Kerala High Court
The Marthoma Charitable Service ... vs C.V.Mathew
Author: Thomas P. Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/2ND ASWINA 1934
CRP.No. 405 of 2008 ( )
-----------------------
OP.7/2006 of DISTRICT COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
--------------
REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1, 3 TO 6, 8, 10 TO 15 & 17 TO 21:
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE MARTHOMA CHARITABLE SERVICE SOCIETY
NO.P-301/93, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR MURI
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR & SECRETARY.
2. JOHN THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT
KOCHIYIL RAJA VILAS, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
3. K.M.VARGHESE, S/O.MATHAI, RESIDING AT
KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
4. GEORGE.T.ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM,
RESIDING AT KOCHIYIL BIKAS, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
5. REV.M.P.THOMAS, S/O.PHILIP,
RESIDING AT MADAPPATTIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
6. P.K.MATHAI, S/O.KOSHY,
RESIDING AT PARAPPALLIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
7. K.ABRAHAM VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE,
RESIDING AT PUSHPAMANGALAM, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
8. MATHEWS NINAN, S/O.NINAN,
RESIDING AT KOCHIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU
KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR, KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE
THIRUVALLA TALUK.
VK
CRP.No. 405 of 2008 ( )
-----------------------
9. KOSHY JACOB, S/O.JACOB,
RESIDING AT PLACHIRA ROBIN VILLA, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
10. P.C.ALEXANDER, S/O.CHACKO,
RESIDING AT KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
11. P.T.KOSHY, S/O.THOMAS,
RESIDING AT PARAPPALLIL KARUNA, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
12. GEORGE.P.JOHN, S/O.JOHN,
RESIDING AT PARAPPALLIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
13. P.K.PHILIP, S/O.KOSHY,
RESIDING AT PARAPPALLIL PHILMAS, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
14. P.T.THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS,
RESIDING AT PARAPPALLIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
15. PONNACHEN.K.C.,
RESIDING AT THALATHAYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
16. DELETED
17. VARGHESE.T.CHERIAN, S/O.CHERIAN,
RESIDING AT THANICKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI. LIJU.V.STEPHEN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 2, 16, 20 & 22:
--------------------------------------------------
1. C.V.MATHEW , S/O.C.M.VARGHESE,
RESIDING AT CHETHIKKATTU ROBIN VILLA
KIZHAKKAM MUTHOOR MURI, KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE
THIRUVALLA TALUK.
VK
CRP.No. 405 of 2008 ( )
-----------------------
2. THE EPISCOPA OF NIRANAM MARAMON DIOCESE
OF MARTHOMA CHURCH POOLATHEEN ARAMANA, THIRUVALLA.
3. KURIAN C.OOMMEN, S/O.OOMMEN,
RESIDING AT CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOT
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
* 4. GEORGE T.CHERIAN, S/O.CHERIAN,
RESIDING AT THANNICKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
(RESPONDENTS 7 AND 9 IN THE COURT BELOW ARE DEAD
AND NONE OTHERS ARE TO BE IMPLEADED HEREIN. (DELETED)
* 5. D.CHERIAN, S/O.MATHAI VALLIYA VEETTIL HOUSE,
KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. (DELETED)
* RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY
AS PER ORDER DATED 30.1.12 IN IA.822/11 IN CRP.405/08.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 24-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
VK
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
=====================
C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008
========================
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2012
JUDGMENT
This revision is in challenge of the order dated 26th February, 2008 in O.P. (Charitable) No. 7 of 2006 of the District Court, Pathanamthitta setting aside a part of the resolution adopted by the governing body of the first petitioner - a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') on 25.11.2005 that the net assets of the first petitioner be vested with the Marthoma Church and directing the governing body of the first petitioner to take a decision by votes of not less than 3/5th of the members present personally regarding handing over of the net assets either to the State Government or to some other society the object, the furtherance of aims is similar to that of the first petitioner within three months from the date of the order.
