Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The plaintiff in this suit, the Society of the Holistic Child Development India (hereafter called "HCDI") seeks a decree under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereafter "the Act") directing the defendants to restore possession of a portion of the building CNI Bhawan, Pandit Pant Marg, occupied by it (hereafter called "the suit premises").

2. The plaintiff says that it is a registered society, with charitable and non-profit objects, such as upliftment of the poor, destitute, orphaned and abandoned children, irrespective of creed, or religion, AIDS orphans, children of sex-workers, child labourers, rag-pickers, etc. It came into existence with effect from 1-1-1995. It alleges to being the successor of the Church of North CS (OS) No. 637/2008 Page 1 India Council for Child Care (CNI-CCC), which was previously an organ of the first defendant (hereafter "CNI"). The second defendant is a trust, which manages all properties of the CNI. The CNI-CCC, it is stated, used to carry on similar activities as the plaintiff, and was funded by Kindernothilfe of Germany. It is stated that in 1993, due to change in the socio economic scenario, the Kindernothilfe was compelled to change its functioning, and felt the need to terminate its arrangement with all partner organizations, in different countries. It, therefore, terminated the arrangement with CNI-CCC with effect from 31-12-1994 with the objective of entering into an arrangement with a new set up, that was constitutionally well equipped to meet new challenges, that is, to respond to the needs of emerging new groups of oppressed, abused and exploited children. Therefore, CNI resolved to dissolve CNI-CCC and enabled formation of the HCDI. The plaintiff mentions about the CNI'S resolution dated 28/29-9-1994 resolution regarding dissolution of CNI-CCC with effect from 31-12-1994 and a further resolution to gift or donate movable and immovable properties of the CNI-CCC to the new body, i.e. HCDI. It is further stated that HCDI is a new ecumenical body continuing with the work and duties of CNI- CCC, and its successor in interest, to whom all such work was transferred with effect from 1-1- 1995. Reliance is placed on the CNI's resolution dated 23-10-1994, for this purpose. HCDI states that Kindernothilfe started to fund it, after it came into existence, instead of funding CNI-CCC, which it did for the period 1975-1994.

3. The plaintiff states that its head office is in the suit premises; it is a space of 432 sq. feet, which was with the CNI-CCC, when it was in existence; it had spent Rs. 3 lakhs, and relies on a resolution of the CNI dated 24-6-1981, made for the purpose. It is also stated that the plaintiff, through its predecessor in interest, i.e. CNI-CCC took possession of the suit premises when it was allotted, in 1984, and such possession was enjoyed uninterruptedly for 10 years, till CNI- CCC was dissolved, and in its stead, the plaintiff was constituted, and given possession. The plaintiff says that the third defendant was treasurer of CNI, and through his demand and insistence, through the letter dated 6-9-1995, it (the plaintiff) was made to pay contributions towards service charges. Reliance is also placed on a letter dated 4-3-1996, issued for this purpose.

6. Dr. M.P. Raju, learned counsel for the plaintiff, relied upon Ex.D-1, (filed by the defendants) dated 17-1-1995, which, it is stated, acknowledges that the plaintiff succeeded as the body instead of CNI-CCC, replacing it in its functions. Similarly, he relies on Ex.P-7, a letter dated 6-9-1995, issued by the third defendant, for the first defendant, demanding payment of service charges for the suit premises. He submits that the defendant had asked the plaintiff to vacate the premises, in 2004, to which it (the plaintiff) replied by letter dated 9-3-2004 (Ex. D-3), stating that the time given was insufficient. It is submitted that after this the defendant sought to raise the issue that the plaintiff was not given possession, asking for proof that it was the successor of CNI-CCC, through Ex. D-4, a letter dated 6th April, 2004. Reference is also made to Ex. D-7 and Ex. D-9, to say that the plaintiff never agreed to hand over possession to the defendants, as alleged by the latter. The plaintiff also states that the defendant, in any of the CS (OS) No. 637/2008 Page 3 contemporaneous letters, refers to it (the plaintiff) having acquired alternative accommodation, upon which it would have had to vacate the premises.

8. The defendants, in the written statement, contest that the plaintiff was in possession of the premises. It is argued that the plaintiff is trying to set up a false case of being the successor in interest of CNI-CCC, whereas there is no material suggesting such inference or fact. It was emphasized that the decision to dissolve CNI-CCC was taken in September, 1994, whereas the plaintiff, contrary to its pleadings, is now trying to say that it was set up or established in August, 1994, even before the decision was taken in that regard.