Dr M S Dinakar Vs Hennur Banaswadi Cosmopolitan Club (Regd)

HENNUR BANASWADI COSMOPOLITAN CLUB (REGD) CA-7, 80 FEET ROAD, 2^ND BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043 REPRESENTED BY ITS HON. SECRETARY

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE RETURNING OFFICER HENNUR BANASWADI COSMOPOLITAN CLUB (REGD), CA-7, 80 FEET ROAD, 2^ND BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043

¶16

DR. ANTHONY S.N. AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.22, ANUSMIHA NIVAAS, 3^RD MAIN, NANJUNDAPPA ROAD, KACHARKNANAHALLI ROAD, BENGALURU-560084.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. S.G.HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3-

¶19

VAKALAT NOT FILED FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC READ WITH ORDER XLI RULES 1 AND 2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25763/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, (CCH-73), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2025 passed by the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru, in O.S. No.25763/2024.

¶27

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellant herein was the plaintiff while the respondents herein were the defendants before the Trial Court.

¶28

The suit in O.S. No.25763/2024 was filed for a declaration that the results of the election held on 28.07.2024 in so far as it relates to the election of the defendant No.3 as the Vice President of defendant No.1 - Club as null and void

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

and consequently, to declare the plaintiff as duly elected Vice President of the defendant No.1.

¶32

4 (i). The plaintiff claimed that he is a member of the defendant No.1, which is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. He contends that the election to the Managing Committee of the defendant No.1 was held on 28.07.2024 along with the 24^th Annual General Body Meeting. The Calendar of events was issued on 12.07.2024 proposing to hold the elections on 28.07.2024. He contends that the Calendar of events and publishing of the list of voters was contrary to the bye-laws of the defendant No.1. The eligible voters’ list was published on 25.07.2024 which was three days prior to the elections to the defendant No.1 - Club. The plaintiff contested for the post of the Vice President of the Club. Likewise, the defendant No.3 also contested to the post of Vice President. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant No.3 was not a qualified Doctor but yet represented himself to be a Doctor. He misrepresented to the members that he was a Doctor, which dented the chances of the plaintiff, who is a medical practitioner. He contended that as a result of this false

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

propaganda, the plaintiff was defeated in the election by a very less margin.

¶36

(ii). The plaintiff further contended that the defendant No.3 colluded with the erstwhile management in publishing the voters’ list on 25.07.2024 though it must have been done much earlier and thereby, deprived an opportunity to the plaintiff to raise objections against the voting members, whose names were entered in the list. He claimed that the Returning Officer after publishing the valid voters list on 25.07.2024, should not have allowed any other members who were not eligible to vote at the elections. However, the Returning Officer permitted the ineligible members to vote at the elections held on 28.07.2024 which was contrary to the bye-laws of the defendant No.1. He contended that the ineligible members had failed to pay the subscription amount that was due by them and therefore, they were not eligible to participate in the elections. The plaintiff alleged that many members who had paid their subscription on the date of the elections were brought by the supporters of the defendant No.3 and they were allowed to exercise their franchise. The plaintiff claimed that this significantly affected the result of the elections as he had no opportunity to meet

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

those voters. He thus contended that the exercise of calling a General Body, issuance of calendar of events, publishing the list of voters and also allowing ineligible voters to participate in the elections was contrary to the bye-laws of the defendant No.1 - Club and hence, vitiated the elections. He, therefore, prayed that the elections of defendant No.3 be declared as null and void and to declare him as the duly elected Vice President of the defendant No.1.

