declared as legally elected or nominated President of the Mission despite series of litigations. Umesh Chandra Saxena filed an application for review of the aforesaid order dated November 19, 2002. While the aforesaid review application was pending, he filed Special Leave Petition No.6585 of 2003 before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on July 25, 2003.
(iv) After the death of Umesh Chandra Saxena on November 3, 2003, his legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated January 30, 2004. On the same day, vide separate order passed by the Court, the interim injunction already granted in the suit, was ordered to be continued against the newly impleaded legal representatives also. Thereafter started series of litigations in this Court, details thereof have already been mentioned in paragraph 3 of this judgment. The fact remains that in all their efforts Umesh Chandra Saxena and his sons had failed to usurp the properties of the Mission.
(L) Original Suit No.403 of 2003
(i) The aforesaid suit was filed in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahjahanpur by the Mission through K.V. Reddy (member of Group-I), claiming himself to be elected Secretary of the Mission, against Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari pleading that annual election of the Society/Mission was held on February 6, 2003 in which Umesh Chandra Saxena was elected as President. Despite his election as the President of the Mission, defendant in the said suit namely, Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari was still claiming himself to be the President of the Mission. A declaration was sought that the nomination dated March 23, 1974 in favour of Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari be declared as invalid and inoperative and he should be permanently restrained from claiming himself to be the President of the plaintiff's Society.
(ii) Though it is stated to be dispute between two warring groups to retain control of the Mission, however, still the person, who was claiming to have rightful control over the Mission, was not before the Court, rather it was the Mission which filed the suit. In fact, from the series of the litigations, it is evident that Umesh Chandra Saxena had been trying to have proxy litigation in the matter by not coming in front in number of such cases.
(iii) In the aforesaid suit again, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed by the defendant, which was accepted by the court vide order dated February 10, 2010.
(iv) It was claimed that the aforesaid order was challenged by filing an appeal. Though the said appeal is stated to be pending, however, the same may not be of any use for the reason, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, that during pendency thereof, Parthasarthi Rajgopalachari died on December 20, 2014 and even K.V. Reddy, who was representing the Mission, a statutory body, claiming to be its alleged Secretary, had also expired during pendency of appeal and no application for substitution or for bringing their legal representatives on record was filed.
(v) From number of litigations, which have been referred to above and in the preceding paragraphs, it is evident that when objective of Umesh Chandra Saxena failed at the initial stage to retain control of the Mission, the litigation was never pursued further as either it was withdrawn or remained pending.
(M) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3091 (MS) of 2005
(i) Though the jurisdiction to entertain the lis between the parties is at principal seat at Allahabad and all other cases were filed here but still the Mission now represented by Navneet Kumar Saxena and Amresh Kumar, sons of late Umesh Chandra Saxena claiming to be elected Member of the working committee filed the aforesaid writ petition at Lucknow Bench of this Court raising a grievance that before deciding the lis, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly should not be influenced with the observations made by the Registrar of the Societies in his letter dated November 4, 2009. The same was disposed of on May 21, 2010. Though the dispute is pertaining to be of the management of the Mission where two groups are fighting but still the writ petition was filed by the Mission.
(ii) Having come to know about filing of the writ petition and the order passed therein, an application was filed by Uma Shanker Bajpai, Secretary of the Mission for recall of the order dated May 21, 2010. It was pleaded that the writ petition was totally misconceived and material facts were concealed from the Court. It was claimed that issue regarding Committee of Management had already been settled by the Assistant Registrar by the order dated December 19, 2009 and aggrieved against that order the writ petitioner in the writ petition in question had filed Writ Petition No.5034 of 2010 at Allahabad. The aforesaid application was allowed vide order dated May 30, 2012 with the following observations:
"Upon perusal of the record, I find that by means of application dated 28th of June, 2010 submitted by the petitioners before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly, the petitioners have very much tried to get recall the order dated 19th of December, 2009 treating the same as an exparte order under the strength of order passed by this court in the instant writ petition, whereas except this I do not find that he had made any other prayer to get decided any other dispute allegedly pending before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly. I am further of the view that once the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, may be exparte order, on 19th of December, 2009 is under adjudication by this court at Allahabad through writ petition No.5034 of 2010, there was no occasion to seek the recall of the same under the garb of the order passed in the instant writ petition, whereas, it was open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application before this court at Allahabad in the said writ petition for an appropriate order either to decide the writ petition itself or to issue any direction to the Assistant Registrar to pass a fresh order, but there was no occasion for the petitioners to move such an application. Thus, misrepresentation of facts made by the petitioners cannot be denied, rather it is well established. That itself leads to dismiss the writ petition with heavy costs. "
(iii) Order dated May 21, 2010 was recalled and the writ petition was dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/-. Special Appeal against the said order is stated to be pending. However, the same is of no relevance as much water has flown thereafter.
