Dismissed

Vijayan v. Sndp Yogam

Kerala HC2 Aug 2012RSA/871/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This regular second appeal challenges the dismissal of a suit by the appellants against the SNDP Sakha Yogam, a voluntary association, alleging unreasonable compulsory contributions and damages. The Supreme Court found no substantial question of law. It observed that the relief sought was vague, the society's bye-laws provided an internal appeal mechanism, and no evidence showed damages were colle

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal against the judgments of the Subordinate Courts was dismissed.

Vijayan Vs Sndp Yogam — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2012/11TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

RSA.NO. 871 OF 2012 ()

¶6

AS.147/2007 OF DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA OS.409/2004 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/PLAINTFFS:

¶8

1. VIJAYAN V.K. EDAKKATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, KODUMON KIZHAKKU MURI KODUMON VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.

¶9

2. BINDULAL D/O.VIJAYAN V.K., EDAKKATTU PUTHEN VEEDU KODUMON KIZHAKKU MURI, KODUMON VILLAGE ADOOR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶12

1. SNDP YOGAM GENERAL SECRETARY VELLAPPALLY NADESAN,

¶13

SNDP YOGAM OFFICE, KOLLAM.

¶14

2. KODUMON KIZHAKKU SNDP SAKHAYOGAM, SECRETARY, NANDANAN V.R.,

¶15

SNDP SAKHA YOGAM NO.3211 KODUMON EAST, KODUMON P.O., ADOOR.

¶16

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶18

==================================== R.S.A. No.871 of 2012

¶19

====================================

¶20

Dated this the 02^nd day of August, 2012

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Plaintiffs in O.S. No.409 of 2004 of the court of learned Munsiff, Adoor are aggrieved by the dismissal of that suit as confirmed by the learned District Judge, Pathanamthitta in A.S. No.147 of 2007.

¶23

The 2^nd respondent is the SNDP Sakha Yogam in which it is not disputed, the 1^st appellant is a permanent member. The 2^nd appellant is the daughter of the 1^st appellant. According to them, during the days when the 2^nd appellant was a student, she was staying at her mother's house and was attached to the SNDP Sakha Yogam, Choorakkad. After her studies she returned to her paternal home. At the time of her marriage the appellants demanded 'Vivahapathrika' from the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent insisted for certain compulsory contributions. It is the version of the appellants that the 2^nd respondent is not entitled to claim such compulsory contribution. Conduct of the 2^nd respondent caused mental agony to the 2^nd appellant. In the circumstances appellants sought for a declaration that the the 2^nd respondent is

¶24

R.S.A. No. 871 of 2012

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

not entitled to ask for a compulsory contributions and for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.

¶27

The 2^nd respondent contended that the relevant clauses of Ext.A1, bye-law enabled it to collect contributions from permanent members. It denied that any amount was collected from the 2^nd appellant. The further contention raised is that the declaration prayed for is vague. The claim for recovery of damages was also disputed.

¶28

The trial court found that so far as the declaration prayed for, regarding collection of contribution is concerned the plea made by the appellants is vague. It also held that bye-law of the 2^nd respondent provides for an appeal against the action of the 2^nd respondent with which the appellants are allegedly aggrieved and that the appropriate course open to the appellants was to take recourse to that provision. The claim for damages was negatived for the reason that no amount was claimed or collected from the 2^nd appellant. The first appellate court has confirmed the finding and decision of the trial court. Hence this appeal.

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the findings of the courts below are not correct.

¶30

So far as declaration prayed for is concerned, it is

¶31

R.S.A. No. 871 of 2012

¶32

-: 3 :-

¶33

seen that as found by the courts below the relief sought is vague, it is not clear what are the contributions which the 2^nd respondent cannot compulsorily collect. Courts below have referred to clauses 12, 13 and 16 of the bye-law which enables the 2^nd respondent to collect certain contributions from its members.

¶34

Further finding the courts below have made based on clause 52 of the bye-law is that if the appellants were aggrieved by the action of the 2^nd respondent in collecting contributions they could prefer an appeal to the Union Council.

¶35

The 2^nd respondent is a voluntary association and has its own bye-law (Ext.A1). It has been held time and again that so far as voluntary associations are concerned, courts are not required to readily interfere with its internal management and administration. If aggrieved by the action of the 2^nd respondent in collecting the contributions, the appropriate course open to the appellants was to challenge the action under clause 52 of Ext.A1, bye-law.

¶36

So far as the claim for recovery of damages is concerned, the courts below found that no amount was demanded or collected from the 2^nd appellant so that she could claim damages. Courts below also referred to Ext.A4, letter to the

¶37

R.S.A. No. 871 of 2012

¶38

-: 4 :-

¶39

General Secretary of the SNDP Sakha Yogam where it is stated that 2^nd the respondent has collected amount from the 1^st appellant. There is no case in Ext.A4 that any contribution was demanded or collected from the 2^nd appellant. In the circumstance courts below declined to grant relief to the appellants.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel and gone through the judgments under challenge I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal requiring decision by this Court.

¶41

Second Appeal is dismissed.

¶42

All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed.

¶43

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶44

vsv

Vijayan v. Sndp Yogam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan v. Sndp Yogam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.P.Selvaraj Vs P.K.Abdul Khader

Lakhmykutty Amma Vs Meera

E.N.Jayaprakash Vs E.N.Chandrika

Rajendra Prasad Vs Kamalammal

Prabhul Vs Tomy

K.Gopakumar Vs Sreekantan Nair