¶40

The defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was contended that the list of voters was published on 25.07.2024 and the plaintiff did not protest or did not object to the list of voters or the Calendar of events. On the other hand, he participated in the elections by submitting his nomination to the post of Vice President and thereafter, lost with a clear margin of 95 votes. He also did not protest the declaration of the results by the defendant No.2. It is also contended that the members of the defendant No.1 - Club had voted the defendant No.3 as he was a permanent member and that he possessed a Doctorate and was entitled to use the prefix Doctor. He contended that defendant No.3 had earlier contested thrice to the post of the

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Executive Committee of the defendant No.1 and he was elected and he discharged duties as the Chairman of the Sports Committee. As regards the allegation that some members of the defendant No.1 had paid their subscription on the date of the elections and they had participated in the elections, it is contended that the bye-laws do not provide for any prohibition or restricts the defaulted members from regularizing their status by remitting the subscription fee to the Club before the election and exercise their voting rights. It is contended that once a member is out of the defaulters’ list, his right to vote in the elections cannot be curtailed unless provisions are made to that effect in the bye-laws. Therefore, it is contended that ".. in the circumstances the contentions of the Plaintiff that, in the elections the returning officer has allowed the members to exercise vote by collecting the subscriptions due by them do not hold water" . It is also contended that the plaintiff has not substantiated the allegations by providing relevant and proper materials either by giving the description of the alleged defaulters who had exercised their right to vote in the election or any other material particulars. Nonetheless, he had sought for a declaration that the election of the defendant No.3 as Vice

¶44

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

President is null and void. It is contended that the election to the post of Managing Committee and other office bearers for the years 2024-26 has been conducted in accordance with the bye-laws of the defendant No.1 - Club and those members who had secured majority votes have assumed their post and discharging their duties. Therefore, it is contended that there is no cause of action for the suit and there is no merit in the suit.

¶47

The defendant No.3 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint and his written statement was more or less on similar lines as the written statement of the defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 though served with suit summons, remained absent before the Trial Court and hence, he was placed ex parte .

¶48

Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed

¶49

the following issues:

¶50

1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the entire exercise of calling for General body meeting and issuance of calendar of events of D1 Club and thereafter, publishing the voter's list so also allowing the members who are not found in the voter's list on 25.7.2024 is contrary to the bye-laws of the

¶51

8 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Defendant No.1 Club and the same is suffering from serious legal infirmities as contended?

¶55

2. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that, the 3^rd Defendant and erstwhile management of Defendant No.1 have illegally allowed the franchise their mandate on the date of election to favour the 3^rd Defendant and it is resulted in miscarriage of justice as such Plaintiff has suffered defeat as contended?

¶56

3. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that, Defendant No.3 has misrepresented the mandate prefixing his name as a Doctor despite the fact that, he is neither practitioner nor he is confined with any doctorate by any university and this has resulted in serious dent in so far as the Plaintiff seeking the mandate as the real medical practitioner as contended?

¶57

4. Whether the Defendant No.1 proves that, the election to the post of Managing Committee, President, VicePresident, Secretary etc., of the Defendant No.1 Club for the year 2024-2016 has been duly conducted by the Defendant No.2 in accordance with the terms of bye-laws of the Defendant No.1 Club as contended?

¶58

5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for?

¶59

6. What order or decree?”

¶60

In support of the case of the plaintiff, he was

¶61

examined as PW.1 and he marked Exs.P1 to P7. The defendant

¶62

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

No.3 was examined as DW.1 and the Secretary of the defendant No.1 – Club was examined as DW.2 and he marked Exs.D1 to D8.

¶65

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the elections to the Management of the defendant No.1 - Club were not conducted exclusively for the particular professions like Doctor. But only the plaintiff had raised objection against the defendant No.3, prefixing his name and referring himself as Dr. Anthony and that he had kept quiet till the election results were declared and later, has raised this contention in the suit. As regards the allegation that ineligible members were allowed to exercise their franchise, the Trial Court in para No.20 of the impugned judgment held, “ However, he is not sure that how many of them have franchised in the said election. That apart, there is no recitals in the Ex.P.1 that the members who paid subscription on the date of the election are not allowed to franchise their mandate. According to DW.2 only 14 members have franchised their mandate by paying late subscription on the date of election. Admittedly, the plaintiff has lost the election with the Defendant No.3 by margin of 80

¶66

10 -

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

votes. Even if it is assessed that the Defendant No.2 has illegally allowed 14 members to franchise their votes on the date of election, then also there was no chance for winning of the Plaintiff in the said election ” and, dismissed the suit in terms of the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2025.

