Author Archives: sajikoduvath

Saji Koduvath, Advocate.

Introduction

Property of a society or a club is the ‘joint property’ held by its members. Usually, unlike a club, the property of a society is meant to be maintained for the benefit of its future members also. Therefore, the property of a society is encumbered with obligations as in a ‘trust’. Hence, such property cannot be dealt with by the members and administrators disregarding the objectives of its foundation.

Property of an Unincorporated Club Vests in Members.

A club is a compendium of its members. Property of an unincorporated club vests in its members. Or, in other words, the members thereof are the owners of its property. But, it is subject to its bye laws and the principles of its foundation.

Salmond on Jurisprudence[1] reads:

• “The Club property is the joint property of the members, though in fact, it is often held by trustees on behalf of the members.”

Halsbury’s Laws of England[2] says:

• “Unincorporated members’ clubs. – An unincorporated members’ club is a society of persons each of whom contributes to the funds out of which the expenses of conducting the society are paid. ……. Subject to any rule to the contrary, the property and funds of the club belong to the members of the time being jointly in equal shares.”

Enjoyment and Appropriation of Property of an Unincorporated Club

Property of a club is held by its members as ‘joint tenants’ (i.e., without a right to partition). If the bye laws of a club allow, it can distribute its property among its members, on dissolution.

Joint ownership of property is an incidence of membership when one joins the club, though the motivation of joining the club is not acquisition of wealth or sharing of profits as in the case of a partnership. It is also an incidence of membership that the property of the club will be distributed among the members,[3] on dissolution.

Members of a club are entitled to enjoy or use the club premises in accordance with the rules, so long as they duly pay the subscription and continue to be members. In an unincorporated Members’ club, the members for the time being are jointly entitled to all the property and funds; and it is only on a valid dissolution the individual interest of the members becomes capable of realisation.[4]

If the intention of the founders of an unincorporated club or an unregistered society, as expressed in the bye laws or otherwise, is to use the property obtained to it for the benefit of the present and future members, then the members of a particular time, even if sui juris or of one mind, are not entitled to put an end to the same and to appropriate the property by themselves. If no such intention is laid down by the founders, and the members are sui juris, they may be entitled to put an end and to appropriate the property by themselves. But, it is not open for the majority of an association to alter the fundamental principles upon which it is founded.[5]

Because members were joint owners of all the club property including the excisable liquor, the Gujarat High Court held in Sports Club of Gujarat Vs Commissioner of Sales Tax[6]that the supply of liquor to a member at a fixed price by the club could not be regarded as ‘sale’. The court referred various decisions of English courts[7] and Supreme Court.[8]

But a contrary view is taken by the  Bombay High Court in Gondwana Club, Nagpur Vs. Sales Tax Officer[9] when it considered the question whether the provisions supplied by the Club to its members were the joint property belonging to all the members; and observed that, although the Club consists of members, the Club had an entity distinct from the entities of the members and that once the money was paid by the members and once the money passed into the coffers of the Club, the said money could not be said to belong to the members, and in these circumstances, it was difficult to accept the proposition that the property which was purchased by the Club was the property of the members of the Club.This decision is followed in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad Vs. Anil Co-Operative Credit Society[10] pointing out that the court had relied on the inclusive clause in the definition of “dealer” in the concerned Sales Tax Act.

Vesting of Property in a Registered Society

Sec. 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 speaks as to vesting of property, for administration, in registered societies. It reads as under:

"5. Property of society how vested:  The property, movable and immovable belonging to a society registered under this Act, if not vested in trustees, shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the governing body of such society, and in all proceedings civil and criminal, may be described as the property of the governing body of such society for their proper title."

‘If Not Vested in Trustees’: Connotations

Management and Vesting of Property may be Separate

Though the administrative affairs of the societies are carried on by its governing body, the properties of the same may be vested with (separate) trustees (like ecclesiastical authorities, in case of religious associations). It is obvious that this system of vesting of property in trustees and administration of affairs by governing body is primarily viewed in the So. Regn. Act of 1860 when it refers, ‘if not vested in trustees, shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the governing body’. It is definite that our law accepts the ‘wider’ or ‘general’ expression as to ‘trust’, used by the progressive jurists like Salmond and Halsbury; and the same principle is adopted in the So. Regn. Act. The progressive jurists preferred investing principles of trust in the matters of various fiduciary relationships under which one holds property on behalf of, or for the benefit of, others.[11]

Halsbury’s Laws of England defines ‘trust’ as a confidence reposed in a person with respect to property of which he has possession or over which he can exercise a power, to the intent, that he may hold the property or exercise the power for the benefit of some other person or object. Salmond brings-in principles of trust in the affairs of associations.

Salmond on Jurisprudence reads as under:[12]

• “Thirdly, it is expedient that property in which large numbers of persons are interested in common should be vested in trustees.” 

It is held by the Supreme Court in RV Sankara  KurupVs. Leelavathy  Nambiar[13] that the property in the hands of the agent was for the principal; and the agent stood in the fiduciary capacity,as a trustee,for the beneficial interest he had in the property. The petitioner had acted as an agent as a cestui que trust was a trustee and he held the property in trust for the respondent in his fiduciary capacity as an agent or trustee and he had a duty and responsibility to make over the unauthorised profits or benefits he derived while acting as an agent or a trustee and properly account for the same to the principal. Therefore, the High Court was right in its holding that the petitioner was an agent and trustee acted in the fiduciary capacity on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff as General power-of-attorney.

A society can be formed for the administration of a trust.[14]

If a trust is created for the benefit of a religious society, such trust shall continue to exist and it would not cease to exist by the resolution of the society. Such ‘creation of trust’ is considered by our Apex Court in Vinodkumar M. Malavia  Vs. Maganlal  Mangaldas  Gameti[15] and held:

• ^“The High Court has rightly observed that: ‘… the trust which has been created as public trust for a specific object and the charitable or the religious nature or for the bonafide of the Society or any such institution managed by such trusts for charitable and religious purpose shall continue to exist in perpetuity and it would not cease to exist by any such process of thinking or deliberation or the Resolution, which does not have any force of law’.”

In Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai[16] it is held that in terms of Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, the property would vest in the trustees, and that only in the absence of vesting of such properties in the trustees, the same would be deemed to have been vested for the time being in the governing body of such society.[17]

In Pamulapati  Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu  Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh[18] it is observed:

• “If what is vested in the College Committee or its governing body is a right of management simpliciter, there is no question of the members of the society or the members of the governing body being beneficially interested in its property. It necessarily follows that by the fact of appointment of a treasurer, there can be no deprivation of the society of its rights in property. The consequence, which would flow on the appointment of a treasurer by the Government under the provisions of the Charitable Endowments Act, would be that he will take charge of the management of the properties held by the society. There is no divesting of the rights of the society in its properties. As already stated, what all the society is deprived of would be right of management which cannot be equated to any right in the property.”[19]

See Blog: Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies

Members do not have any Beneficial Interest

Members have no interest other than that of bare trustees

During the subsistence of a registered society, or on dissolution, the members do not have any proprietary or beneficial enjoyment/interest[20] in the property the society holds.[21] It is held in Pamulapati  Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu  Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh[22] as under:

“The Societies Registration Act, therefore, does not create in the members of the registered society any interest other than that of bare trustees. What all the members are entitled to, is the right of management[23] of the properties of the society subject to certain conditions.”

Underhill, in his treatise, ‘Law of Trusts and Trustees’, explained:

• “However, the crucial difference surely is that no absolutely entitled members exist if the gift is on trust for future and existing members, always being for the members of the Association for the time being. The members for the time being cannot under the Association rules appropriate trust property for themselves for there would then be no property held on trust as intended by the testator for those persons who some years later happened to be the members of the Association for the time being.”[24]

Read blog: Doctrine of Substantial Representation in Suits

Is Society a ‘Living Person’ under S. 5 of the TP Act 

Can transfer of property be made to or by Associations

Sec. 5 of the TP Act reads as under:

• 5. “Transfer of property” defined:  In the following sections “transfer of property” means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself and one or more other living persons; and “to transfer property” is to perform such act.
• In this section “living person” includes a company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, but nothing herein contained shall affect any law for the time being in force relating to transfer of property to or by companies, associations or bodies of individuals.

Existing Laws as to Transfer of Property, will Remain in Force

Two points are emphasised in the 2^nd paragraph of Sec. 5 –

• First, all unregistered associations, whether incorporated or not, are ‘living persons’, so that transfer of property can be made.
• Second, the qualifying second limb – ‘nothing herein contained shall affect any law for the time being in force relating to transfer of property to or by companies, associations or bodies of individuals‘ – makes it clear:
  • if any law regulates transfer of property to (or by) companies, associations or bodies of individuals, it will remain in force.

The accepted and authoritative view is that company, incorporated club,^[25] statutory body etc. alone can be considered as legal persons.

See: Usha Rani Kundu  Vs. Agradut  Sangha[26]

“Body of individuals” in Sec. 5, TP Act

It may also be pointed out that, “body of individuals” in Sec. 5, TP Act (transfer to – “living person” includes a company or association or body of individuals) is wide in meaning; and it stands independent. It is broad enough to take-in Beneficiaries/Trustees of a Trust.

• Note: Order 31 rule 1 CPC spells out – a trust is not a legal person. It enables to file a suit by (or be sued) a trustee concerning ‘property vested in trustees’.

Can ‘Law for the Time Being in Force’ Include ‘Common Law’

Our courts have unhesitatingly held: ‘law for the time being in force’ in Sec. 5, TP Act includes “common law”;[27] and sumptuously exhibit and refer to the deeds executed by or in favour of such entities as valid and binding documents;[28] and the registration/revenue authorities, without objection, register deeds relating to such properties in the names of such institutions, associations etc.

 It is a reality: the common law of our country accepts as valid the ‘transfer of property’ made to or effected by well known institutions, organisations,[29]and associations attached to well reputed trusts,[30] institutions[31] etc., though they are not juristic persons in its strict sense. Our courts sumptuously refer to such deeds as documents executed by or in favour of such entities, when they are referred to as exhibits. For example:

• Settlement deed by Ashramam–Swayam  Prakash  Ashramam Vs. G Anandavally  Amma : AIR  2010 SC 622;
• Settlement to trust – S N Mathur  Vs. Board of Revenue: 2009-13  SCC 301;
• Sale deed by unregistered society – Suresh s/o. Bhagwanrao  Puri Vs. State of Maharashtra: 2016-3 AIR Bom R (Cri.) 603;
• Gift to unregistered Association – Pullamma Vs. Valmiki Anna Satram: 1984-2 ALT 157;
• Sale deed to an association – K. Kala Vs. Dist Registrar, Madurai: 2016 3 MLJ 50, 
• Sale deed to an association – State of Punjab Vs. Amolak Ram Kapoor: [1990] 79 STC 315; ILR1991- 2 P&H 218.
• Sale deed to an association – Asst. Commr. Vs. Shivalingawwa: ILR 2003 Kar 2855;
• Lease deed by trust to school – TNP Mothoo  Natarajan Vs. PV Ravi: 2015-2 MLJ (Cri.) 656;
• Lease deed by a firm -2014-3 ALT 46;
• Settlement deed to private trust –Kolli  Venkata Raja Vs. Govt. of AP: 2014-1 ALT 155;
• Lease deed to a public trust –Nadigar  Sangham Charitable Trust, rep. by its managing Trustee, R. Sarathkumar Vs. S. Murugan:2013-1 MLJ 433;
• Sale deed to Board of Trustees – Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chemists and Druggists Association Building Trust: 1995-215 ITR(Mad) 741;
• Mortgage deed by a College – Sonar Bangla Bank Vs. Calcutta Engineering College:  AIR 1960 Cal 450.

