JUDGEMENT on Chari/Umesh/Navneet Court Battle

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx?filename=31363

Detailed Judgement of Supreme court is as under

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 6619 of 2000

PETITIONER:
Shri Ram Chandra Mission & Anr

RESPONDENT:
P. Rajagopalachari & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/04/2008

BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
REPORTABLE

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6619 OF 2000


Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.



1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court. By a common judgment
several civil appeals were heard together and disposed of. A
common link in all these appeals was the decision of a
religious cum Philanthropic Society named Sh. Ram Chandra
Mission. It was established by a late Sh. Ram Chandra Ji
Maharajan and on his death disputes arose. The disputes
essentially relate to spiritual heirship to control the affairs of
the mission. Series of litigation was resulted and the four
special leaves before the High Court were summed up and by
the impugned order the High Court held that all the four
appeals were to be dismissed. Before the Division Bench
orders of learned Single Judge were challenged. The relief
sought for were categorized under five heads.

1. Grant of letters of administration in favour of
Sri U.C. Saxena in respect of the properties of
Sri Ram Chandra Mission through out India
and abroad.
2. Declaration and Sri Umesh Chandra Saxena
was the President of the Mission and the
second petitioner was the Secretary thereof.
3. An interim grant during pendency of the
application.
4. In the alternative appointment of a receiver in
respect of the entire estate of deceased Sr.
Ram Chandra Mission, and
5. Any other relief.

2. The special leaves were filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena
and others, Uma Shankar and Another, the present appellants
and another. Special leave by the Umesh Chandra Saxena and
Anr. Sri. P. Rajagopalichari were the respondent while in the
first special leave by Umesh Chandra Saxena and Anr. The
Administrative General, U.P. Allahabad and others were the
parties.
3. Background facts as highlighted by the appellant in this
appeal are as follows:
Sh. Ram Chandra Mission-Society was registered,
established and founded by Maharaj, Shri Ram Chandra Ji
Maharaj with its constitution, bye laws and Memorandum of
Society on 21.7.1995. Purportedly there was a covering letter
to the intimation dated 23.3.1974 alleged to have been
executed by the founder in favour of respondent P.
Rajagopalachari. This intimation according to the appellant
was the result of manipulation and fraud. The nomination
was declared him to be the president of society and clearly
stated that he shall work for the Mission and he is "President
of Sahaj Marga System". On 16.4.1982 nomination was
executed in favour of Shri Umesh Chandra Saxena as spiritual
representative in the direct line of succession and he was
nominated as the successor or President under Rules 3 and 4
of the registered constitution, bye laws of the society. The
nomination/declaration clearly stated that the previous
nomination if any made by the founder stand superseded and
cancelled. Founder - Shri Ram Chandraji Maharaj breathed
his last on 19.4.983. On 4.1.1984 a civil suit was filed by
three members of the Society in the Court of Civil Judge,
Shahjanpur who granted ex-parte injunction restraining P.
Rajgopalachari from acting as President. On 6.2.1984 and
7.2.1984 working Committee meeting was held at head
quarters and after perusal of booklet Sh. U.C. Saxena was
declared as a successor or President and also the spiritual
representation in the direct line of succession on the basis of
nomination of 16.4.1982. The claim of P. Rajgopalachari
based on the alleged nomination dated 23.3.1994 was treated
as rejected. On 8.2.1984 General Body was held at the head
quarter of the Society and the claim of Sh. Umesh Chandra
Saxena was approved and he was declared as spiritual
representative in the direct line of succession and also as the
successor or President of the society. Claim of P.
Rajgopalachari based on the alleged nomination was rejected.
On 15.2.1982 a circular was issued by Secretary Sh. S. A.
Sarnad informing all members regarding the declaration of Sh.
Umesh Chandra Saxena as Successor President and the
spiritual representative in the direct line of succession. An
amendment was carried out to the Societies Registration Act,
1860 on 30.4.1984. Section 3(A) was amended by the
substitution of sub section 4 of Section 3(A) and addition of a
proviso to Section 4(1). By virtue of Section 3(a)(4). List of the
members of the managing Committee Body elected was
required to be filed. Ex-parte injunction was granted on
4.1.1984 was confirmed on 9.4.1984. In appeal by respondent
No. 1, P. Rajgopalachari the High Court granted stay of
injunction. The High Court allowed the first appeal and set
aside the injunction order. SLP filed against the order of the
High Court was dismissed by this Court on 27.9.1985. The
suit was subsequently withdrawn on 10.7.1997 on giving of an
undertaking not to alignate and not to shift the head quarters.
On 23.1.1988 elections were held at the head quarters in
accordance with Section 3(A)(4) and Section 4 and the office
bearers were duly elected Sh. S.P. Srivastava as President and
Sh. B.D. Mahajan as Secretary respectively. On 24.4.1990 in
proceeding under Section 25 of the Act report of the Tehsildar
counter signed by the SDM as the prescribed authority under
Section 25 was passed recognizing the representation of
aforesaid two persons as the President and Secretary. On
29.7.1991 another report was given by the tehsildar and K.G.
in a proceeding under Section 25 recognising the same
position. The aforesaid reports were questioned on behalf of
respondent No. 1 before the prescribed authority by an
application called SU-2/91 the application was rejected by the
prescribed authority and earlier reports were confirmed. An
application was moved by 75 members of the society for action
under Section 25(2) of the Act on 20.4.1993. On 15.2.1994
elections were held and Sh. Umesh Chandra Saxena and
Sh.K.V. Reddy were elected as President and Secretary
respectively. on 29.9.1994 the Assistant Registrar passed
order holding that since the Constitution provides for
nomination of President election cannot be conducted. He also
held that in view of the interim orders in civil suit OS (No.) 200
of 1983 the respondent No. 1 P. Rajagopalachari shall
continue to work as President. As noted above the suit was
withdrawn on 10.7.1997 with liberty to file fresh suit. On
10.7.1997 writ petition No. 37023 of 1994 filed against the
order dated 29.9.1994 was dismissed by learned Single Judge.
On 24.11.1998 the Division Bench dismissed the special leave
No. 580 of 1987 holding that since under the Rules of the
society the post of the President and Members of the working
committee is not an elected one, Section 25 would not come
out and took play. The High Court, however held that
Registrar had no authority to direct anybody to continue an
office. It was further held that the application under Section
25(2) itself was untenable and so was the writ petition. On
22.1.1999 elections were held and again Umesh Chandra
Saxena and Sh. K. V. Reddy were elected as President and
Secretary in accordance with the amended provisions of the
Act. On 3.11.2003 Sh. Umesh Chandra Saxena expired and
Navneet Kumar Saxena was elected unanimously as the
President of the Society in an emergent meeting which was
held at Hyderabad by working committee. The general Body
on 22.11.2003 had approved and confirmed the election of the
Navneet Kumar Saxena as the President of the society.
Further the amendment proposed and adopted by the General
body of the society, in order to make the rules in consonance
of the provisions of the Act. On 12.2.2005 elections were held
in the society for electing the Managing committee and again
Navneet Kumar Saxena and K. V. Reddy was elected as the
president and Secretary respectively.