¶70

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶71

The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that Ex.P1 are the bye-laws of the defendant No.1. Rule 10(1) Subrule (iii) of the bye-laws stipulates that the final list of voters and the list of defaulters shall be published at least 30 days before the date fixed for elections. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 states that all members whose names are included in the final list of voters as published shall be eligible to propose and second nomination, to vote or to contest in the elections. Provided that no defaulters shall be eligible to file nomination to contest in the election. He also invited the attention of the Court to Ex.P2, which is the report of the 24^th Annual General Body Meeting held on 28.07.2024, where it was specifically mentioned as follows:

¶72

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

“ Members who have failed to pay the dues of the Club and deemed defaulters are not entitled to vote, contest, propose or second a Member in Electoral process (Rule 10(3) of Club Bye-Law)”

¶75

He also invited the attention of the Court to Note No.5 of Ex.P2, where it was mentioned “ The last date for payment of dues for the purpose of voting is kept open till 20/07/2024, 8.30 PM” . He, therefore, contends that the publication of the list of voters on 25.07.2024 is in violation of the bye-laws of the defendant No.1. He then invited the attention of the Court to Ex.D7, Exs.D7(a) to D7(m) and contended that the subscription fee in respect of member(s) mentioned therein was received on 28.07.2024 and these members were allowed to cast their votes at the elections held on 28.07.2024. He, therefore, contends that the elections are not conducted in accordance with the bye-laws of the defendant No.1 and therefore, the elections have to be set at nought. He invited the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of defendant No.3 – DW.1, where he deposed as follows:

¶76

“It is true to suggest that, according to Ex.P5 the eligible voter’s list published on 25.07.2024. It is

¶77

12 -

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

true to suggest that, as per the valid voters list only

¶81

the members have to franchise their mandate.”

¶82

He further referred to the cross-examination of

¶83

DW.1, where it is submitted that he deposed as follows.

¶84

“I do not know if it is suggested that, many members have been allowed to pay subscriptions fee on the date of election itself and they were allowed to franchise their mandate. It is false to suggest that, since I was in the board of previous tenure of Defendant No.1 club as such I was in cardial relationship with entire management and I was part of decision taken by the previous management to allow the many members to pay subscription fee on the date of election and allowed them to franchise their mandate.”

¶85

He, therefore, contended that even as per the understanding of

¶86

the defendant No.3, it is only the eligible voters who are entitled to exercise their franchise in the elections. He then invited the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of DW.2, the Secretary of defendant No.1 – Club, where he deposed as follows:

¶87

” I am not aware if it is suggested that, there is no any resolution in the Defendant No.1 club to permit the

¶88

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

defaulted voters to franchies their mandate though their names not found in the final voters list.”

¶91

“ I did not communicate with the Returning Officer how he allowed the defaulted voters to franchies their mandate in the present election .”

¶92

The witness volunteered, “ I communicated with the Defendant No.2 orally in this regard. ” He further deposed as follows:

¶93

“Total 14 members have franchies their mandate in the present election though their names not found in the final voters list.”

¶94

He stated “ On the date of election, the bar and restaurant was not opened. Only transaction on that day is the election of Defendant No.1 club. It is true to suggest that, according to Ex. D7, the opening balance is serial No. 208 and closing balance is 292. It is true to suggest that, serial No. 208 to 292 referable to payment of subscriptions by the defaulted members. ”

¶95

Learned counsel for the plaintiff, therefore, submitted that nearly 14 members were allowed to pay their subscription on the date of the election and they were allowed to cast their votes and this materially affected the results of the election. The learned counsel thus contended that the Trial

¶96

14 -

¶97

NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

Court instead of declaring the elections held to the defendant No. 1 - Club as null and void, dismissed the suit on the premise that as per DW.2, only 14 defaulters had cast their vote while the victory margin of the defendant No.3 was 80 votes. He thus contends that the Trial Court should not have hesitated to declare the process of election as violative of the bye-laws of the defendant No.1 and consequently, must have set at nought the elections particularly the elections of defendant No.3.