Litigations claiming right on the basis of Will dated December 30, 1976 and Nomination dated April 16, 1982
46. Claiming right on the basis of Will allegedly executed by late Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj dated December 30, 1976, firstly Testamentary Suit No.1 of 1994 was filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena, which was dismissed on October 16, 1995 finding that the relief prayed for could not possibly be granted in testamentary proceedings.
47. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.37023 of 1994 was filed on behalf of the Mission through Umesh Chandra Saxena claiming himself to be the President of the Mission impleading Registrar, Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits along with Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and others as respondents, inter alia, seeking a declaration that Umesh Chandra Saxena was the successor President of the Mission. Further declaration was sought that the deed dated April 16, 1982 was valid and the nomination deed dated March 23, 1974 was forged and invalid. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on merits giving rise to Special Appeal No.580 of 1997, which was dismissed on November 24, 1998
48. Suit No.697 of 1995 was filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena, claiming himself to be the President of the Mission praying for a declaration that Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari is not the President of the Mission and he be restrained from acting as such. It was claimed that during his lifetime, the founder President Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj had nominated plaintiff No.2, namely, Umesh Chandra Saxena as the spiritual representative in the direct line of succession and as his successor President of the Mission. The aforesaid suit was dismissed on May 31, 1999, Civil Appeal No.219 of 1999 filed before the learned lower appellate Court, was dismissed on January 11, 2001 and Second Appeal No.884 of 2001 filed against the aforesaid judgment, was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated November 26, 2001. In the aforesaid suit, claim made by Umesh Chandra Saxena was on the basis of his nomination as President by Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj during his lifetime.
49. Original Suit No.4 of 1999 was got filed by certain followers of the Mission impleading Umesh Chandra Saxena and Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari as defendant Nos.1 and 2 respectively, claiming that the plaintiffs are the Manager and Office Superintendent of the Mission. It was stated that though defendant No.1 in the suit, namely, Umesh Chandra Saxena was appointed as President of the Mission vide Will deed executed by late Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj on April 16, 1982, still he was refusing to accept the status of the plaintiffs as such. The said suit is stated to have been dismissed on May 10, 1999 and Civil Appeal No.90 of 1999 filed against the same was also dismissed on January 5, 2004.
50. Umesh Chandra Saxena claiming right on the basis of Will and Nomination, filed an application in Original Suit No.200 of 1983 praying for his impleadment. Impleadment was sought pleading that Umesh Chandra Saxena was nominated as President of the Mission vide deed dated April 16, 1982 whereas defendant No.1 Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and his associates were trying to usurp the management of the Mission on the basis of a forged deed dated March 23, 1974. The application was rejected by this Court on May 24, 1996. and the Special Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed.
Will dated June 7, 1999 allegedly executed by Umesh Chandra Saxena
51. The aforesaid document was referred to in the pleadings stated to be on record as Annexure CA-11 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5 in Special Appeal No.676 of 2015. Umesh Chandra Saxena died on November 3, 2003. In the Will, he mentioned that he is the President of the Mission by succession and has the power to nominate its President. After his death his three sons, namely, Navneet Kumar Saxena, Suneet Kumar Saxena and Puneet Kumar Saxena would inherit his entire moveable and immoveable properties. He further stated that he nominates his three sons as the successors in the Mission and after his death they will collectively appoint any person as the President of the Mission.