Similarly, the registration and revenue authorities, without objection, register deeds relating to such properties in the names of such institutions, associations etc.

Dedication can be made in favour of a Tank

It was held by our Apex Court in Kamaraju  Venkata Krishna Rao Vs. Sub Collector,  Ongole, AIR 1969 SC 563, that, under Hindu Law, a tank can be an object of charity and when a dedication was made in favour of a tank, the same was considered as a charitable institution. Without deciding whether that institution can also be considered as a juristic person, it was held that the same had to be registered in its name (ie., in the name of the tank) in the Inam register though it had continue to be managed by its Manager.

It is also noteworthy that Salmond on Jurisprudence reads: “Legal persons, being the arbitrary creations of the law, may be of as many kinds as the law pleases.”

It is also noteworthy that Salmond on Jurisprudence[32] reads:

• “Legal persons, being the arbitrary creations of the law, may be of as many kinds as the law pleases.”

How Can a Society or a Club Acquire Property and Enter into a Contract?

Companies Act and various Cooperative Societies Acts[33] confer juristic personality to the Companies and Cooperative societies. Such entities can enter into contracts in their own names and through its officers.

In view of the edict that even the societies registered under the So. Regn. Act are not legal persons capable of holding properties, as laid down in Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs. The State of Delhi,[34] Illachi Devi Vs. Jain Society[35]  and Tata Vs. Tata,[36] the correct position emerges is that both registered and unregistered societies are not capable of contracting ‘in its own name’.[37]

The AP High Court has observed in N. Tyagaraju Vs. Narayanaswamy[38] that an unregistered entity was not a ‘living person’ under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act. Nevertheless it was held in this decision that the president of an unregistered club was entitled to enter into an agreement of sale for purchase of a property as the agreement would be one executed not in favour of an unregistered body, but it would be one in favour of its president who was an identifiable and a living person. It was further observed that the acquisition of property in the name of its president would also be valid.

In short, the proper way to execute contracts with respect to both registered and unregistered societies and unincorporated clubs is to enter into the agreements by the competent office bearer of the society or club, in his name for and on behalf of the society or club, as done by a trustee for and on behalf of a trust. It must also be according to the bye laws, or as approved by the general body or governing body. That is, it should be legal[39] and intra-vires;[40]and it should not be ab-initio void. And, in an appropriate case, the act of an office bearer can be ratified[41] by the general body or governing body, as the case may be.

Can the Members of a Society Convert the Society into a ‘Trust’?

Society and trust are two different concepts in the eye of law. The former is association of persons and the latter is a legal conception. But, in cases where the association, and the ‘trust’ expressly attached to the same, are inseparably related, the term ‘trust’ is used as synonym to the association. A society can be formed for the administration of a trust.[42]

Societies Registration Act (Section 14) provides special procedure for dissolution of societies. The left-behind-property of a Society, on dissolution, goes to another Society as determined by the members of the Society or by the court.

As shown above, the members of a registered society are trustees[43] for the future members who have to continue the aim and objects of the Society as envisaged by the founders or as manifested in the Rules or Bylaws;and the property of a society cannot absolutely vest in its members. Either during the subsistence of a society or at the time of its dissolution the members do not have beneficial enjoyment of its property.[44] Such property ‘shall continue to exist in perpetuity and it would not cease to exist by a resolution’ of the society;[45] and it cannot transfer its property to any other entity, or transform or vary its nature, disregarding the fundamental principles upon which the society is founded.

Vesting of Ownership of Trust/Association Property

The following propositions can be presented as to the vesting of ownership of the trust-property, and the property held by an association.

1. The terms of dedication (as revealed from the deed, if any, or other evidence) determine the person or body of persons in whom/which such property ultimately vest in.
2. If the ownership of the property of a trust vests in a legal person, such vesting is permanent (thereby it cannot be put to an end) and as representing or subject to the purpose envisaged by the founder.
3. If the property is that of an association and the members thereof are ascertainable (as in the case of a society or a mutt) the actual ownership of the property will be presumed to be vested with those members (from time-to-time), as joint owners (contra-distinct to ownership under tenants-in-common).
4. If the property is one dedicated to public so as to form a public trust and beneficiaries are unascertainable (as in the case of a political party or a church) the property ultimately vests with the entire members (of such Association or Church), from time to time, permanently(Thereby it cannot be put to an end.), subject to the trust and its objectives.
5. If the property is one dedicated to public at large by a known or unknown person and administered and maintained by persons volunteering themselves as trustees (as in the case of a waiting shed or a public well) the property permanently and ultimately vests with the entire general public or the State, subject to the trust and its objectives. 
6. If the property is one acquired by a branch of a larger body or a parish of a church with various parishes, for the benefit of all persons/members of the larger body, the entire members of the larger body, from time to time, will be presumed to be the owners, subject to the trust impressed upon the property. 

Vesting of Ownership of Property in Registered Societies

Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 does not state whether the vesting referred to therein pertains to ‘vesting of ownership’ or ‘vesting for administration’. If it refers to ‘vesting for administration’ a question will arise – in whom the ownership actually vests.  If it is assumed that the word ‘vested’ is used to denote ownership, the same question may arise – beyond the deemed vesting in the governing body, in whom the property actually vests.

‘Property Belonging to a Society’ & Property of a Company

The Society continues to exist and to function as such until its dissolution under the provisions of Act. The properties of the society continue to be vested in the trustees or in the Governing Body irrespective of the fact that the members of the society for the time being are not the same as they before; nor will be the same thereafter.

By reason of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, once the society is registered the Registrar, by the filing of the memorandum and certified copy of the rules and regulations the Registrar has certified that the society is registered under the Act, it enjoys the status of a entity apart from the members constituting the same and is capable of suing or being sued. But the fact to be noted is that what different a society registered under the Act of 1860 a company incorporated under the Companies Act is that in the latter case the share -holders of company hold the properties of the company as their own whereas in the case of a society registered under the Act of 1860, the members of the society or the members of the governing body do not have any proprietary or beneficial interest; to the property the society holds.

Having regard to the fact that the members of the general body or the members of the governing body of the society do not have any proprietary or beneficial interest in the property of the society, it follows that upon its dissolution, they cannot claim any interest in the property of the dissolved society. The Societies Registration Act, therefore, does not create in the members of the registered society any interest other than that of bare trustees. What all the members are entitled to, is the right of management of the properties of the society subject to certain conditions.

As I have already stated, the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, provided that the conditions specified therein are satisfied, makes provision for the appointment of a treasurer, in whom certain powers are vested. Sub -section (4) of S. 4 contains a clear enunciation of the nature of that vesting. The said provision makes it clear that an order, vesting property in a treasurer shall not require or be deemed to require him to administer the property, or impose or be deemed to impose upon him the duty of a trustee with respect to the administration thereof.

Section 10 of the Charitable Endowments, Act contains a specific limitation of the functions and powers of a treasurer. It says that a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments shall always be a sole trustee, and shall not, as such treasurer, take or hold any property otherwise than under the provisions of the Act, or, subject to those provisions, transfer any property vested in him except in obedience to a decree divesting him of the property, or in compliance with a direction in that behalf issuing from the authority by whose order the property became vested in him.

Having regard to the specific limitation of the functions and powers of treasurer under S. 10 the treasurer shall not take or hold any property. He cannot dispose of property. He is a bare trustee as S. 8 of the Act makes it clear.

‘Property Belonging to a Society’: Comparable to Definition in Partnership Act

In Unani Tibia College case[46] the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that the expression ‘property belonging to a society’ does not give the society a corporate status and it ‘merely describes the property which vests in trustees or governing body’ and that the provisions of the Societies Registration Act did not give a ‘corporate status’ to a society ‘for the purpose of holding and acquiring property’.  In this decision it is further held:

• “….. Those provisions undoubtedly give certain privileges to a society registered under that Act and the privileges are of considerable importance and some of those privileges are analogous to the privileges enjoyed by a corporation, but there is really no incorporation in the sense in which that word is legally understood.”
• “…..  Thus something in the nature of perpetual succession is conceded by the provision that the society’s property is to vest in the trustees for the time being of the society for the use and benefit of the society and its members and of all persons claiming through the members according to the society’s rules, and further (and this is the most noteworthy provision) that the property shall pass to succeeding trustees without assignment or transfer.”

It can be seen that the expression ‘property belonging to a society’ is comparable to the definition of property of partnership in Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Referring to the definition in Sec. 14, Addanki Narayanappa  Vs. Bhaskara  Krishnappa[47]our Apex Court held as under:

• “From a perusal of these provisions it would be abundantly clear that whatever may be the character of the property which is brought in by the partners when the partnership is formed or which may be acquired in the course of the business of the partnership it becomes the property of the firm and what a partner is entitled to is his share of profits, if any, accruing to the partnership from the realisation of this property, and upon dissolution of the partnership to a share in the money representing the value of the property. No doubt, since a firm has no legal existence, the partnership property will vest in all the partners and in that sense every partner has an interest in the property of the partnership. During the subsistence of the partnership, however, no partner can deal with any portion of the property as his own. Nor can he assign his interest in a specific item of the partnership property to anyone. His right is to obtain such profits, if any, as fall to his share from time to time and upon the dissolution of the firm to a share in the assets of the firm which remain after satisfying the liabilities set out in Clause (a) and sub-Cls. (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause (b) of Section 48. ..”

Propositions as to Vesting of Ownership in Registered Societies

Five propositions are possible.

1. In members, jointly. 
2. In society itself.
3. In governing body.
4. Legal title in the trustees or governing body and equitable title in the society.
5. In the members subject to the provisions of the Societies Registration Act and the basic principles upon which the society is founded.

I.   Can Ownership of Property Vest in Members, Absolutely?

No.

Property of a Society being maintained for benefit of future members also, as held in Pamulapati  Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu  Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh[48], it cannot be dealt with by the members disregarding the objectives of foundation of the societies.

The property of a registered society cannot vest in its members in view of the various provisions of the Societies Registration Act. As per Sec. 13 and 14 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on dissolution, the members of a society, even if sui juris, are not entitled to appropriate, by themselves, the property of a registered society.In Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs.The State of Delhi[49] the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held as to beneficial enjoyment of property of a registered society as under:

• “During the subsistence of a society, the right of the members is to ensure that the property will be utilised for the charitable objects set out in the memorandum and these did not include any beneficial enjoyment.  Nor did the members of the society acquire any beneficial interest[50] on the dissolution of the society.”[51]

It is pointed out in Unani Tibia College case[52] that the vesting of legal ownership of the property of a society in the governing body is merely a method or mechanism permitted by the law.