2. Ext.A7 is a copy of memorandum of association (rules and bye-laws ) of the first petitioner. The governing body of the first petitioner met on 25.11.2005 and resolved to dissolve the first petitioner - society. Along with that, it also resolved that C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 2 :- the net assets of the first petitioner be vested with the Marthoma Church.
3. Aggrieved by the later part of the resolution that the net assets of the first petitioner be vested with the Marthoma Church, the first respondent, a member of the governing body preferred a complaint to the District Registrar who in turn, directed the first petitioner to refer the dispute to the Principal Court of original Civil jurisdiction of the District for a decision. According to the first respondent, the first petitioner or its office bearers did not comply with the said direction. Thereon, the first respondent filed the original petition in the District Court, Pathanamthitta requesting to set aside the latter part of the resolution and to direct the first petitioner to convene a meeting of its governing body to resolve to vest the net assets of the first petitioner either with the State Government or with some other society having similar aims and objects as the first petitioner, as may be decided by the governing body.
4. According to the first respondent, though clause 20 of Ext.A7 enables the governing body of the first petitioner to C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 3 :- resolve to dissolve it and dispose of its assets after clearing its liabilities, the latter part of the decision taken by the governing body on 25.11.2005 though with the 1st respondent being the lone dissenter, is ultravires the provisions of the Act. In the same way, the latter part of clause 20 of Ext.A7 that the net assets shall be vested with the Marthoma Church is also challenged as being against the provisions of the Act. It is contended that the Marthoma Church is not a 'society' registered or unregistered so that, the governing body of the first petitioner could resolve that the net assets of the first petitioner be vested with the Marthoma Church. Hence, that part of the resolution dated 25.11.2005 and the latter part of clause 20 of the Ext.A7 are illegal.
5. In answer to the petition, the first petitioner and others contended that membership of the first petitioner is restricted to the members of the Marthoma Church and that the assets of the first petitioner is raised by contributions from the members of that Church. Clause 20 of Ext.A7 is not violative of the Act. Clause 20 is subject to the Act with regards to the procedural C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 4 :- mode of dissolution of the first petitioner. Vesting of the assets with the Marthoma Church on dissolution of the first petitioner is in accordance with the law. It is further contended that the decision on 25.11.2005 was taken by all the members of the society who attended the meeting with the first respondent being the lone dissenter. The maintainability of the original petition in the District Court at the instance of the first respondent was also challenged.
6. The learned District Judge held that the original petition is maintainable under Sec.23 of the Act. A further finding the learned District Judge has entered is that clause 20 of Ext.A7, to the extent it dealt with vesting of the net assets of the first petitioner is ultravires the provisions of the Act since it goes against Secs. 23 and 24 of the Act. The learned District Judge, referring to Sec.24 of the Act held that vesting of the net assets of the first petitioner can only be with the State Government or any other similar society as the first petitioner. The Marthoma Church with which as per the impugned resolution the net assets of the first petitioner is to vest, is not a society registered C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 5 :- under the Act or not. In the circumstances it is held that the latter part of the resolution dated 25.11.2005 is illegal being in violation of Sec. 23 and 24 of the Act.