¶100

Per contra, the learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 3 submitted that though the plaintiff claimed that defaulting members were allowed to pay their subscription on the date of the election, and also vote at the elections, the plaintiff did not mention names of those defaulters who cast their votes. Besides this, he contends that even as per DW.2, it was only 14 defaulters who were allowed to pay their subscription fee and cast their votes in the election. He submits that defendant No.3 had a victory margin of 80 votes over and above the votes secured by the plaintiff and assuming that 14 votes cast in favour of defendant No.3 are discarded, then too the plaintiff is not eligible to be declared as elected to the post

¶101

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

of Vice President of defendant No.1. He, therefore, submits that in the absence of clear averments in the plaint about the ineligible voters who had cast their votes, the Trial Court could not have granted a drastic relief such as annulling the election of the defendant No.3 and declaring the plaintiff as elected. He, therefore, contends that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly dismissed the suit.

¶104

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 3.

¶105

The bye-laws of the defendant No.1 do provide that

¶106

the final list of eligible and defaulting members should be declared 30 days prior to the date of the election. The plaintiff, defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3 have all admitted that the final list of eligible members was declared only on 25.07.2024 i.e. 3 days prior to the date of the election. However, the plaintiff did not raise any objection but participated in the elections. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the final list of members contain names of members, who were defaulters. The allegation of the plaintiff is that some

¶107

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

defaulting members were allowed to pay their subscription fee on the date of the election and they were allowed to cast their votes in the election. DW.2 has admitted that 14 such members were allowed to cast their votes. It is not known whether the votes so cast were in favour of defendant No.3 or the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also not disclosed as to who were those 14 voters who had cast their votes in the election. DW.2 stated that all the records relating to the elections were intact and were available in defendant No.1 - Club. The plaintiff who was bound to prove that ineligible voters were allowed to cast their votes, ought to have summoned the records from the defendant No.1 to establish the above fact. However, no steps in that regard were taken. When the plaintiff averred in the plaint that ineligible members were allowed to vote, he was bound to precisely mention as to who are those members and how the defendant No.3 was involved in allowing such ineligible voters to cast their votes. As also rightly held by the Trial Court, the victory margin of the Defendant No. 3 was 80 votes over and above the votes secured by the plaintiff. Assuming that these 14 votes were excluded, the plaintiff had no chance of succeeding in the election. In addition, in the absence of

¶110

17 -

¶111

NC: 2026:KHC:14801 RFA No. 2003 of 2025

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

anything to show that 14 defaulting members whose subscription was paid on 28.07.2024 had cast their votes in the election, the plaintiff could not succeed by merely claiming that some ineligible members were allowed to cast their votes in the election. He was bound to prove this fact beyond doubt. Since that is not done, the Trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff was not able to prove his claim that the defendant No.3 in collusion with the erstwhile management of the defendant No.1 - Club had ensured the payment of subscription fee by the defaulting members and also that such members had cast their votes in favour of the defendant No.3 in the election. In that view of the matter, I do not see any error in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court warranting interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

¶114

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶115

sma

¶116

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Dr M S Dinakar v. Hennur Banaswadi Cosmopolitan Club (Regd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr M S Dinakar v. Hennur Banaswadi Cosmopolitan Club (Regd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.C.Sarojamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

S N Gowrishankar Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha

Sri v Ananda Vs Smt. Sachi Agarwal

N. Chaithanya Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

Ramesh @ Ramesh Kumar P C Vs Smt N Gowramma