II  Can Ownership of Property Vest in Society itself?[53]

No.

Registration of Societies under the Central or State Societies Registration Act does not give the society a corporate status.[54] It is unequivocally determined in Illachi Devi Vs. Jain Society[55] that even a registered society is not a juristic person.[56]  It is held:

• i) The mere fact of registration will not make a society distinct from association of persons. (Para 20);
• ii) A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not a body-corporate as is the case in respect of a company registered under the Companies Act. In that view of the matter, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not a juristic person.  (Para 21); and
• iii) A society, whether registered or unregistered, may not be prosecuted in criminal court, nor is it capable of ownership of any property or of suing or being sued in its own name (Para 22). Vesting of (ownership of) property does not take place in the Society. Similarly, the society cannot sue or be sued. It must sue or be sued through a person nominated in that behalf (Para 26).

For the society is not a juristic person, Section 6 of the Act lays down that  the society may sue or be sued in the name of President, Secretary, etc.  It (impliedly) bars filing a suit in the name of society, without reference to the President, Secretary, etc.

The view that Sec. 6 is an enabling provision and it does not affect the right of a society to sue or be sued in its own name[57]is not a good law in view of Unani Tibia College case[58] and Illachi Devi case.[59]

Read Blogs: Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association

• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?

III.  Can Ownership of Property Vest in Governing Body.

No.

The governing body is only a small group which represents a larger body; and therefore, the ownership of the property cannot vest in the governing body, unconditionally or absolutely.

Sec. 5 So. Regn. Act directs only deemed vesting of property in the governing body.  

 It is noteworthy that the vesting of property in the governing body is read along with the vesting of property in trustees. Under common law, actual title (other than legal title) does not vest in the trustees, and the trustees always hold the property for others.  It is pointed out by our Apex Court, in Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai,[60] that, in terms of Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, only in the absence of vesting of such property in the trustees the same would be deemed to be vested for the time being in the governing body of a society.

IV. Can Legal Title Vest in Gov. Body, & Equitable Title in Society.

No.

The theory as to vesting of ‘equitable title’ in society (and ‘legal title’ in the trustees or governing body)[61] is, in-substance, endorses the view of vesting property in members of the society. Since the property cannot unconditionally vest in members of a society for their absolute enjoyment, as shown above, it is not proper to say that equitable title vests in society.

V. Can Ownership of Property Vest in Members, Conditionally.

Had it been so accepted by our system, the ownership of property of a society could have been vested in the society itself; but it is not so accepted.[62] In this eventuality, for propounding a theoretical proposition as to actual vesting of property of a regd. society we have to give effect to the following edicts of law:

1) Property of Unregistered Society Vests in Members

• Property of an unregistered society is the joint property of the members of the society subject to the trust and obligations imposed by the founders or by the bye laws of the society.

2) Present members are Trustees.

• The members of a society are trustees for the future members who have to continue the objects of the society as envisaged by the founders and as manifested in the Rules or Bye laws.[63]

3) Ultimate Administrative Authority is General Body.

• Subject to the bye laws of the society, the ultimate authority with respect to the administration of a society is vested with the general body of the members; and the general body elects the trustees or governing body.  This principle is affirmed in the provisions of the Societies Registration Act.

4) Management alone in Governing Body.

• As per the Common law and also as per the definition of governing body in Sec. 16, and under Sec. 4, of the Societies Registration Act, governing body is entrusted with the management of the society alone.[64]

5) Governing Body administers for attaining the ‘aim and objects’.

• The trustees or the governing body administer the property ‘of the society’ as per its bye laws so as to fulfill or attain the ‘aim and objects’ the founders viewed.  They acquire and hold the property for and on behalf of the members of the society subject to the trust and obligations imposed by law and the bye laws or the fundamental principles[65] or trust[66] upon which it is founded.

6) A Registered Society is also an Association of Persons.

• The registration will not make a society distinct from ‘association of persons’[67] and it is not a juristic person. It cannot own property also[68] though it has certain characteristics of a legal person.

7) ‘Property of the society’, “merely describes, property vests in Governing Body”

• Expressions in the Societies Registration Act, ‘property belonging to a society’[69] and ‘property of the society’,[70] do not give the society a corporate status; and it “merely describes the property which vests in trustees or Governing Body”.[71]

8) Regn. Brings in Permanency; on Dissolution, Property Goes to Another Society

• As per the Societies Registration Act, on dissolution, the left-behind-property of a society goes to another society as determined by the members of the society or by the court (S. 14) for being managed by some other charitable organisation and to be utilised for like purposes. Either during the subsistence of a society or at the time of its dissolution the members of a society do not have beneficial enjoyment of its property.[72]

9) Right of Dissolution Vested with Members.

• A society is dissolved on determination of the members of the society with required majority, if so provided in the bye laws. If the rules of a registered Society do not lay down the rules for disposal and settlement of the property on dissolution, the governing body is authorized to do the same as it ‘finds expedient’ (S. 13).

VI. Conclusion: Property vests in the members subject to the contract and the fundamental principles upon which it is founded.

From the above, it can be legitimately concluded that the ownership of the ‘property of a society’ does not absolutely vest either in its members or in the governing body; but it vests in the members of the society[73] subject to the bye laws or contract, and the fundamental-principles or trust[74] upon which it is founded.[75] We can take cue (i) from the observations of our Apex Court in Addanki Narayanappa  Vs. Bhaskara  Krishnappa[76] that the property which is brought in by the partners when the partnership is formed or which may be acquired in the course of the business of the partnership becomes the property of the firm, and the partnership property will vest in all the partners since a firm has no legal existence;[77] and (ii) from the following erudite assertion of Dr. BK Mukherjea, J., on Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts:[78]

• “The idol as representing and embodying the spiritual purpose of the donor is the juristic person recognised by law and in this juristic person the dedicated property vests.”[79]

In case of Registered Societies, the vesting of ownership of the ‘property of a society’ is further subject to the provisions of the Act under which it is registered.

Vesting of Property in Various Kinds of Associations and Trusts

Club, Society and Company

Trusts / Religious-Endowments:

Government School, University, etc.

[1]      12^th Edition, Page 326

[2]      IV Edition, Vol. 6, Para 205

[3]      Orient Club Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax: 1982-10 TAXMAN 57 (Bom): 1982-29 CTR 117: 1982-136 ITR 697: Quoted in Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Mulam Club: 1991-191 ITR 370: 1991-1 Ker LT 762: 1991-58 TAXMAN 63

[4]      Orient Club Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax: 1982-10 TAXMAN 57 (Bom): 1982-29 CTR 117: 1982-136 ITR 697: Quoted in Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Mulam Club: 1991-191 ITR 370: 1991-1 Ker LT 762: 1991-58 TAXMAN 63

[5]      Prasanna  Venkitesa  Rao Vs. Srinivasa  Rao: AIR 1931 Mad. 12: Relied on: Milligan Vs. Mitchel: 40 ER 852; Free Church of England Vs. Overtoun: (1904) AC 515.

[6]    1975-36 STC 511: This decision is distinguished in: Bangalore Golf Club Vs. Assistant Commr. of Luxury Taxes: 1999-115 STC 338 (Kar); Government Medical Store Depot Vs. State of Haryana. 1977-39 STC 114 (P&H) .

[7]     Hotel and Catering Industry Vs. Automobile Proprietary: ([1969] 1 WLR 697; Inland Revenue Commissioners Vs. Eccentric Club Ltd.: [1924] 1 KB 390.

[8]     Safdar Jung Hospital Vs. KS Sethi: AIR 1970 SC 1407;  Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Vs. Enfield India: [1968] 21 STC 317 (SC). Joint Commercial Tax Officer Vs. Young Men’s Indian Association: 1970SC1212

[9]     1958-9 STC 450

[10]   1969 24 STC 180 (Guj)

[11]    See: Balram  Chunnilal  Vs. Durgalal  Shivnarain: AIR1968 MP 81.

[12]    Salmond on Jurisprudence: 12^th  Edition, page 257.

[13]   AIR 1994 SC 2694

[14]    Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union Vs. Tata Memorial Centre: AIR 2010 SC 2943

[15]    2013 AIR (SCW) 5782: AIR 2013 SC (CIV) 2849; (2013) 15 SCC 394

[16]    AIR 2005 SC 2544: 2005 (10) SCC 760.

[17]    Quoted in Vinodkumar M.  Malavia  Vs.  Maganlal  Mangaldas  Gameti: 2013 AIR (SCW) 5782: AIR 2013  SC (CIV) 2849; (2013) 15  SCC 394.

[18]    AIR 1958 AP 773

[19]    Quoted in Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. H Narasimhaiah: AIR 1991 Kar 392.

[20]    That is, ‘proprietary interest’ or interest pertaining to owner.

[21]    Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College Vs.  The State: AIR 1962 SC 458; DharamDutt Vs. Union of India: AIR 2004 SC 1295; Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu  Vs. Govt. of AP: AIR 1958 AP 773.

[22]    AIR 1958 AP 773. See also: Raj Kumar Gaba Vs. State of UP: 2012-49 VST 252; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Merchant Navy Club: 1974-96 ITR 261; Gurdwara  Prabandhak Committee Vs. Jagmonan Singh: ILR  1971-2 Del 515.

[23]    In companies, the share-holders hold the property as their own.

[24]    Quoted in Most Rev. PMA Metropolitan Vs.  Moran Mar Marthoma: AIR 1995 SC 2001- Para 69.

[25]    Under the Companies Act.

[26]    (2006) 3 Cal LT 139; 2006 (3) CHN 77.

[27]   See:Kelans Son Kodakkat  Kannan Vs. Tharakandi  Kadissa: AIR 1971 Ker 61; Shantilal Ambalal Mehta Vs. M.A. Rangaswamy: 1977-79 BLR 633; Union of India Vs. Official Assignee of Bombay: 1971-73 BLR 623; Tan Bug Taim Vs. Collector of Bombay: AIR  1946  Bom 216.

