BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23/07/2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN
C.R.P.(PD)MD.No.1483 of 2009
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009
Virudhunagar, Tirumangalam,
Palayampatti, Periyakarisalkulam,
Kovilangulam, Five Villages,
Hindu Christian Panikkar Association,
represented by its Hindu Trustees
1.A.Palanichamy
2.R.Dhas
3.P.Jeyapandian ... Petitioners/Plaintiffs 1 to 3
vs
Virudhunagar, Tirumangalam,
Palayampatti, Periyakarisalkulam,
Kovoilangulam, Five Villages
Sriman Narayanamadam Panickkar Community,
represented by its Christian Trustees
1.C.Ponraj
2.W.David Soundarajan
3.J.Stanley Jones
4.Inspector of Police,
Virudhunagar West Police Station ... Respondents/D1 to 4
Prayer
Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated
27.07.2009 made in I.A.No.81 of 2006 in O.S.No.37 of 2004, on the file of the
Sub Court, Virudhu Nagar.
!For Petitioners ... Mr.R.Vijaya Kumar
^For Respondents ... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan
for S.Parthasarathy
:ORDER
Heard both sides
2.The plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S.No.37 of 2004, on the file of the Sub
Court, Virudhunagar, are the revision petitioners herein.
3.The revision petitioners herein filed a suit in the representative
capacity, representing Virudhunagar, Tirumanagalam, Palayampatti,
Periyakarisalkulam, Kovilangulam, Five Villages Hindu-Christian Panicker
Association, for injunction that till the completion of construction is over,
the defendants/respondents should not interfere with the management of the trust
by them. The defendants in the above suit are representing the Christian
Trustees of the said Association. It is seen from the plaint allegations and it
is not in dispute between the parties that as per scheme framed in O.S.No.15 of
1945, on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram, the Panickkar Community
belonging to Hindu and Christian religion residing in the above five villages
are entitled to manage the affairs of the properties of their community and once
in five years, three representatives from Hindu and Christian religions would be
elected to manage the affairs of the property and as per the resolution of the
Sangam, dated 12.04.1947, the name of Committee has been approved as
Virudhunagar, Tirumanagalam, Palayampatti, Periyakarisalkulam, Kovilangulam,
Five Villages belonging to Pannickar community consisting of Hindu and
Christian, Paripallana Management Committee. Since then, the properties are
managed by the said Committee consisting of three representatives from Hindu and
three representatives from Christian holding office for a period of five years.
It is further admitted that there is an internal arrangements between the
trustees once in six months that the affairs of the Committee will be managed by
the trustees, representing one religion and as per the said arrangement, from
21.05.2001 to 01.11.2001, the affairs of the Committee was managed by the Hindu
community trustees and at that time, some construction works were undertaken and
therefore, the representatives of Hindu community trustees wanted to continue in
management till the completion of the construction work undertaken by them and
as the same was objected by the Christian community trustees, the suit was filed
by the trustees, representing Hindu religion for injunction restraining the
Christian trustees from interfering with their management.
4.The respondents/defendants filed the statement disputing the claim of
the revision petitioners and trial has commenced in that suit and PW1 was
examined on the side of the revision petitioners. Thereafter, the revision
petitioners filed I.A.No.81 of 2006 under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of the
cause title stating that a general body meeting was convened on 29.05.2005 and
in that general body meeting, a resolution was passed to change the name of the
Committee as Virudhunagar, Tirumanagalam, Palayampatti, Periyakarisalkulam,
Kovilangulam, Five Villages Sriman Narayanamadam Panickkar community properties
Management Committee, represented by a Hindu Trustees and Christian trustees.
This was opposed by the respondents stating that no such resolution was passed
in the meeting held on 29.05.2005 and as per scheme decree, the parties have to
approach the Sub Court, Virudhu Nagar, for effecting any change in the name and
without that, the name cannot be changed. The respondents also disputed the
factum of resolution passed in the general body meeting held on 29.05.2005.
5.The learned Sub Judge allowed the amendment application and aggrieved by
the same, the respondents filed CRP No.547 of 2007, on the file of this Court
and this Court, by order, dated 11.06.2008 allowed the revision petition and
remanded the matter for fresh disposal holding that without exhibiting the
resolution, dated 29.05.2005, the Court should not have proceeded with the
matter and allowed the application and gave liberty to the parties to let in
evidence and directed the lower Court to consider the matter afresh.
Thereafter, the revision petitioners examined one witness and marked eight
documents and the respondents examined one witness and marked the scheme decree
passed in O.S.No.15 of 1945. The learned Sub Judge on a careful consideration of
the oral and documentary evidence, held that the amendment sought for by the
revision petitioners cannot be allowed and aggrieved by the same, this civil
revision petition is filed.