7. In this revision it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the original petition is not maintainable. There is no provision which enables the first respondent to file an original petition in the District Court under Sec.23 of the Act. It was open to the first respondent to a writ petition for a direction to refer the dispute to the District Court under Sec.23 of the Act. Otherwise the District court gets jurisdiction only when 10% of the members on the rolls of the first petitioner makes an application under Sec.25 of the Act. It is contended that as the Marthoma Church with which the net assets of the first petitioner is resolved to vest as per decision dated 25.11.2005 is a necessary party, in the absence of which the original petition is not maintainable. It is further contended that Sec. 24 of the Act has no application to the facts of the case. Secs. 23 and 24 of the Act can have application only if any property remains with the petitioner and no steps are taken for disposal and settlement of C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 6 :- the property as per the rules and bye-laws (of the first petitioner). The further contention is that Sec. 24 of the Act is a residuary provision to safeguard the property remaining after dissolution from being plundered by the members of the first petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Sec.24 of the Act has no application since otherwise, the assets of the first petitioner has already been disposed of in accordance with clause 20 of Ext.A7. According to the learned counsel, Sec.24 of the Act has application only after a society is dissolved and any assets remain after disposal and settlement of its claims and liabilities as provided under Sec.23 of the Act. The learned counsel submits that once the assets of the dissolved society is already disposed of in accordance with Sec.23 of the Act, nothing remains to be disposed of by virtue of Sec.24. According to the learned counsel, the rule of cy pres would apply so far as the application of Sec.24 of the Act is concerned as the decision taken on 25.11.2005 is in accordance with the wishes of the majority of members of the governing body of the first C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 7 :- petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decision in Potti Swami & Bros V. Govindarajulu (AIR 1960 A.P. 605,) and the meaning of the expression "cy pres" in Black's Law Dictionary. It is contended that the validity of the statute cannot be questioned in the court of learned District Judge. There is no challenge in this case to the validity of clause 20 of Ext.A7. Reliance is placed on the decision in T. Krishnan V. G.D.M. Committee (AIR 1978 Kerala 68). According to the learned counsel, the heading given to Sec.24 of the Act must be understood as indicting that the said provision has application only if the the assets of the dissolved society remains after it is disposed of in accordance with Sec.23 of the Act. Sec.24 of the Act cannot override the bye- law. Reliance is placed on the decision in Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Sanjay Transport Agency and Another ((2009) 7 SCC 345). Regarding the scope of Sec.25 of the Act, the learned counsel has placed on the decision in Kerla Vyapara Vyavasayi Vs. Kerala Vyapara Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi (2004(1) KLT 756).
9. A further argument the learned counsel has advanced is C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 8 :- that at any rate, the Marthoma Church is a society having similar aims and objectives as the first petitioner and hence disposal of the assets in its favour is in conformity with Section 23 and 24 of the Act which is authorised by clause 20 of Ext.A7.
10. In response, it is argued by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the District Court being the principal court of original civil jurisdiction is empowered to decide disputes arising under Secs. 23 and 24 of the Act. It is pointed out that the first respondent had petitioned the District Registrar as to the dispute regarding vesting of net assets of the first petitioner, the District Registrar had directed the first petitioner to refer the dispute to the District Court but that direction was not complied. In that situation, the only remedy available to the first respondent was to move the District court under Sec.23 of the Act. It is also argued that such a dispute could not have been brought to the District Court invoking Sec.25 of the Act which acted in entirely different field.
11. According to the learned counsel, there was a dispute concerning vesting of assets of the first petitioner with the C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 9 :- Marthoma Church though, the first respondent was the lone dissenter. The Marthoma Church is not a 'society' registered or deemed to be registered under the Act and hence cannot come within the expression "society" referred to in Sec.24 of the Act. The learned counsel argued that disposal of net assets of the first petitioner after settlement of its claims and liabilities (if any) under Sec. 23 of the Act is subject to the provisions of Sec.24. It is argued that the resolution adopted by the first petitioner on 25.11.2005 is in contravention of the direction contained in Sec.24 of the Act and hence, illegal as found by the learned District Judge.
12. According to the learned counsel, the Marthoma Church is not a necessary party to the proceeding since there was only a resolution which said that the net assets of the first petitioner shall vest with the said Church. There was an interim order of injunction passed by the learned District Judge restraining the petitioners from taking steps to vest the assets of the first petitioner with the Marthoma Church. Since the first respondent is challenging that part of the resolution adopted by C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 10 :- the first petitioner, the junction of the Marthoma Church in the petition is not required.