52. The narration in the aforesaid Will executed by Umesh Chandra Saxena fortifies his effort to usurp the properties of the Mission by treating the same to be his private property. The efforts in which he failed time and again during his life time. Though it was sought to be argued that process of election has to be followed for appointment of the President but even after the amendments in the Act, which are now sought to be relied upon, in the Will executed by Umesh Chandra Saxena, the Mission was sought to be handed over to his legal representatives with power to nominate the President.
53. It may be out of place if not mentioned here that there was an interim order passed by the court in Civil Suit No.360 of 2000 restraining Umesh Chandra Saxena from dealing with the properties of the Mission in any manner whatsoever. Despite this fact, he claimed himself to be self styled President of the Mission.
IMPLEADMENT OF THE PARTIES
54. In Special Appeal No.676 of 2015 arising out of Writ-C No.5034 of 2010, it is admitted on record that list of 17 members of the working committee was approved by the Assistant Registrar. Though challenge was to the approval of list of members of the working committee, however, only two of the members were impleaded as parties and not others. In absence of impleadment of all the members as respondents, no relief could possibly be granted to the petitioners/appellants therein, as the same would adversely affect their right in case the orders impugned in the writ petitions are set-aside.
55. In Writ-C Nos.24214 of 2005, 41630, 41631 of 2012, 48669 of 2013 and 30767 of 2014 also though challenge was made to the approvals of the working committee for the different years, however, only two or three of the members were impleaded as parties and not all the members. Hence, in the aforesaid writ petitions also, no relief could possibly be granted.
56. Though the members of Group-I were never accepted either as President or the Member of the working committee of the Mission but still they had been filing the cases representing the Mission, which was totally illegal. It was a dispute between two warrior groups.
Writ-C No.7139 of 201657. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by Navneet Kumar Saxena claiming himself to be the elected President of the Mission along with Dinesh Kumar and Amresh Kumar (members of Group-I), inter alia, praying for quashing the orders dated February 21, 2015 and October 12, 2015. By order dated February 21, 2015, the list of members of the working committee for the year 2015-2016 submitted by respondent No.4, namely, Uma Shankar Bajpai was approved and by order dated October 12, 2015 the registration certificate of the Society/Mission for the period 2015-2020 was renewed in favour of respondent No.4. In our view, in view of the aforesaid discussions, this writ petition also deserves to be dismissed as no relief can possibly be granted therein.
CONCLUSIONS
58. Though we are in full agreement with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, however, from the aforesaid conspectus of facts and circumstances discussed above, following additional conclusions have been drawn:
(i) Though in the first meeting held in July, 1983, after the death of Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj, Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari staked his claim on the basis of his nomination in the year 1974 in presence of Umesh Chandra Saxena, however, Umesh Chandra Saxena did not claim himself to be the nominated President of the Mission pursuant to alleged nomination claimed to have been done vide deed dated April 16, 1982. Nomination of Umesh Chandra Saxena vide deed dated April 16, 1982 had not been pleaded in Original Suit No.200 of 1983 filed on December 26, 1983. For the first time, the plea regarding nomination of Umesh Chandra Saxena through the aforesaid deed was taken in Writ Petition No.37023 of 1994, which was filed challenging the nomination of Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari through the nomination deed dated December 30, 1976. This conduct of Umesh Chandra Saxena casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the deed dated April 16, 1982.
(ii) Various litigations were filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena claiming right on the basis of Will and Nomination alleged to have been executed by late Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj, which were dismissed and the orders passed therein had attained finality. Hence now he or his successors in interest cannot be permitted to claim right on the aforesaid basis.
(iii) Vide interim order dated August 9, 2000, the defendant Umesh Chandra Saxena was restrained; first from destroying the Mission's properties in dispute; second from posing himself as the President of the Mission and thereby interfering in the working and management of the affairs of the Mission and third from collecting the money in the name of the Mission and converting the aim of the Mission from philanthropic and spiritual to commercial one. Despite this fact, all the aforesaid writ petitions were filed by the Mission claiming to be through its elected President. The same were clearly in violation of the interim order passed by the court below.