[28]    Settlement deed by Ashramam–Swayam  Prakash  Ashramam Vs. G Anandavally  Amma : AIR  2010 SC 622; Settlement to trust – S N Mathur  Vs. Board of Revenue: 2009-13  SCC 301; Sale deed by unregistered society – Suresh s/o. BhagwanraoPuri Vs. State of Maharashtra: 2016-3 AIR Bom R (Cri.) 603; Gift to unregistered Association – Pullamma Vs. Valmiki Anna Satram: 1984-2 ALT 157; Sale deed to an association – K. Kala Vs. Dist Registrar, Madurai: 2016 3 MLJ 50,  Sale deed to an association – State of Punjab Vs. Amolak Ram Kapoor: [1990] 79 STC 315; ILR1991- 2 P&H 218. Sale deed to an association – Asst. Commr. Vs. Shivalingawwa: ILR 2003 Kar 2855; Lease deed by trust to school – TNP MothooNatarajan Vs. PV Ravi: 2015-2 MLJ (Cri.) 656; Lease deed by a firm -2014-3 ALT 46; Settlement deed to private trust –Kolli  Venkata Raja Vs. Govt. of AP: 2014-1 ALT 155; Lease deed to a public trust –Nadigar  Sangham Charitable Trust, rep. by its managing Trustee, R. Sarathkumar Vs. S. Murugan:2013-1 MLJ 433; Sale deed to Board of Trustees – Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chemists and Druggists Association Building Trust: 1995-215 ITR(Mad) 741; Mortgage deed by a College – Sonar Bangla Bank Vs. Calcutta Engineering College:  AIR 1960 Cal 450.

[29]    Such as well-known political parties, trade-unions, etc.

[30]    Such as temple-related trusts, Wakfs, church-related trusts, etc.

[31]    Such as libraries, universities, etc. See: Pullamma Vs. Valmiki Anna: 1984-2 ALT 157

[32]    12^thEdn., Page 305.

[33]   Ramji  Mandir  Narsinhji Vs. Narsinh  Nagar:  AIR  1979Guj.  134

[34]    AIR 1962 SC 458

[35]    AIR 2003 SC 3397

[36]    AIR 2010 SC 2943

[37]   Mahamayatala Housing Co-Operative Society Vs. Charu Chandra Banerjee:1999-1 CalLJ 259; 1999-1 CalLT 450; 1999 CTJ 743

[38]   2013  LAP  149; 2014-1 ALD 108;  2014-2 ALT 540

[39]    T S Thinnappa  Chettiar Vs. Grajagopalan: AIR  1944 Mad 536

[40]    Weavers Mills Vs. Balkis  Ammal: AIR 1969 Mad 462. Murari  Ganguly Vs. Kanailal  Garal:   AIR  2003 Cal 105; ValiPattabhiramaRao Vs. Ramanuja: AIR  1984 AP 176.

[41]    Contract Act: Sec. 196.

[42]    Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union Vs. Tata Memorial Centre: AIR 2010 SC 2943

[43]    It is held in Pamulapati  Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu  Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh: AIR 1958 AP 773.  See also: Raj Kumar Gaba Vs. State of UP: 2012-49 VST 252;         Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Merchant Navy Club: 1974-96 ITR 261;   Gurdwara  Prabandhak Committee Vs. Jagmonan Singh: ILR  1971-2 Del 515.

[44]    Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs. The State of Delhi:  AIR 1962 SC 458– Para 23.

[45]    Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai: AIR 2005 SC 2544. Followed in Vinodkumar M. Malavia Vs. Maganlal Mangaldas  Gameti: (2013) 15  SCC 394.

[46]    Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College Vs. The State: AIR 1962 SC 458.

[47]   AIR 1966 SC 1300: Referred to in: Mohd. Laiquiddin Vs. Kamala Dev Mishra: 2010-2 SCC 407; Jagatram  Ahuja  Vs. Comner. of Gift Tax Hyderabad: AIR 2000 SC 3195; Sunil Siddharthbhai Sarabhai Vs. Comner. of Income Tax: AIR1986 SC 368; Malabar Fisheries Co Vs. Comner. of Income Tax Kerala: AIR1980 SC 176.

[48]    Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu  Vs. Govt. of AP: AIR 1958 AP 773.

[49]    AIR 1962 SC 458

[50]    That is, ‘proprietary interest’ or interest pertaining to owner.

[51]    In companies, the share-holders hold the property as their own.

[52]    AIR 1962 SC 458

[53]    See Chapter: Is Registered Society A Juristic Person

[54]    Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College Vs. The State: AIR 1962 SC 458.

[55]    AIR 2003 SC 3397 – Para 22

[56]    Company is a juristic person. Property belongs to it. Bacha F Guzdar Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay:  AIR 1955 SC 74; Rustom  Cavasjee Cooper Vs. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1970 SC 564; Electronics Corporation Vs. Secretary Revenue Department AP: AIR1999 SC  1734.

[57]    Shanti Sarup Vs. Radhaswami  Satsang  Sabha, Dayalbagh Agra: AIR 1969 All. 248; K.C. Thomas Vs. R.B. Gadaook, AIR 1970 Pat 163; Khiri Ram Gupta and Another versus Nana Lal:  AIR 1964 Pat. 114; State of Punjab Vs. Amolak Ram Kapoor: [1990] 79 STC 315; ILR1991- 2 (P&H) 218. Satyavart  Sidhantalankar  Vs.  Arya  Samaj, Bombay: AIR 1946 Bom. 516

[58]    Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College Vs. The State: AIR 1962 SC 458. 

[59]    Illachi Devi Vs. Jain Society: AIR 2003 SC 3397. See also Tata Vs. Tata:  AIR 2010 SC 2943

[60]    AIR 2005 SC 2544: 2005 (10) SCC 760. Relied on in Vinodkumar M. Malavia Vs. Maganlal  Mangaldas  Gameti: 2013 AIR (SCW) 5782; (2013) 15  SCC 394.

[61]    KC Thomas Vs. RL Gadeock: AIR 1970 Pat 163 (DB)

[62]    See Notes above, under the heading: Can Ownership of Property Vest in Society itself. 

[63]    Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu  Vs. Govt. of AP: AIR 1958 AP 773. See also: Raj Kumar Gaba Vs. State of UP: 2012-49 VST 252; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Merchant Navy Club: 1974-96 ITR 261; Gurdwara  Prabandhak Committee Vs. Jagmonan Singh: ILR  1971-2 Del 515.

[64]    Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu  Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1958 AP 773

[65]    Prasanna  Venkitesa  Rao Vs. Srinivasa  Rao: AIR 1931 Mad. 12:         Relied on: Milligan Vs. Mitchel: 40 ER 852; Free Church of England Vs. Overtoun: (1904) AC 515.         See also: Inderpal Singh Vs. Avtar Singh: 2007-4 Raj LW 3547.

[66]    Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai: AIR 2005 SC 2544; Vinodkumar M. Malavia Vs. Maganlal  Mangaldas  Gameti: (2013) 15  SCC 394.

[67]    Illachi Devi Vs. Jain Society: AIR 2003 SC 3397- Para 20; Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs. The State of Delhi: AIR 1962 SC 458 – Para 38, 42

[68]    Illachi Devi Vs. Jain Society: AIR 2003 SC 3397- Para 22.

[69]    Societies Registration Act: Sec. 5

[70]    Societies Registration Act: Sec. 8 and 10

[71]    Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs. The State of Delhi: AIR 1962 SC 458 -Para 11.

[72]    Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs. The State of Delhi: AIR 1962 SC 458 – Para 23

[73]   As in a partnership: See notes above under the head: ‘Property Belonging to a Society: Comparable to Definition in Partnership Act’

[74]    Prasanna  Venkitesa  Rao Vs. Srinivasa  Rao: AIR 1931 Mad. 12:         Relied on: Milligan Vs. Mitchel: 40 ER 852; Free Church of England Vs. Overtoun: (1904) AC 515.         See also: Inderpal Singh Vs. Avtar Singh (2007-4 Raj LW 3547).

[75]    Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai: AIR 2005 SC 2544:         Relied on in Vinodkumar M. Malavia Vs. Maganlal  Mangaldas  Gameti: (2013) 15  SCC 394

[76]   AIR 1966 SC 1300: Referred to in: MohdLaiquiddin Vs. Kamala Dev Mishra: 2010-2 SCC 407; Jagatram  Ahuja  Vs. Comner. of Gift Tax Hyderabad: AIR 2000 SC 3195; Sunil Siddharthbhai Sarabhai Vs. Comner. of Income Tax: AIR1986 SC 368; Malabar Fisheries Co Vs. Comner. of Income Tax Kerala: AIR1980 SC 176.

[77]   See notes: ‘Property Belonging to a Society’: Comparable to Definition in Partnership Act

[78]   At page 45.

[79]    Quoted in Yogendra  Nath  Naskar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax: AIR 1969 SC 1089; Idol of Shri Radhaji Vs. State of MP: AIR  1979 MP 129; Commissioner of Income Tax  Vs. Jogendra Nath Naskar: AIR 1965 Cal 570.

[80]    Agreement (Bylaws) governs. If the objectives of foundation envisage benefit to future members also, the present members and administrators are trustees for future members.

[81]    Preferred name: Charities

[82]   The properties of the (parish) churches are also vested in the Church (larger sense). See: Varghese Vs. St. Peters and Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church: (2017) 15 SCC 333.

[83]    It is settled that in the matter of (secular) private trusts, English principles are followed in India which lay down that if the beneficiaries are sui juris and of one mind, the trust can be put to an end or use the trust fund for any purpose (they wish): Profulla  Chorone  Requitte Vs. Satya  Chorone  Requitte: AIR 1979 SC 1682.

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act (on Purchase Certificate,  Plantation-Exemption & Ceiling Area) in a Nutshell
• Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Production of Documents in Court: Order 11, Rule 14 CPC is not independent from Rule 12
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice for the Same Cause of Action
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• EFFECT OF MARKING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT OBJECTION
• PRODUCTION, ADMISSIBILITY & PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, Order Without Jurisdiction and Sham Transactions
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; When ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged in Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney is Sufficient for Registration of a Deed
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• The Law and Principles of Mandatory Injunction
• Declaration and Injunction
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse, Cannot be Placed in a Straight-Jacket & Not a Judicial Cure-all.
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Is Permission of Court Mandatory when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
• Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept

Evidence Act

• EFFECT OF MARKING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT OBJECTION
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ under Sec. 65B Evidence Act.
• OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY & PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
• Sections 65A & 65B, Evidence Act and Arjun Panditrao: in Nutshell
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Admissibility of Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Rules on Burden of proof and Adverse Inference
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of its Contents
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate for Computer Output
• Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Collateral Purpose
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting Witnesses
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests in Criminal Investigation

Constitution

• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
• Why No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits)? What are the Counter Arguments?
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation Case: Supreme Court Fixed Upper Limit at 50%.
• Separation Of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature, Executive or Judiciary ?
• ‘Is Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’ Stands Tagged-on with Sabarimala Revision-Reference Matter
• Is Excommunication of Parsi Women for Marrying Outside, Unconstitutional
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
• M. Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das –Pragmatic Verdict on Ayodhya Disputes
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Effect and Outcome – Never Ending Controversy
• CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?

Contract Act

• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Contract Act and other Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?