6.Mr.R.Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioners submitted that there is no need to get permission from the Sub Court
to change the name of the Committee and the scheme was framed only in respect of
management of the Committee and for effecting change the same can be done by
passing a resolution in the general body meeting and as a matter of fact, even
in the year 1947, without getting permission from the Court, the name was
changed by resolution and therefore, the contention of the respondents that
without getting permission from the Court, which framed this scheme, the name
cannot be changed cannot be accepted.
7.He further submitted that on 29.05.2005, the general body meeting was
convened and the representatives of Christian religion, who are arrayed as
respondents also participated in the said meeting and they also signed in the
register and attended the meeting and therefore, they are estopped from
contending that the name cannot be changed as they also participated in the
general body meeting and they are also parties to the resolution.
8.The learned counsel further submitted that as per Ex.P5, the signature
of the respondents, who represented the Christian religion, participated in the
general body meeting and the lower Court has also held that page 61 to 71,
contain the names of 226 members participated in the meeting and therefore, it
can be presumed that the change of name was validly passed in the meeting held
on 29.05.2005. He, therefore, submitted that the lower Court erred in dismissing
the application for amendment and it is to be set aside.
9.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents,
Mr.G.R.Swaminathan submitted that the proposed amendment has nothing to do with
the scope of the suit and the factum of the resolution alleged to have passed in
the said meeting, dated 29.09.2005 is in dispute and as matter of fact,
O.S.No.237 of 2006 was filed by two persons, representing the Christian
religion, for declaration that the change of name allegedly to have been passed
in the meeting held on 29.05.2005 is null and void and when the resolution
itself is in dispute, the lower Court correctly dismissed the amendment
application.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents Mr.G.R.Swaminathan
further brought to my notice that on the basis of the alleged change of name,
various suits were filed in the new name in O.S.Nos.81, 82, 83 of 2007 and
O.S.No.280 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar and
in all these suits, the defendants raised a plea that the plaintiffs have no
right to file the suit and the properties belongs to Hindu community residing in
five villages and it does not belong to Narayanamadam Panickkar and that would
also prove that the community people did not accept the change of name.
11.Mr.R.Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioners submitted that subsequent events would also prove that the
respondents have accepted the change of name and submitted that on 28.05.2006,
annual general body meeting was convened in the new name and all the community
office bearers have participated in the said meeting and therefore, the
respondents and other religion trustees belonging to Christian religion have
accepted the change of name and therefore, the amendment ought to have been
allowed before the lower Court.
12.I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by both
the counsels.
13.In this case, the amendment sought for is to change the cause title on
the basis of the resolution passed in the general body meeting. The suit is
filed for injunction restraining the trustees belongs to Christian community
from interfering with the management of the Committee by the Hindu trustees,
till the work undertaken by the Hindu trustees is completed. Therefore, having
regard to the nature of the suit and the relief prayed for in that suit, we will
have to see whether the amendment can be allowed.
14.The Honourable Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 325, in the case of
Purushottam Umedbhai and Co., vs. M/s.ManilaL & Sons held that amendment of the
plaint to enable a proper description of the plaintiffs to appear in it, in
order to assist the court in determining the real question or issue between the
parties can be allowed. It is further held that it is a well settled rule that
all amendment should be permitted as may be necessary for the purpose of
determining the real question in controversy between the parties, unless by
permitting the amendment, injustice will result to the other side. Therefore, we
will have to see whether the amendment will help the Court to determine the
issue involved in the suit.
15.As stated supra, the suit was filed for injunction restraining the
Christian religion trustees from interfering with the management of the trust,
by the Hindu trustees. Therefore, the amendment will not in anyway help the
Court to decide the controversy. Further, admittedly, a suit is field in
O.S.No.237 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar, for
declaration that the change of name is null and void and in that suit, it can be
decided whether there was a proper resolution passed on 29.05.2005 and depending
upon the result of the suit, the parties can change the name and by allowing the
amendment in a pending suit, a wrong signal will be given as if the court has
accepted the resolution passed on 29.05.2005 for change of name. As held by the
Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above, the amendment has to
be considered in the light of the relief prayed for and to determine the
controversy in issue. In my opinion, the proposed amendment will not help the
Court to decide the controversy in dispute and hence, considering the fact that
suit is also pending, challenging the change of name the Court below has rightly
dismissed the application for amendment.
16.Hence, I do not find any infirmity to interfere with the order of the
lower Court. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
er
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Virudhu Nagar.