(iv) After dismissal of the aforesaid writ petitions by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment, the Mission has filed a set of 11 Special Appeals through Navneet Kumar Saxena (son of Umesh Chandra Saxena) claiming himself to be elected President of the Mission along with other members of Group-I despite the fact that vide order dated January 30, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge in Civil Suit No.360 of 2000, the interim injunction was ordered to be continued even against the sons of late Umesh Chandra Saxena including Navneet Kumar Saxena, who had filed the present appeals. Hence, Navneet Kumar Saxena had no right to file the present appeals on behalf of the Mission claiming himself to be President of the Mission.
(v) A Division Bench of this Court, while deciding Special Appeal Nos.829 of 1995, 561 of 1996, 580 and 594 of 1997 vide judgment and order dated November 24, 1998, having already considered and rejected the issues including the issue with reference to Section 25 of the Act pertaining to election/nomination, which are sought to be raised by the appellants in the present Special Appeals, the same cannot be permitted to be addressed again.
(vi) As far as the writ petitions, namely, Writ-C Nos.66631 of 2005, 5034 of 2010, 24214 of 2011, 41630, 41631 of 2012, 48669 of 2013 and 30767 of 2014 are concerned, in the said writ petitions, challenge was to the orders of approval of the list of members of the working committee of the Mission for seven years i.e. 2005-2006 and from 2009-2010 to 2014-2015. As was claimed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the list of the members of the working committee for the period subsequent thereto had been approved and the same were not challenge by the appellants except for the year 2020-2021 by means of Writ-C No.16788 of 2021, hence, they having accepted the approval of the list of the members of the working committee for the period subsequent to one under challenge in the present litigation, nothing survive in the Special Appeals arising out of the aforesaid writ petitions.
(vii) The averments made in paragraph 4 in the plaint of Original Suit No.142 of 1986 is that the Spiritual Representative nominee of the Master was and is Sri Parthasaarthi Rajagopalachari of Madras, who after the Mahasamadhi of the Master become the President of the Society and is discharging the functions as such, was admitted by Umesh Chandra Saxena himself in his written statement dated August 21, 1986 filed in the aforesaid suit. As the claim in the aforesaid suit was accepted by Umesh Chandra Saxena, the same was withdrawn. Hence, now he cannot be permitted to dispute the status of Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari.
(viii) Though challenge in most of the writ petition was to the orders by which the list of members of the working committee for different years was approved, however, only two or three of the members were impleaded as parties and not all the members. Hence, in the aforesaid writ petitions also, no relief could possibly be granted, as the same suffer from non joinder of necessary parties.
(ix) On the one hand, the claim of the appellants throughout is that the President of the Mission has to be elected but on the other hand initially Umesh Chandra Saxena claimed his right on the basis of nomination and now his son Navneet Kumar Saxena is claiming his right on the basis of Will executed by Umesh Chandra Saxena. Hence, the appellants cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath.
(x) Though the members of Group-I were never accepted either as President or the Member of the working committee of the Mission but still they had been filing the cases representing the Mission, which was totally illegal.
(xi) It is claimed to be a spiritual Mission. Though the members of Group-I, ever since the death of Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj on April 19, 1983, are trying to get control over the property of Mission and its management and further Umesh Kumar Saxena even executed a Will pertaining thereto but still nothing was pointed out at the time of hearing by learned counsel for the appellants that the affairs of the Mission were mismanaged by the working committee as approved by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits.
CONCEALMENT OF FACTS
59. In paragraph 78 of the judgment of learned Single Judge details have been mentioned with reference to concealment of fact by the appellants before the Court. It is with reference to various litigations. Number of judgments have been referred to and were cited by learned counsel for the respondents for taking the cognizance. The plea is that for the same relief successive writ petitions be not entertained. The concealments detailed in paragraph 78 of the impugned judgment are as under:-
(i) passing of judgment dated 25.2.1985 in FAFO No.439 of 1984, holding that Mr. Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari is President;
(ii) filing of writ petition No.22657 of 1991 unauthorizedly in the name of Society and Mr. S.P. Srivastava and Mr. B.D. Mahajan and its dismissal on 10.7.1997;
(iii) filing of writ petition No.37023 of 1994 unauthorizedly in the name of Society and by Mr. U.C. Saxena and its dismissal dated 10.7.1997.