Easement

• What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit” in Easement by Prescription?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition

Club/Society

• State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs
• Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
• Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
• Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs and Companies
• How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs of a Club or Society
• Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
• Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers of Societies
• Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies.
• Management of Societies and Clubs, And Powers of General Body and Governing Body
• Court Interference in Election Process
• Clubs and Societies, Bye Laws Fundamental
• Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
• Societies and Branches
• Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
• Clubs and Societies: General Features

Trusts/Religion

• Philosophy of Idol Worship
• Vesting of Property in Public Trusts
• Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
• Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
• Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Public & Private Trusts in India.
• What is Trust in Indian Law?
• Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Vesting of Property in Trusts
• Indian Law of Trusts Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• M. Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das –Pragmatic Verdict on Ayodhya Disputes
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Is Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’ Stands Tagged-on with Sabarimala Revision-Reference Matter
• Is Excommunication of Parsi Women for Marrying Outside, Unconstitutional.

Saji Koduvath, Advocate.

1. Introduction

The nexus between the branches and its central organisation has to be settled by the bye laws. Usually the upper body holds supervisory jurisdiction over the affairs of the branches; and, if the bye laws so provide, the property acquired by the branches may remain as the property of the whole/central organisation. When the parental body exercises its supervisory jurisdiction, in matters other than the formal administrative governance, it has to obey principles applicable to a quasi-judicial authority (ie., observing principles of natural justice, etc.).

The extent of autonomy or independence in administration of a branch is determined by the bye laws. Normally, so long the branches function within its jurisdiction, in conformity with the provisions of the bye laws, they can claim freedom from interference. When they violate the provisions of the bye laws and act in an arbitrary manner, their actions will be subject to the supervisory control of the central organisation.

Branches Contemplated In The Companies Act Are Not Separate Entities

In S.N.D.P. Yogam v. G. Krishnamoorthy,  2022-4 Ker HC 168, it is pointed out as under:

• “The branches contemplated and provided for under the Companies Act, 1882 and its successor enactments are not independent or separate entities and in terms of the aforesaid statutes, company and its branches would constitute one single entity.”

Referring English Electric Co. of India Ltd v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, (1976) 4 SCC 460, it is observed in S.N.D.P. Yogam v. G. Krishnamoorthy,  2022-4 Ker HC 168, that a registered company can have Branches under the Companies Act and they are not independent or separate entities, and that the company and its branches constitute one single entity.

2. Does a Branch Regd. with a Regd. Society Get the Status as a Regd. Society?

An (unregistered) association which is registered with a registered-society will not get the status of a registered society.[1] Same will be the position as to a branch of a registered society.  Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act provides for filing Annual List of Managing Body once in every year with the Registrar. Societies Registration Act does not envisage societies-with-branches.

In Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Vs. Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi[2] after considering the definition and character of the ‘Governing Body’ in the So. Regn. Act, so also the scheme of the Act, it is held that the committee of officers at the district level or unit level is not the ‘Governing Body’ under the Societies Registration Act.

3. Can a Branch Sue?

The Supreme Court, in  P. Nazeer Vs. Salafi Trust, AIR 2022 SC 1580, held:

• (i) A society registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its bye­laws.
• (ii) The bye­laws may authorise the President or Secretary or any other office bearer to institute or defend a suit for and on behalf of the society,
  • since section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, provides that ‘every society registered under the Act may sue or be sued in the name of President, Chairman, or Principal Secretary, or trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the society and,
  • in default of such determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion’.
• (iii) Unless the plaintiff, which claims to be a society, demonstrates that it is a registered entity and that the person who signed and verified the pleadings was authorised by the bye­laws to do so, the suit cannot be entertained
  • The fact that the plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local unit or a Sakha unit affiliated to a registered society is of no consequence, unless the bye­laws support the institution of such a suit.

4. Fundamental Principles and Decision of a Branch to Sever

It being not open for the majority of the members of a society to alter the fundamental principles upon which it is founded, even the unanimous decision[3] of a branch (unless such a power is specifically reserved under the bye laws)[4] cannot sever the relation with the central body.  This principle was expounded in Milligan Vs. Mitchel,[5] Atttorney General Vs. Anderson.[6] In Free Church of England Vs. Overtoun,[7] House of Lords (by a majority of 5-2) found that the minority, which adhered to the ‘principles of establishment’, was entitled to the assets of the Free Church. It was observed that when men subscribe money for a particular object, and leave it behind them for the promotion of that object, their successors have no right to change the object endowed. It was held that, by adopting new standards of doctrine (and particularly by abandoning its commitment to ‘the establishment principle’, which was held to be fundamental to the Free Church), the majority had violated the conditions on which the property of the Free Church.[8]

5. Can a Branch Dissociate?

A branch of a (central) organisation created under the provisions of bye laws, cannot (unless the Rules provide otherwise) lawfully sever its connections with its central body, as observed in John Vs. Rees [9], inasmuch as the act of severance will amount to violation of the rules or bye laws.

6. Merger of an Association with Another Association

If a voluntary association came into existence independently, and subsequently subjected itself as a branch of another association, such a ‘branch’ may have the right[10] to dissociate or disaffiliate from such association or ‘central body’; because, the ‘branch’, when came into existence, had all characteristics of an independent voluntary association with its own basic principles of foundation.  The same will be the position of a voluntary association which merged or amalgamated[11] with another association. 

If the conduct of the members of the merged association shows that their act amounted to unanimous or undisputed surrendering or abandonment of the identity of the former voluntary association, or they became an integral-whole with the association in which they merged, principles of acquiescence and estoppel will be a bar for dissociation.

7. Parallel Administration within a Church Not Allowable

In Varghese Vs. St. Peters and Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church [12] it is pointed out by our Apex Court that ‘running parallel governance’ at the cost of Church by creating factionalism within the constituent parish churches is not permissible. It is settled proposition of law that when a mode is prescribed for doing a thing, it can be done only in that manner and not otherwise.

8. Incidents of trust in Clubs and societies

See blog: Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies.

[1]      Kalyani Mitra Vs. Hindu Milan Mandir: ILR 1986 MP 657

[2]      2004-1 Ker LT 756, 2004 KHC 122

[3]    Long Vs. The Bishop of Cape Town: (1863) 1 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 411; Merriman Vs. Williams: (1882) L.R.7 A.C.484

[4]      Prasanna Venkitesa Rao Vs. Srinivasa Rao: AIR 1931 Mad. 12; See also: Profulla Chorone Requitte Vs. Satya Chorone Requitte: AIR 1979 SC 1682; Inderpal Singh Vs. Avtar Singh: 2007-4 Raj LW 3547.

[5]      40 ER 852

[6]      (1888) 57 LJ Ch 543

[7]      (1904) AC 515

[8]      All these English decisions were referred to in Prasanna Venkitesa Rao Vs. Srinivasa Rao: AIR 1931 Mad. 12. See also: Inderpal Singh Vs. Avtar Singh: 2007-4 Raj LW 3547.

[9]      John Vs. Rees: [1970] 1 Ch 345: [1969] 2 All ER 275.

[10]    Unless principles of estoppel and acquiescence work against.

[11]    Sec. 14A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 provides powers to the Registrar to order amalgamation of societies. See: H Puttappa Vs. State of Karnataka: AIR  1978 Kar 148.

[12]   Varghese Vs. St. Peters and Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church: (2017) 15 SCC 333.

Read in this cluster:

1. Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
2. Public & Private Trusts in India
3. Presumptions on Registered Documents & Collateral Purpose
4. EFFECT OF MARKING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT OBJECTION
5. PRODUCTION, ADMISSIBILITY & PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
6. Modes of Proof of Documents
7. Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
8. Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting Witnesses
9. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
10. OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY & PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
11. Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice for the Same Cause of Action
12. Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney is Sufficient for Registration of a Deed
13. Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
14. Vesting of Property in Trusts
15. Clubs and Societies, Bye Laws Fundamental
16. The Law and Principles of Mandatory Injunction
17. Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse, Cannot be Placed in a Straight-Jacket & Not a Judicial Cure-all.
18. Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
19. Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
20. How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
21. Rules on Burden of Proof & Adverse Inference
22. Presumptions on Documents and Truth of its Contents
23. Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
24. Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
25. Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
26. Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate for Computer Output
27. Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers of Societies
28. Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
29. Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
30. ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition
31. Production of Documents in Court: Order 11, Rule 14 CPC is not independent from Rule 12
32. Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies.
33. Management of Societies and Clubs, And Powers of General Body and Governing Body
34. How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
35. Is Permission of Court Mandatory when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
36. Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
37. Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
38. Maratha Backward Community Reservation Case: Supreme Court Fixed Upper Limit at 50%.
39. Separation Of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature, Executive or Judiciary ?
40. Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
41. What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
42. Constructive Res Judicata and Ineffectual Res Judicata
43. Is Decree in a Representative Suit (OI R8 CPC) Enforceable Against Persons Not Eo-Nomine Parties?
44. Admissibility of Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
45. Court Interference in Election Process
46. Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
47. ‘Is Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’ Stands Tagged-on with Sabarimala Revision-Reference Matter
48. Is Excommunication of Parsi Women for Marrying Outside, Unconstitutional
49. Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
50. Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
51. M. Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das –Pragmatic Verdict on Ayodhya Disputes
52. Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
53. Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
54. Societies and Branches
55. Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
56. Clubs and Societies: General Features
57. Indian Law of Trusts Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
58. Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
59. What is Trust in Indian Law?
60. Kesavananda Bharati Case: Effect and Outcome – Never Ending Controversy
61. CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
62. Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
63. Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
64. Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
65. Declaration and Injunction
66. Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?

Saji Koduvath, Advocate.

1. Provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860:

• 3. Registration and fees: Upon such memorandum and certified copy being filed, the Registrar shall certify under his hand that the society is registered under this Act. There shall be paid to the Registrar for every such registration a fee of fifty rupees, or such smaller fees as [the State Government] may from time to time, direct; and all fees so paid shall be accounted for to [the State Government].
• 4. Annual list of managing body to be filed:- Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which, according to the rules of the society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting, in the month of January, a list shall be filed with the Registrar of joint-stock Companies, of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society.
• 20. To what societies Act applies: The following societies may be registered under this Act:–  Charitable societies, the military orphan funds or societies established at the several presidencies of India, societies established for the promotion of science, literature, or the fine arts for instruction, the diffusion of useful knowledge, [the diffusion of political education], the foundation or maintenance of libraries or reading-rooms for general use among the members or open to the public or public museums and galleries of paintings and other works of art, collections of natural history, mechanical and philosophical inventions, instruments, or designs.

• Section 8 (2) Companies Act, 2013 reads: The company registered under this section shall enjoy all the privileges and be subject to all the obligations of limited companies.

2. Introduction

India has a long history of collective community life. Ancient history of India manifested in oldest scriptures of Hinduism – Vedas – refers to then existed strong civil society. Voluntary organisations were originated for promotion of  health, education and cultural activities. Religious organizations promoted charitable trusts with a philanthropic view. The Government recognised these voluntary organizations and trusts by various enactments. The oldest enactments in this regard include:

• The Societies Registration Act, 1860,
• The Religious Endowments Act, 1863,
• The Indian Trusts Act, 1882,
• The Charitable Endowments Act, 1890,
• The Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 and
• The Trade Unions Act, 1926.

It is noteworthy that these enactments did not impose strong governmental control over various activities of the associations and the institutions. 

3. So. Regn. Act does not Require Compulsory Registration

Because Article 19(1)(c) of our Constitution guarantees freedom to form associations.