13. So far as maintainability of the original petition is concerned, I am not inclined to accept the argument that the District Court could be moved only under Sec. 25 of the Act. The said provision deals with the power of the District Court to dissolve the first petitioner and frame a scheme for the same. In this case, the request of the first respondent was not to dissolve the society and/or frame a scheme- the first petitioner was dissolved by resolution dated 25.11.2005 and that part of the resolution is not under challenge as well. Hence there was no need for the first respondent to request the District Court to dissolve the first petitioner.
15. The first proviso to Sec.23 of the Act states that in the event of any dispute arising among the governing body or the members of the society the adjustments of its affairs shall be referred to the Principal court of original civil jurisdiction of the District in which the registered office of the society is situated. There is no dispute that the registered office of the first C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 11 :- petitioner is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the District Court, Pathanamthitta. Now the question is whether the first respondent could have filed the original petition in the District Court under Sec.23 of the Act ? The said provision or the proviso thereunder does not say at whose instance the dispute is to be referred to the Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction. The first proviso only says that in the event of any dispute arising among the governing body or members of the society, the adjustments of its affairs shall be referred to the Principal court of original Civil Jurisdiction of the district.
15. P. Ramanatha Aiyar in 'Advanced Law Lexicon' gives meaning of the expression "refer" as under:
"To allude or direct attention to something. To send or direct to something to send or direct for treatment, aid information or decision; to send ( a motion) to a committee for its consideration or investigation with a view to a report from the committee back to the referring body.".
16. Therefore, the expression "refer" occurring in the first proviso to Sec.23 of the Act can mean sending a motion to the C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 12 :- Principal court of original civil jurisdiction for its consideration or, sending the dispute to that court, for its decision. Hence, the first proviso to Sec.23 of the Act confers power for the District Court to decide the dispute among the governing body or members of the society regarding adjustments of its affairs.
17. In so far as Sec.23 or any other provision of the Act does not forbid a member of the governing body from referring the dispute, I find no reason why I should create an embargo on any member of the society referring the dispute for the consideration of the Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction and invite its decision. Therefore, I reject the contention that District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a dispute of this nature by virtue of Sec.23 of the Act at the instance of one of the member of the governing body of the first petitioner.
18. The next question is whether the Marthoma Church is a necessary party to the proceeding? It has been held time and again that the expression "necessary party" means a party whose presence is necessary for an effective adjudication of the dispute. In this case, the governing body of the first petitioner resolved to C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 13 :- dissolve it and vest its net assets with the Marthoma Church. It is for the governing body to take a decision regarding vesting of its net assets. If there is a dispute regarding that, such dispute is to be resolved by the Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction. Whether the members of the first petitioner are also members of the Marthoma Church or not, assumes no importance. It is also irrelevant as to the source from which the first petitioner has drawn its assets. Once the assets are brought to the first petitioner, it becomes the assets of the first petitioner. What is resolved by the governing body of the first petitioner on 25.11.2005 is to dissolve the first petitioner and to vest its net assets with the Marthoma Church. By that resolution, the Marthoma Church does not acquire any vested right. The learned District Judge, referring to the said contention has pointed out that the mere fact that the governing body of the first petitioner has resolved to vest its net assets with the Marthoma Church is not sufficient. There must be steps taken to deliver the assets of the first petitioner to the Marthoma Church. In this case, by an interim order of injunction that C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 14 :- attempt of the petitioners was restrained. The presence of the Marthoma Church in the proceeding is not at all necessary to decide the dispute among the members of the governing body of the first petitioner. For these reasons, I reject the contention that in the absence of the Marthoma Church as a party to the proceeding, the original petition is not maintainable.
19. Then the next question is whether clause 20 of Ext.A7 is violative of Sec.24 of the Act ? The learned counsel has argued referring to the fundamental rights of the members of the first petitioner to ensure that its assets are vested in the manner decided by the governing body of the first petitioner. But, I am not inclined to think that reference to the provisions of the Constitution is required to decide the dispute in this case since clause 20 of Ext.A7, bye-law is specific that the dissolution of the first petitioner shall be subject to the provisions of the Act.