(iv) filing of Testamentary Case No.1 of 1993 converted into Testamentary Suit No.1 of 1994, its dismissal on 16.10.1995;
(v) filing of Special Appeal No.829 of 1995, its dismissal on 24.11.1999;
(vi) filing of O.S. No.697 of 1995 falsely in the name of society and Mr. U.C. Saxena in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad, its rejection on 31.5.1999;
(vii) passing of consolidated judgment dated 24.11.1998 in Special Appeals;
(viii) filing of Civil Appeal No.219 of 1999, its dismissal on 11.1.2001;
(ix) filing of Suit No.4 of 1999;
(x) filing of Suit No.587 of 1999;
(xi) filing of Civil Appeal No.90 of 1999;
(xii) filing of writ petition no.53330 of 2000 against other part of order dated 27.11.2000 by which prayer of Mr. U.C. Saxena was rejected;
(xiii) passing of order dated 9.8.2000 in O.S. No.360 of 2000;
(xiv) passing of order dated 27.11.2000 in O.S. No.360 of 2000;
(xv) filing of Appeal No.15 of 2001 by Mr. U.C. Saxena;
(xvi) filing of FAFO No.1119 of 2004;
(xvii) filing of writ petition No.40035 of 2004 and its order dated 05.10.2004;
(xviii) filing of Revision No.66 of 2004 and its dismissal on 19.7.2005;
(xix) filing of O.S. No.403 of 2003 and its dismissal on 10.2.2010;
(xx) filing of written statement of Mr. U.C. Saxena in O.S. No.142 of 1986 in which he said that he will not claim any office in the society;
(xxi) execution of Will by Mr. U.C. Saxena dated 07.6.1999 wherein he said that he obtained the office of President of Society by way of "mRrjkf/kdkj" and together with he is nominated him the sons as future President under the constitution and bye-laws of the society;
(xxii) non-raising plea of election in the last 16 years, despite amendment having been made on 30.4.1984;
(xxiii) other facts."
60. At the time of hearing, with regard to facts noticed in paragraph 78 of the impugned judgment pertaining to concealment of material facts from this Court in the pleadings in different writ petitions, no arguments were addressed. The same remained undisputed.
61. A perusal of pleadings in various writ petitions filed by the appellants shows that in most of them there were election dispute except in Writ-C No.37023 of 1994 and 53330 of 2000. Only brief reference has been made to the previous litigations without giving much details. From the facts, as noticed above, it is clear that all the writ petitions, civil suits or other kind of litigations initiated by the appellants or the persons associated with them, have relation with controlling the management and usurping the properties of the Mission. Hence, there was concealment of material facts from this Court by the appellants.
62. In addition to that, fully knowing that the jurisdiction to entertain the lis between the parties was at Allahabad and all other cases were filed and pending there, still Writ Petition No.3091 (M/S) of 2010 was filed at Lucknow concealing the aforesaid fact. Though the aforesaid writ petition was initially allowed but later on the order allowing the writ petition was recalled and the writ petition was dismissed with cost.
63. The issue regarding approaching the Court by concealing the facts has been examined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on number of occasions and it has been opined that the same is polluting the stream of justice.
64. In Abhyudya Sanstha Vs. Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 145, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while declining relief to the petitioners therein, who did not approach the court with clean hands, opined as under :-
"18. ... In our view, the appellants deserve to be non suited because they have not approached the Court with clean hands. The plea of inadvertent mistake put forward by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and their submission that the Court may take lenient view and order regularisation of the admissions already made sounds attractive but does not merit acceptance. Each of the appellants consciously made a statement that it had been granted recognition by the NCTE, which necessarily implies that recognition was granted in terms of Section 14 of the Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the 2007 Regulations. Those managing the affairs of the appellants do not belong to the category of innocent, illiterate/uneducated persons, who are not conversant with the relevant statutory provisions and the court process. The very fact that each of the appellants had submitted LPASW No. 82/2019 Page 7 application in terms of Regulation 7 and made itself available for inspection by the team constituted by WRC, Bhopal shows that they were fully aware of the fact that they can get recognition only after fulfilling the conditions specified in the Act and the Regulations and that WRC, Bhopal had not granted recognition to them. Notwithstanding this, they made bold statement that they had been granted recognition by the competent authority and thereby succeeded in persuading this Court to entertain the special leave petitions and pass interim orders. The minimum, which can be said about the appellants is that they have not approached the Court with clean hands and succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statement. Therefore, they are not entitled to relief under Article 136 of the Constitution. This view finds support from plethora of precedents.
19. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261 and large number of other cases, this Court denied relief to the petitioner/appellant on the ground that he had not approached the Court with clean hands. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das (supra), the Court revoked the leave granted to the appellant and observed:
"It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it LPASW No. 82/2019 Page 8 would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterises as misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked."
20. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka's case (supra), the Court while noticing the fact regarding the stay order passed by the High Court which prevented passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer within the prescribed time period was concealed and in the aforesaid context, it observed that:
"2. ... Curiously enough, there is no reference in the special leave petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter- affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the special leave petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the special leave petitions."
21. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114, Hon'ble the Supreme Court noticed the progressive decline in the values of life and observed:
"1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahinsa" (non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice- delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final." (emphasis supplied)
65. In Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another (2013) 9 SCC 199, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, considering the issue regarding concealment of facts before the Court, while observing that "court is not a laboratory where children come to play", opined as under:
"19. The second limb of the submission is whether in the obtaining factual matrix, the order passed by the High Court discharging the accused-respondent is justified in law. We have clearly stated that though the respondent was fully aware about the fact that charges had been framed against him by the learned trial Judge, yet he did not bring the same to the notice of the revisional court hearing the revision against the order taking cognizance. It is a clear case of suppression. It was within the special knowledge of the accused. Any one who takes recourse to method of suppression in a court of law, is, in actuality, playing fraud with the court, and the maxim supressio veri, expression faisi , i.e., suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. We are compelled to say so as there has been a calculated concealment of the fact before the revisional court. It can be stated with certitude that the accused- respondent tried to gain advantage by such factual suppression. The fraudulent intention is writ large. In fact, he has shown his courage of ignorance and tried to play possum.
20. The High Court, as we have seen, applied the principle "when infrastructure collapses, the superstructure is bound to collapse". However, as the order has been obtained by practising fraud and suppressing material fact before a court of law to gain advantage, the said order cannot be allowed to stand." (emphasis supplied)
66. Similar view has been expressed in Amar Singh v. Union of India and others, (2011)7 SCC 69 and Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2013)2 SCC 398.
67. In a recent judgment in ABCD Vs. Union of India and others (2020) 2 SCC 52, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter where material facts had been concealed, while issuing notice to the petitioner therein, exercising its suo-motu contempt power, observed as under :
"15. Making a false statement on oath is an offence punishable under Section 181 of the IPC while furnishing false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person is punishable under Section 182 of the IPC. These offences by virtue of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code can be taken cognizance of by any court only upon a proper complaint in writing as stated in said Section. In respect of matters coming under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code, in Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan etc., (1987) 3 SCC 367 prosecution was directed to be launched after prima facie satisfaction was recorded by this Court.
16. It has also been laid down by this Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 that a person who makes an attempt to deceive the court, interferes with the administration of justice and can be held guilty of contempt of court. In that case a husband who had filed a fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to two weeks imprisonment. It was observed as under:
"1. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.
2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.
* * *
14. The legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated document is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt."
17. In K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others (2008) 12 SCC 481 it was observed:
"39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs., (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court."
18. In Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and others (1995) 3 SCC 757 filing of a false affidavit was the basis for initiation of action in contempt jurisdiction and the concerned persons were punished."
68. It was held in the judgments referred to above that one of the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is "satya" (truth) and the same has been put under the carpet by the petitioner. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system in the pre-Independence era, however, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now a litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth. The principle has been evolved to meet the challenge posed by this new breed of litigants. Now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted.
69. Keeping in view the aforesaid authoritative enunciation of law by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in our view, the appellants do no deserve any relief from this Court, as they are not only guilty of concealment of material facts from the Court but had also indulged in forum shopping. They made efforts at all level to mislead the Court.
70. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the appeals and the writ petition. The same are dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited by the appellants (except the Mission) with the Mission within one month from today.
Allahabad May 06, 2022 Rakesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes