Plaintiff challenged cancellation of his membership of a registered society for alleged misappropriation of funds; the society had issued notice and followed Bye-law Clause 8. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence, found no legal infirmity in the decree dismissing his suit, and dismissed the first appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 276 OF 2016 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
K V RAMESH S/O K.S.VENKATANARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.276/B-2, 10TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, N.R.COLONY, BANGALORE-560 019.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004.
NC: 2024:KHC:39448 RFA No. 276 of 2016
NO.53, MODEL HOUSE STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NIREEKSHA D.J., ADVOCATE FOR SRI YESHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R2 - SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; V/O DTD. 24.9.2024 NOTICE TO R3, R5, R6 & R7 ARE H/S)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.11.2015 PASSED IN OS.No.6348/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:39448 RFA No. 276 of 2016
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
the appellants and Smt. Nireeksha D J, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the cancellation of the membership and consequent removal of the plaintiff from the Defendant No.1-Society by virtue of the
NC: 2024:KHC:39448 RFA No. 276 of 2016
Resolution passed in Special General Body Meeting held on 10.06.2012 as null and void.
It is contended that the Defendant No.1-Society formed in the year 1942 and has been registered on 22.09.1942 with the main objective to perform religious duties in respect of Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. The Defendant No.2 being the President, the Defendant No.3 being the Vice-President, the Defendant No.4 being the Secretary, the Defendant No.5 being the Joint Secretary, the Defendant No.6 being the Treasurer, the Defendant No.7 being the Internal Auditor of the Defendant No.1-Society, in a General Body Meeting that was held on 10.06.2012, they passed a Resolution stating that the plaintiff is to be removed from the membership of the Defendant No.1-Society on account of proved misappropriation of funds of society which has resulted in miscarriage of justice as there was no principles of natural law followed before passing such Resolution and therefore sought for declaration as aforesaid by filing the suit.
Pursuant to suit summons, the defendants appeared and filed detailed written statement which warranted the Defendant No.1-Society and its office bearers to take extreme action as
NC: 2024:KHC:39448 RFA No. 276 of 2016
provided under the Bye-law for removal of membership of the
plaintiff.
2. Does the plaintiff prove that, there is a cause of action for him to file this suit against the defendants?
3. What order or decree?"
the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and placed on record six documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 which are Bye-Law of the Defendant No.1-Society, Membership card, Notice dated 10.04.2012, Postal cover, Special General Body Meeting notice, Letter issued by Secretary dated 16.08.2012 respectively.
NC: 2024:KHC:39448 RFA No. 276 of 2016
appellant reiterates the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum and contended that the approach of the trial Court in not properly appreciating the material on record and dismissing the suit is liable to be set aside.
respondent No.1, supports the impugned Judgment.
NC: 2024:KHC:39448 RFA No. 276 of 2016
on perusal of the material on record including the Judgment of the trial Court, the following points arise for consideration:
Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2:
NC: 2024:KHC:39448 RFA No. 276 of 2016
took a view that the activities of the plaintiff is not congenial to the Bye-laws of the Society and passed a Resolution to remove the plaintiff from membership. The said decision was communicated to the plaintiff vide Ex.P6. The same was called in question in the suit.
"8. Removal from the membership:
(b) Any member / Director violates the rules and regulations of the Society or cause irreparable damage to the Society or causing damage to the prestige of the society, if such act comes to the knowledge of administrative authorities, under such circumstances, after seeking explanation from the said member / Director, then after
NC: 2024:KHC:39448 RFA No. 276 of 2016
verification of the explanation, if the said explanation is found to be not valid, then the Committee members have to write their decision and remove the name of the said member from the registry. Under such circumstances, the member shall be given an opportunity to Appeal to the General Body Meeting. After considering the facts, circumstances, if they get the satisfactory explanation from the said member, then after taking a valid decision, direct the committee to take action as per the said decision."
NC: 2024:KHC:39448 RFA No. 276 of 2016
the plaintiff to the Defendant No.1-Society and reply to the Notice, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge's impugned Judgment even after re-appreciation of the material evidence on record resulting in answering the point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative.
Regarding Point No.3:
ORDER
Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
AN/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff's removal from the Society was without a proper enquiry, causing miscarriage of justice.
Whether the trial court's judgment suffered from illegality and was liable to be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K V RAMESH
SRI GURURAJA ASSOCIATION (REGD) SRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT
K.R.VYASARAJ
S.RAVEENDRA
K.R.SRINIVASAMURTHY
H.R.SUDHEENDRA
V SRISHANANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