4. Primarily the stand is that if Section 3(A)(4) as introduced
by Act 11 of 1984 cannot be given a restricted meaning. If it is
elected to Managing Body "elected" then the provision made
would be rendered "nugatory". It is intended to provide that
even if Rules, say otherwise "elections" has to be introduced,
Section4 (Proviso) is also relevant. The stand is that earlier
there was no need for list of elected members as there was no
elected member. So the purpose is to have elected members.
Section 4 speaks of an annual list. If the intention was that
the members were to be elected, the legislature could have
said so specifically without leaving it to be inferred by
implication. Section 27 provides for the consequence for non
compliance with Section 4. It is stated that the position in
1975 was that chosen includes "election". Now, it only means
elected by implication and that to be read in the line of Section
3(A) and 4 proviso, it is pointed out that Section 25(2) refers
to election and the remedy to challenge. If there is no remedy
nobody is left remedyless. Alternatively, it is submitted that
assuming it is to be done by nomination, P. Rajgopalachari
could have been nominated, but it has been annulled on
16.4.1982 as Umesh Chandra Saxena remains nominated. It
is pointed out that role as President of the Sahaj Marg system
is different. The application filed by Sh. Rajgopalachari has to
be tested as per clause 3(b), these were not challenged and
Rajgopalchari cannot have nay role to play. P.Rajgopalachari
could not have been nominated because he is not in the direct
line of succession. In any event, after passing of order dated
16.4.1982 he has no role to play. The working committee's
decision, resolution of the General Body all are of similar
effect. The stand is strongly opposed by the respondent to say
that nomination were not merely in respect of the Sahaj Marg
system system but it was in respect of President itself.

5. It is pointed out that the earlier suit having direct effect
was withdrawn and the effect of it has to be considered. The
effect of the withdrawal of a suit has been considered by this
Court in K. Sivaramaiah v. Rukmani Ammal [2004(1) SCC
471]. It was inter alia observed as follows:

"So far as Original Suit No. 7359 of 1989 is
concerned, the findings recorded in the
judgment therein could have constituted res
judicata but the fact remains that the
appellate court permitted the withdrawal of the
suit and once the suit has been permitted to
be withdrawn all the proceedings taken therein
including the judgment passed by the trial
court have been wiped out. A judgment given
in a suit which has been permitted to be
withdrawn with the liberty of filing a fresh suit
on the same cause of action cannot constitute
res judicate in a subsequent suit filed
pursuant to such permission of the court."


6. It is not necessary to deal with the true import of
Sections 3(A) and 4. It would be appropriate to direct that the
pending suit shall be decided within a period of six months.

7. The effect and relevance of any proceedings which have
attained finality shall be duly considered in the pending suit.
It is open to the parties to move for such interim protection as
the circumstances warrant. The appeal stands disposed of
accordingly. No order as to costs.

The same can be viewed at the following address http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx?filename=31363