20. True that what is stated in clause 20 of Ext.A7 is that "the dissolution shall be subject to the provisions of the Act 12 of 1955 (TC )". It is difficult to accept the proposition that what is made subject to the provisions of the Act is only the dissolution C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 15 :- alone and not the decision of the governing body concerning disposal and settlement of claims and liabilities and vesting of its assets. The disposal and settlement of the property of the first petitioner, its claims and liabilities are to be done in accordance with Secs. 23 and 24 of the Act and consequent to the decision of the governing body to dissolve the first petitioner. If any provision of the bye law is against the provisions of the Act, such provision in the bye law is illegal. The bye law should yield to the provisions of the Act so far as it inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The disposal and settlement of the property and the claims and liabilities of the first petitioner has to be in accordance with the provisions of Secs. 23 and 24 of the Act.
21. Sec. 23 of the Act says that any number not less than > of the members of the society may determine that the society shall be dissolved and thereupon it shall be dissolved forthwith or at the time when agreed upon and all necessary steps shall be taken for the disposal and settlement of the property of the society, its claims and liabilities according to the rules of the said society applicable thereto, if any and if not, then as the C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 16 :- governing body shall find expedient. Sec.24 of the Act says that if upon dissolution of any society, there shall remain after satisfaction of all its debts and liabilities, any property, whatsoever, the same shall not be paid to, or distributed among the members of the said society or, any of them, but shall be given to the State Government upon such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon or to some other society which has for its object, the furtherance of aims similar, as nearly as may be, to be objects of the dissolved society to be determined by the votes of not less than 3/5 of the members present personally, or by proxy, at the time of dissolution or in default thereof by such court as aforesaid.
22. It is referring to Sections 23 and 24 of the Act that the learned counsel has contended that Sec.24 is intended to deal with the residuary assets if any of the society after disposal and settlement of the same under Sec.23 of the Act. It is in the above circumstances that the learned counsel argued that the heading given to Sec.24 of the Act must be taken as an aid to understand the true scope of Sec.24 of the Act. It is in that connection that C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 17 :- the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Sanjay Transport Agency and Another. There of course, it is held that section heading can be relied on to clear doubt or ambiguity and to discern the legislative intent. In Potti Swami & Bros V. Govindarajulu, the doctrine of cy pres was dealt with. There, the interpretation of a document was involved. It was held in paragraph 14 that the doctrine of cy pres connotes that if the wishes of the testator cannot be carried out literally they will be carried out as nearly as possible to what he desired. In other words, where a testator shows a general charitable intention, but the object of his charity turns out to be impracticable or when there is surplus money after the trust has been performed, the cy pres doctrine will operate to enable the court to apply the whole fund or the surplus as the case may be to another charity as nearly as the testator's intentions. Reference was also made to the decision in Audesh Singh Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow (AIR 1934 Oudh 329). Reference was also made to Brubenell and Brooks Vs. Elews (1801) 1East 442 where at C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 18 :- page 451 it was said that "the doctrine of cy pres goes to the utmost bearing of the law, even in construction of Wills and we must take care that it does not run wild. But it has never been applied to the construction of deeds. The cases cited were questions upon wills." Intention of the testator is relevant there.