Societies Registration Act, 1860 does not require compulsory registration of Societies. This position continues. No doubt, it is because Article 19(1)(c) of our Constitution guarantees freedom to form associations and unions. But, Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 directs compulsory registration of certain societies.

Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 Sec. 4 reads:

• 4. Compulsory Registration of Certain Societies –
• (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (3) and (4), every society formed on or after the date of the commencement of this Act, which has for its object any object mentioned in, or prescribed Under Section 3, and
  • (a) which consists of not less than twenty members, or
  • (b) whose annual gross income or expenditure in any financial year after the date of the commencement of this Act, is not less than ten thousand rupees, shall be registered under this Act within such period as may be prescribed.
• (2) …..
• (3) Nothing in this section shall apply to any society which has for its object the promotion of religion, athletics or sports (including indoor games).
• (4) Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to require the registration under this Act of any society formed, established, registered or incorporated under any other law.

4. General Principles of Company Law Apply to Regd. Society.

The general principles governing rights of a member in a registered society, and the right of suit of a member, would be similar to that of an individual share holder’s rights in a company. The general principles as to the rights and responsibilities of the directors of a company also apply to the governing body members of a society.

Following are recognised as individual membership rights in a company.[1]

• (i)   Right to vote,
• (ii)  right to stand as a candidate for election as a director and
• (iii) set-right illegal acts.

The general principles as to the rights and responsibilities of the directors of a company also apply to the governing body members of a society.

5. Registration of Societies Brings-in Certain Privileges

In Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic & Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs. The State of Delhi[2] the legal position is expounded by our Apex Court pointing out that by registration of a Society, perpetual succession is conceded inasmuch as the society’s property vest in the trustees for the time being of the society for the use and benefit of the society and its members and of all persons claiming through the members according to the society’s rules, and further (and this is the most noteworthy provision) that the property shall pass to succeeding trustees without assignment or transfer. In this decision it is observed as under:

• “… The most important point to be noticed in this connection is that in the various provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, there are no sufficient words to indicate on intention to incorporate; on the contrary, the provisions show that there was an absence of such intention. ….. Section 5, however, states that the property belonging to the society, if not vested in trustees, shall be deemed to be vested in the governing body of the society and in all proceedings, civil and criminal, the property will be described as the property of the governing body. The section talks of property belonging to the society; but the property is vested in the trustees or in the governing body for the time being. The expression “property belonging to the society” does not give the society a corporate status in the matter of holding or acquiring property, it merely describes the property which vests in the trustees or governing body for the time being……..”
• “… Those provisions undoubtedly give certain privileges to a society registered under that Act and the privileges are of considerable importance and some of those privileges are analogous to the privileges enjoyed by a corporation, but there is really no incorporation in the sense in which that word is legally understood.”

In Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu Vs. Govt. of AP[3] it was observed that if an association was not registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act it could not sue or be sued except in the name of all the members of the association. The registration of the Society confers on it certain advantages. The members as well as the Governing Body the Society are not always the same. Even though the members of the Society or the Government Body fluctuate from time to time, the identity of the society is sought to be made continuous by reason of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act.

Registering An Old Society Did Not Mean Forming A New Society,

In Noel Frederick Barwell v. John Jackson, AIR 1948 All. 146, the Court referred M’ Kenny v. Mayor and Corporation of Barnsley, (1894) 10 T.L.R. 533, and said as under:

• “There the question was whether an unregistered society should be registered under the Friendly Societies Act, 1855, and dealing with the question whether the Society should or should not be registered, the Master of the Rolls observed:
• “And in the absence of any special rule to the contrary, it seemed to be a general rule arising from the nature of things that, where a number of people joined together for some purpose and must for the carrying out of that purpose govern themselves, the only way in which they, could do so was by the will of the majority.”

The Allehabad High Court continued as under:

• “68. His Lordship went on to hold that registering an old society did not mean forming a new society, nor did it alter it in any way. The observations must, therefore, be confined to the facts of that case that the natural law of the rule of the majority would govern only for the purpose of carrying out the object for which they had come together and formed the association, tout that does not justify the assertion that on all questions the majority have a right to impose their will on the minority.  It cannot be said here that the resolution of 3rd September was for the carrying out of the purpose for which the club was founded. In the absence of that basic requirement the case cannot help the defendants.”

The Allehabad High Court thereafter referred another English decision, Oldhamour Lady’s Sick and burial Society v. Taylor, and said as under:

• “69. The case in Oldhamour Lady’s Sick and burial Society v. Taylor, (1887) 3 TLR 472 has, to my mind, no relevance. That was-a case where after the registration of an unregistered society, which was registered by a vote of the majority the minority then having decided to secede, the question was whether the registered society could claim the money due to the unregistered society and it was held that it was the same society and there was a continuity of existence.”

Person who Signs Pleadings must be Authorised by the Bye­laws

The Supreme Court, in  P. Nazeer Vs. Salafi Trust, AIR 2022 SC 1580, held:

• (i) A society registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its bye­laws.
• (ii) The bye­laws may authorise the President or Secretary or any other office bearer to institute or defend a suit for and on behalf of the society,
  • since section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, provides that ‘every society registered under the Act may sue or be sued in the name of President, Chairman, or Principal Secretary, or trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the society and,
  • in default of such determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion’.
• (iii) Unless the plaintiff, which claims to be a society, demonstrates that it is a registered entity and that the person who signed and verified the pleadings was authorised by the bye­laws to do so, the suit cannot be entertained
  • The fact that the plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local unit or a Sakha unit affiliated to a registered society is of no consequence, unless the bye­laws support the institution of such a suit.

6. Registration Brings-in Certain Changes to the Character of its Property

A society or a club is a compendium of its members. Its property is the ‘joint property’ held by the members as ‘joint tenants’ (as differentiated to ‘tenants in common’, till a decision is taken for dissolution). If such property is maintained for the benefit of its future members also (and therefore encumbered with obligations as in a ‘trust’), it cannot be dealt with by the members disregarding the objectives of its foundation.

With respect to the property of a society which can be distributed among the members on its dissolution, by registration under the Societies Registration Act a sea-change occurs whereby the disposal of property is governed by the provisions of the Societies Registration Act; and a perpetual succession is conceded thereto.[4]

Benefits Brought About by Registration of Societies. 

1. Legal recognition and Benefits of Entry in Public Document. The Societies Registration Act provides for registering its bye laws and filing annual list of managing body and accounts. It is subject to scrutiny of Registrar. The registration and renewal of the registration of the society is for the benefit of all the members and office bearers of the society[5]so also the persons who deal with the society. A registered society can open bank accounts and obtain registration under Income Tax Act.
2. Perpetual Succession. By registration of a Society, perpetual succession is conceded inasmuch as the society’s property vest in the trustees or its governing body, for the use and benefit of the society;or in its members and of all persons claiming through the members according to the society’s rules.[6]
3. And further (and this is the most noteworthy provision) that the property shall pass to succeeding trustees or its governing body without assignment or transfer.[7]
4. Enabling Provisions for Filing Suits. Suits with respect to registered societies can be filed without invoking the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC;[8] and can be sued also in that way.
5. Fixity. During the subsistence of a registered society, or on dissolution, the members do not have any proprietary or beneficial enjoyment/interest in the property the society holds.[9] The Societies Registration Act, therefore, does not create in the members of the registered society any interest other than that of bare trustees. What all the members are entitled to, is the right of management of the properties of the society subject to certain conditions.[10]
6. Left-behind-property goes to another society: As per the Societies Registration Act, on dissolution, the left-behind-property of a registered society goes to another society as determined by the members of the society or by the court[11] for being managed by some other charitable organisation and to be utilised for like purposes.
7. Tax Exemptions. Registration of Societies permits certain tax benefits and exemptions as provided in various Tax Laws.

So. Regn. Act: Holding Annual General Meeting is Statutory; Election Not

Sec. 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 postulates holding of Annual General Meeting. These provisions (also the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the society) as to holding Annual General Meetings, are mandatory; and not directory (Sarbjit Singh Vs. All India Fine Arts & Crafts Society: ILR 1989-2 Del 585). As per Sec. 2 of the Societies Registration Act the management of the affairs of a society is entrusted with the governing body.  The rules of the society have to direct the details of such entrustment.

It is pertinent to note that the Societies Registration Act, 1860 does not specifically direct ‘election’ of the governing body. But various States’ amendments (and State-Acts) provide for the same. The mode and modalities of formation of the governing body is determinedly left, under Sec. 16, to the ‘Rules and Regulations of the society’.

Sec. 16 reads:

• Governing body defined: The governing body of the society shall be the governors, council, directors, committee, trustees, or other body to whom by the rules and regulations of the society the management of its affairs is entrusted.

See Blog: Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs

7. Religious Societies & Charitable Purposes

A Religious-Society Can be Registered If it Carries on Secular Activities Also

Society formed for religious purposes can also be registered under the Societies Registration Act, as the society formed for religious purposes would also ordinarily be a Society for charitable purposes.[12] Though the expression charitable purpose generally takes-in religious purpose also, it is held by the Patna High Court in Md. Yunus Vs. The Inspector General of Registration[13] that the So. Regn. Act does not embrace purposes which are religious or predominantly religious.

9. How Can a Society or a Club Acquire Property and Enter into a Contract?

See Blog: Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs

10. Associations Regd. under S. 8(1) of the Companies Act, 2013

Incorporation of Clubs brings in Legal Personality

Section 8 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013, lays down that an association of persons with charitable objects can be registered under this Act. It should have ‘in its objects the promotion of commerce, art, science, sports, education, research, social welfare, religion, charity, protection of environment or any such other object’ and it should be one which ‘intends to apply its profits, if any, or other income in promoting its objects’.

Clubs incorporated under the Companies Act enjoy all the privileges of limited companies; and they are subject to all the obligations thereunder also.  Section 8 (2) Companies Act, 2013 reads:

• “(2) The company registered under this section shall enjoy all the privileges and be subject to all the obligations of limited companies.”

Privileges

• exempted from requirement regarding minimum share capital.
• exempted from requirement to mention its name and address as required in case of all other companies 
• free to determine the date, place and time of its Annual General Meeting according to their convenience and feasibility.
• can call an Annual General Meeting at a short notice
• can maintain books of accounts for a shorter period.
• send the required documents at least fourteen days before the date of meeting instead of 21 days.
• free to increase the number of its directors without seeking approval of central Government.
• exempted from the applicability of Companies Auditor’s Report Order, 2003 (CARO).