23. Sec.23 of the Act states about the steps to be taken for dissolution of the society and adjustments of its affairs . The provision says that the society may, in the manner stated therein decide that it be dissolved and thereon, all necessary steps shall be taken for the disposal and settlement of property of the society, its claims and liabilities according to the rules of the said society. Sec.24 says that if upon dissolution of any society, there shall remain after satisfaction of its debts and liabilities, any property whatsoever, the same shall not be paid or distributed among the members of the society or any of them but shall be given to the State Government upon such conditions as may be mutually agreed upon or to some other society in the manner stated therein. Sec.23 of the Act deals with the steps to be taken for disposal and settlement of the property of the society, C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 19 :- its claims and liabilities. Sec.24 deals with the manner of disposal of the assets of the society if anything remains after satisfaction of its debts and liabilities as provided in Sec.23. In other words, if after satisfaction of the debts and liabilities of the society under Section 23 there remains any asset, such asset is to be disposed of in accordance with Sec. 24 of the Act. The disposal of the net assets of the society is subject to the directions contained in Sec. 24 of the Act. That would mean that disposal of the net assets after adjustment of the claims and liabilities as referred to in Sec.23 should be in the manner stated in Sec.24 of the Act. In that view of the matter the question of application of the cy pres doctrine does not arise.
24. In T. KrishnanV. G.D.M. Committee relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners what was considered was the validity of the statute. At page 70, the power of the court to deal with the constitutionality or otherwise of the impugned legislation was considered. In this case, the question of impugning the constitutional validity of the statutory provisions does not arise. What the first respondent has contended is that C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 20 :- the resolution of the first petitioner to the extent it concerned vesting of its net assets is violative of Secs. 23 and 24 of the Act and hence is illegal. To that extent, Clause 20 of Ext.A7 is also illegal.
25. In this case, it is not disputed that the first petitioner has assets with it after adjustment of its claims and liabilities if any. The question is as to in what way that net assets of the first petitioner is to be disposed of ? That disposal, notwithstanding clause 20 of Ext.A7 can only be in accordance with Sec.24 of the Act.
26. Yet another argument the learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced is that the Marthoma Church is also a society and hence there is nothing wrong with the latter part of the impugned resolution directing the net assets of the first petitioner to be vested with the Marthoma Church. In response it is contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the Marthoma Church is not a society but it is an international Church.
28. Whatever be the character of the Marthoma Church, I C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 21 :- am at the question whether the resolution of the first petitioner that its net assets be vested with the Marthoma Church is in accordance with Sec.24 of the Act? The said provision says that the net assets shall be given to the State Government or to some other "society" which has its object, the furtherance of aims similar as near as may be to the object of the dissolved society. The expression "society" occurring Sec.24 of the Act must mean a 'society' as defined in Sec.2(d) of the Act. There, "society" is defined as meaning as a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Act. Sec.34 of the Act deals with societies which are deemed to be registered under the Act. There is no case for the petitioners that the Marthoma Church is a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Act. Therefore, the Marthoma Church cannot be a "society" as understood in Sec.24 of the Act.
28. Any interpretation otherwise would only lead to ridiculous results, for; if the society referred to in Sec.24 of the Act is to be understood as any society not registered or deemed to be requested under the Act,, it is possible for the members of C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 22 :- the governing body of the registered society to form some society even if unregistered and while dissolving the former, resolve that its net assets shall go to the unregistered society they have set up and thus plunder the assets of the dissolved society. I am not inclined to think that to be the legislative intent behind in Sec.24 of the Act by using the expression "society".
29. I am also not inclined to accept the contention that the intention of the governing body of the first petitioner to dispose of the net assets of the first petitioner to the Marthoma Church has to be given precedence when that decision violates Sec. 24 of the Act. Therefore, by application of the principle of doctrine of cy press rule as well, petitioners cannot sustain the latter part of the impugned resolution.
30. It follows that the learned District Judge was right in holding that the latter part of the resolution dated 25.11.2005 directing that the net assets of the first petitioner be vested with the Marthoma Church is illegal being violative of Sec.24 of the Act. As such, no interference is required with the order under challenge.
C.R.P. No. 405 of 2008 -: 23 :-
Resultantly,
1. This Civil Revision Petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.
2. Parties shall suffer their cost.
3. The first petitioner shall comply with the direction issued by the learned District Judge in the impugned order within three (3) months from this day.
Sd/-
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE //True copy// //P.A. To Judge