Obligations

• ensure that its profits and all other incomes are utilized only for the purpose of promoting its objects and not for any other purpose
• ensure that its profits are not distributed as dividend among its members
• cannot alter its objects clause in its Memorandum without seeking the written approval of central government
• bound by such conditions and regulations imposed by Central Government
• ensure that its objects are confined to those mentioned in section Section 8 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Halsbury’s Laws of England[14] describe Incorporated Members’ Club as under:

• “206. Incorporated Members’ Club. – A members’ club incorporated under the Companies Act, 1948, or earlier Companies Acts, enjoys the advantages incidental to incorporation as a company, especially that of suing and being sued as a legal entity. The company may be limited by shares or by guarantee, and in either case the liability may be merely nominal in amount. The most convenient method, when a members’ club is incorporated, is to register it as a company limited by guarantee, the members of the club for the time being constituting the company. If a members’ club is incorporated as a company limited by shares, the articles of association to some extent take the place of club rules, and may be supplemented by bye laws. If it is registered as an association limited by guarantee, the rules governing the relations of the members inter se are generally appended to the memorandum of association, and they together form the regulations of the company. In either case the objects of the club are set forth in the memorandum of association. The company is quite distinct from the club, the company merely being the proprietor; the relations of the members of the club inter se are governed by club rules or bye laws, as in the case of an unincorporated members’ club, and the rights and liabilities of the share-holders in the company depend upon the memorandum and articles of association, as in the case of an ordinary trading company.”

11. Registered Society is not a Juristic Person

See Blog: Is Registered Society a Juristic Person.

12. Regd. Societies – Not Corporate Body & No Common Seal 

A society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 is not a body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal.[15] But, a Co-operative Society, created by or under a statute,[16] is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to hold property; and it can enter into contracts.[17]

13. Societies  Considered as Legal Persons While Deal Tax Matters

Generally, public institutions established with a philanthropic view and administered by trustees are described as ‘trusts’, especially while dealing with tax matters, though, in the strict legal sense, trust is a concept and it cannot be an organisation or a  Juristic Person.[18]

In Swami Satchitanand Vs. The 2nd Addl. Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode[19] the Kerala High Court observed that a society registered under Societies Registration Act is a legal entity; and it is held that tax imposed on a Society, though it has been styled as an ‘Association of persons’ is still a tax on the society and not on its members, and that it is not possible, therefore, to say that the tax imposed on a Society is a tax imposed on the members of the Society.

14. Does a Society or Branch Registered with Another Registered Society Get the Status as a Registered Society?

See Blog: Societies and Branches

15. Registrar Acts on Prima Facie Materials

If a dispute arises as to whom among the two sets were the lawful members of the Governing Committee, the Registrar has the power to decide upon such a dispute under the Societies Registration Act as an incidental or consequential power in itself. The Registrar has to prima facie satisfy from the materials and evidences. There may not be an elaborate enquiry. However, such an enquiry made by the Registrar and the decision taken from it does not become final and the aggrieved party can take up the matter before a competent court for a decision as to who are the members of the governing body.[20]

16. Jurisdiction of State and Registrar: Limited

The District Registrar has no power to interfere with the selection in the election process. The scope of exercising power under the Societies Registration Act is only to limited extent. The enquiry is not directed against election or selection but to find out the genuineness of the list.

The disputes are to be resolved by the Civil Court

Sec. 4 of the So. Regn. Act casts a duty on the persons concerned to file before the registrar an annual return containing the names, addresses and occupation of the members of the Executive Committee. But the law does not provide for the suspension or dissolution of the society because of failure to comply with Sec. 4.  The Act does not vest any control or supervisory or disciplinary power or jurisdiction in the registrar to take action against a society. The disputes are to be resolved by the Civil Court.[21]

Once a list is furnished in accordance with the election, the scope of enquiry would come to an end, even if the selection is bad. The extent of enquiry is only to find out whether the list being furnished is not by way of any bogus claim or by fraudulent claim.[22]

17. Co-op. Registrar’s Powers Regulatory or Supervisory in Nature

A Co-operative society is an autonomous body and it has got a freedom of its own and such freedom can be interfered only when they violate the provisions of the bye-laws and act in an arbitrary manner. When they violate the provisions of the bye-laws and the Act in an arbitrary manner, or resort to activities prejudicial to the interest of the society, their actions will be subject to the supervisory control of the authorities under the Act.[23] Except supervisory role, the State has no administrative control over the day-to-day affairs of a Co-operative society.[24] It will not amount to dominating or interfering with the management or affairs of the Co-operative society so as to be controlled.The supervisory powers are given to the Co-operative Registrar and the executive powers are given to the Secretary with ‘a single object in view, namely, the better working of the Co-operative societies’[25]

AK Ganguly, J. in The Dakshinee Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Nayan Ranjan Das[26] has observed that democratic norms or democratic principles always presuppose regulatory measures since democracy cannot exist without moderation and that such provisions in the Act strengthen the larger interest of the co-operative movement in general.

Our Apex Court, in Thalappalam Ser. Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala,[27] it is pointed out that the final authority of a society vests in the general body of its members and every society is managed by the managing committee constituted in terms of the bye-laws, and unequivocally held that the powers of Registrar of Co-operative Societies are only ‘regulatory or supervisory’ in nature and it ‘will not amount to dominating or interfering with the management or affairs of the society so as to be controlled’.

18. States’ Amendments/Acts Empower Registrar

Though the Central Act does not specifically empower the Registrar to enquire into the affairs of the society, various States’ Amendments/Acts provide for the same.

Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act

Considering Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, it is held in CMS Evangelical Suvi David Vs. District Registrar[28] that the power of the Registrar to enquire into the affairs of the society was only to hold a summary inquiry for his own satisfaction. The said power cannot be construed as the power of appeal. Under Section 36, the Registrar has not been empowered to adjudicate upon the conflicting claims to represent the society based upon question of fact. A plain reading of Section 36 shows that the Registrar could look only the provisions of the Act and the Rules and prima facie materials to arrive at a conclusion either to believe or not to believe.

The power of the Registrar to call for information and explanation under Section 34 does not contemplate any power to examine witnesses or to allow opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses. The power is incidental and it is only for the purpose of maintaining correct records. As the power to conduct inquiry is only limited – in order to find out whether constitution of members are valid – the inquiry is limited only for the purpose of making entries in the register. However, the exercise of power must not be arbitrary as the orders passed or directions issued by the Registrar are amenable to challenge in the Writ Jurisdiction.[29]

19. Super-session of Governing Body by Government – M.P. Act

A few States, in their Societies Registration Acts, give power, to the Government to supersede societies. Section 32 of the MP Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, Registrar is authorised to hold an enquiry into the constitution and working and financial conditions of the society. Section 33 of the Act speaks of supersession[30] of the Governing Body by the State Government by removing the governing body and appointing a person or persons to manage the affairs of the society for a specified period not exceeding two years in the first instance.

Sec. 33 of the MP Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 reads:

• “33. Super-session of Governing Body.— (1) If, in the opinion of the Government, governing body of any State aided society—
•         (a) persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act, regulations or bye-laws of the society or by any lawful order passed by the State Government or Registrar, or is unwilling to perform such duties, or
•         (b) commits acts which are prejudicial to the interest of society or its members, or
•         (c) is otherwise not functioning properly, the State Government may, by order in writing, remove the governing body and appoint a person or persons to manage the affairs of the society for a specified period not exceeding two years in the first instance.
•         Provided that where it is proposed to remove the governing body of the society exclusively on the ground that election to the governing body were not held in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the regulations or bye-taws made thereunder, no action shall be taken under this sub-section unless the Registrar or an officer authorised by him in this behalf has convened a meeting of the General body for conducting the election thereto in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or the Regulations or bye-laws made thereunder but has failed to get the new governing body elected.
•         Provided further that the Registrar or the Officer authorised by him shall, for the purpose of conducting election, have all the necessary powers under the Act or the Regulations or bye-laws made thereunder.
•         (2) No order under Sub-section (1) shall be made unless the governing body has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order and representation, if any, made by it, is considered.
•         (3) …. (4) ….. (5) …. (6) …. (7) …. (8) …..”

It is held in Suresh Vs. State of MP[31] that the power of supersession was not an administrative power but was a quasi-judicial in nature. In Indian National Congress Vs. Institute of Social Welfare[32] it is observed by the Supreme Court, when it considered as to what constitutes exercise of quasi judicial power, as under:

• “24. The legal principles laying down when an act of a statutory authority would be a quasi-judicial act, which emerge from the aforestated decisions are these: Where
  •  (a) a statutory authority empowered under a statute to do \any act
  •  (b) which would prejudicially affect the subject
  •  (c) although there is no lis or two contending parties and the contest is between the authority and subject and
  •  (d) the statutory authority is required to act judicially under statute, the decision of the said authority is quasi-judicial.”

20. Power to Grant Interim Orders by Registrar – Karnataka Act

Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act provides for an enquiry into the constitution and working of the registered society by the Registrar on his own motion or on the application of the majority of the members or on the complaint given by 1/3rd members of the society. The Act further gives power to the Registrar to issue notice for general body meeting of the society and require the governing body of the society to call a general meeting and to determine such matters as may be directed by him. The Registrar has the ancillary powers to summon any person and examine him.

It is held in Advocates Association Vs. District Registrar and Registrar of Societies[33] that if certain material irregularities were brought to the notice of the registrar and if he was of the opinion that granting of an interim order pending disposal of the enquiry was in furtherance of final order to be passed, the power can be traced under Section 25 itself regarding enquiry. It was observed that the authority which was supposed to hold an enquiry would have the power to grant an interim order, in aid of the final relief, even though it may not be traced to any of the provisions of the Act.

21. Powers of Registrar to Direct Election – Karnataka Act

Following Kodava Samaj, Bangalore Vs. District Registrar of Registration of Societies, Bangalore[34] it is held in Advocates Association Vs. District Registrar and Registrar of Societies[35] that under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act the Registrar has power to direct the society to hold an election, because an enquiry into the constitution and working of the registered society would include the enquiry into the propriety of continuation by a Working Committee and the need to elect a new committee if the existing working committee functions contrary to the bye-laws of the society. Section 25 (2) (c) should be read so as to include a power in the Registrar to direct the holding of the election to the general body if the occasion demands.

Registrar under the Manipur Societies Registration Act has locus standi to file a Writ Petition challenging election of Managing Committee on behalf of a society though the Regulation of the society empowers secretary to file suit on behalf of the society.[36]

22. Powers of Registrar Do Not Bar Civil Court Jurisdiction

The regulatory powers as to registration of a Society vested with the Registrar do not confer any authority on the Registrar to interfere with the affairs, including the election process, of the Society. The scope of exercising power under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act is only to the limited extent of examining whether the list furnished is false or bogus. The above referred limited purpose is fulfilled the moment the list is furnished pursuant to an election. If the parties have any grievance against selection, they are free to approach the civil court.[37] When more than one return is filed, the Registrar has got the power to find out as to which one he should accept. There may not be an elaborate enquiry. Prima facie he has to satisfy as to which return is to be accepted. Such an enquiry made by the Registrar and the decision taken from it does not become final. The dispute can be taken up before a competent court as to who are the members of the governing body.[38]

23. Powers of Registrar: Only Enabling Provision

Several State-Societies-Registration-Acts and Amendments to the Societies Registration Act provide for enquiry by Registrar into the constitution, working and financial conditions of the society. In D Dhanapal Vs. D David Livingstone[39] it is held that the suit filed for declaration that the plaintiff continues to be the Secretary of the Society is maintainable. Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act does not reveal any express bar to the Civil Courts. Section 36 is merely an enabling provision. If the aggrieved party approaches the Registrar or the Registrar acts on his own motion, then, it shall be lawful for the Registrar to conduct an enquiry and communicate the report of the enquiry. It does not mean to deem it as a bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. There must be at least some implication to show that the Civil Court cannot entertain such suits.

24. Powers of Registrar on Defunct Society: May Cancel Registration

Certain state enactments and state amendments to So. Regn. Act empower the Registrars of Societies to cancel[40]  the registration of societies for violation of the provisions under Sec. 4 of the So. Regn. Act.

It is held in CMS Evangelical Suvi David Vs. District Registrar[41] that the intention of the Legislature was not to confer a power of supersession of the Committee on the Registrar as, such power was vested only in the Government;[42] and even when the Registrar was satisfied after enquiry[43] that the society which had contravened any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, or the society was insolvent or the business of any such registered society was conducted fraudulently or not in accordance with the bye-laws or the objects specified in the memorandum filed with the Registrar, he may only cancel the registration.

From the object and scheme of the Societies Registration Acts it is legitimate to state that even if the registration of a society can be cancelled by the Registrar for it becomes defunct[44] the same would not set free the society, once registered, from the provisions as to dissolution in the Societies Registration Act. As per the Societies Registration Act, on dissolution, the left-behind-property of a society goes to another society as determined by the members of the society or by the court (S. 14) for being managed by some other charitable organization and to be utilised for like purposes.[45]

25. No power to Registrar to Direct Fresh Election

It is with Civil Court

Registrar has no jurisdiction to meddle with election disputes.[46] It is also held in CMS Evangelical Suvi David Vs. District Registrar[47] that the power under Sub-Section (9) of Section 36 cannot be stretched to a power on the Registrar to direct the registered society to hold fresh election. A direction to hold fresh election would amount to indirectly setting aside the earlier election and such power is not conferred on the Registrar under any of the provisions of the Act. So long as the election is not declared invalid in the manner known to law, no direction for fresh election could be ordered. Validity of the election could very well be decided only by the competent Civil Court as the parties are entitled to let in their evidence to sustain their respective claims. In the event the Registrar satisfies himself as to the particulars furnished in Form VII as correct, he should enter the names in the register maintained for that purpose. In the event if he does not satisfy as to the particulars and thereby does not accept Form VII, he has to issue a direction relegating the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate orders.

26. Effect of Failure to File Documents u/s 4 or of Becoming Defunct

Non-renewal does not infer, society is defunct.

Non-renewal of the registration of a society may be a bar to avail the benefits offered to registered societies, but the same by itself will not lead the inference that the society is not in existence.[48] Burden will be with those who wish to rebut the presumption; and, in any case, such a society can no more be regarded as a registered society.[49]Several State-amendments[50] to the So. Regn. Act, 1860 and State-Societies-Registration-Acts[51] also made specific provisions for imposing fine on the societies (or its office bearers) which make default in complying with the requirements of Sec. 4.

In Nelson Vs. Kallayam Pastorate[52] it is held by Our Apex Court that in the event of becoming a society defunct, or failure to file documents under Sec. 4 of the So. Regn. Act, there is no bar to revive its activities and to conduct the election of the office bearers. It is held in this decision as under:

• “A society need not necessarily be held to have become defunct only because certain statutory provisions have not been complied with by it.”

It was further observed that the courts cannot set aside such elections on the sole ground that certain statutory provisions have not been complied with by it. Right to contest an election of an office-bearer of the society is a statutory right of the member thereof. Such a right also exists under the bye-laws of the society. If a society fails to file with the Registrar the documents required under Sec. 4, a presumption may arise that it is defunct.

But, it was held by our Apex Court in Nand Deo Pandey Vs. Committees of Management[53] that properly constituted committee of management was required to continue the proceedings of inquiry against the Principal of a Vidyalaya. The Managing Committee was held to have ceased to be valid due to non-renewal of the registration of the society and non-holding of periodical elections under the provisions of the Societies’  Registration (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1960. In Parshvanath Jain Temple Vs. LRs. of Prem Dass[54] it was observed by the Rajasthan High Court that irregularity, if any, on account of non-registration of the Trust under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act at the time of institution of the suit could be cured with the registration of the Trust. It was held that the bar under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act was only against the hearing and final decision of the suit and not against the institution of the suit itself.

27. States Usually Insist Registration for Its Assistances

Usually, for extending State’s assistances, especially financial, registration of societies under a proper Act is insisted, for it ensures supervision of officials.

[1]      NagappaChettiar Vs. Madras Race Club AIR 1951 Mad 831.

Satyavart Sidhantalankar Vs. Arya Samaj: AIR 1946 Bom 516; 

Shridhar Misra Vs. Jaihandra: AIR 1959 All 598;

CL Joseph Vs. Jos: AIR 1965 Ker 68;

Star Tiles Works Vs. N. Govindan AIR 1959 Ker  254.

[2]      AIR 1962 SC 458                 

[3] AIR 1958 AP 773

[4]      Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic & Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs.The State: AIR 1962 SC 458.  [Dennis Lloyd, ‘Law relating to Unincorporated Associations’ (1938 Edn. at page 59) is quoted.]

[5]      Committee of Management Sri JantaAudyogik Vidyalaya Sherpur Gurha Kanpur Vs. Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits Kanpur: ILR 1998 All 38.

[6]      Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic&Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs.The State: AIR 1962 SC 458.  [Dennis Lloyd, ‘Law relating to Unincorporated Associations’ (1938 Edn. at page 59) is quoted.]

[7]      Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic & Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs.The State: AIR 1962 SC 458.  [Dennis Lloyd, ‘Law relating to Unincorporated Associations’ (1938 Edn. at page 59) is quoted.]

[8]      Sec. 6 Societies Registration Act, 1860

[9]      Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic & Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs.The State: AIR 1962 SC 458. Dharam Dutt Vs. Union of India: AIR 2004 SC 1295;

Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu Vs. Govt. of AP: AIR 1958 AP 773.

[10]    Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu Vs. Govt. of AP: AIR 1958 AP 773: Raj Kumar Gaba Vs. State of UP: 2012-49 VST 252;

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Merchant Navy Club: 1974-96 ITR 261;

Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee Vs. Jagmonan Singh: ILR  1971-2 Del 515.

[11]    Sec. 14               

[12]    Hindu Public Vs. Rajdhani Puja Samithee: AIR 1999 SC 964

[13]    AIR 1980 Pat 138. Referred: Fazlul Rabbi Pradhan Vs. State of West Bengal: AIR 1965 SC 1722.

[14]    IV Edn. Vol. 6.

[15]    Captain Jagdish Chandra Varshney Vs. Smt. Muni Varshney : AIR 2006 All 347

[16]    Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain: AIR 1976 SC 888.

[17]    Daman Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 973.

R Jaivel Vs. State of Tamil Nadu: AIR  2006 Mad 215.

State of Punjab Vs. Kesari Chand: AIR 1987 P&H 216;

Sonepat Co Op Sugar Mills Ltd Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court:   AIR  1986 P&H 386;

Mulshanker KunverjiGor Vs. Juvansinhji ShivubhaJadeja:   AIR  1980Guj 62.

[18]    Ramdass Trust Vs. Damodardas 1967 Raj LW 273;

Sagar Sharma Vs. Additional Commissioner of IT: 2011-239 CTR 169: 2011-336  ITR 611; 

Duli Chand Vs. Mahabir Pershad Trilok Chand Charitable Trust: AIR1984 Del  145

Thiagesar Dharma Vanikam Vs.  CIT: [1963] 50 ITR 798  (Mad); 

Kishorelal Asera Vs. Haji Essa Abba Sait Endts: 2003-3 Mad LW 372: 2003-3 CCC367

Thanthi Trust Vs. Wealth Tax Officer: (1989)78 CTR 54: (1989) 178  ITR 28].

[19]    AIR 1964 Ker 118

[20]    AP Aboobaker MusaliarVs. Dist. Registrar (G), Kozhikode: (2004) 11 SCC 247.

CMZ Musliar Vs.Aboobacker: ILR 1998-2 Ker 76.

[21]    Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. The Registrar of Societies: WP (C) No. 3260/2010 (Delhi High Court), decided on 12.04.2012

[22]    Narayanan Vs. District Registrar: ILR 2016-1 Ker 472

[23]    Kurian Vs. Joint Registrar: 1990(1) Ker LT 618;

Dipakbhai Prahladbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat: 2016 2 GLR 1293.

[24]    Umarani Vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies:  (2004) 7 SCC 112.

[25]    Virendra Pal Singh Vs. District Assistant Registrar, Co-op Societies: 1980-4 SCC 109.

[26]    2006-2 Cal. LT 17; 2006-4 CHN 321.

[27]    Thalappalam Ser. Co-op. Bank Ltd Vs. State of Kerala: 2013 -16 SCC 82; 2013 Sup AIR (SC) 437; 2013 AIR(SC) (CIV) 2758, 2013 AIR(SCW)  5683; 2013 Sup AIR (SC) 437.  

[28]    2005-2 Mad LJ 335

[29]    M S Evangelical Suvi David Vs. District Registrar: 2005-2 Mad LJ 335

[30]    A few States give power, in the So. Reg.  Act, to the Government to supersede societies.

[31]    AIR 1970 MP 154 

[32]    AIR 2002 SC 2158

[33]    2006-4 AIR Kar R 218: 2006-4 Kant LJ 526    

[34]    ILR1993 Kar 2715

[35]    2006-4 AIR Kar R 218: 2006-4 Kant LJ 526    

[36]    Christian Revival Church Vs. State of Manipur: AIR 2018 (NOC) (Manipur)

[37]    Christ Church Mcconaghy School Society, Lucknow Vs. Registrar Firms, Societies And Chits, Lucknow: 2015-5 ADJ 472

[38]    C M Z Musliar Vs. Aboobacker: 1998-1 Ker LT–136: ILR 1998-2 Ker 76;

Approved in AP  Aboobaker Musaliyar Vs. District Registrar: (2004) 11 SCC 247

[39]    2003-3 Mad LJ 668.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao: AIR 2000 SC 2220;

PMA Metropolitan Vs. Moran Mar Marthoma:  AIR 1995 SC 2001 relied on.

[40]    Section 93 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002;

        Section 18A of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958;

        Section 12-D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as amended by State of UP;

Section 27 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.

[41]    2005-2 Mad LJ 335

[42]    By insertion of Tamil Nadu Act 16 of 1994.

[43]    Under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Act

[44]    Sub-section (2) of Section  of M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 deals with the power of Registrar to dissolve the society if a society has become defunct or has been persistently making default in the observance of the provisions of the Act, or the regulations or byelaws made thereunder.        

[45]    Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic & Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs.The State of Delhi: AIR 1962 SC 458: Para 23.

        Dadar Ashram Trust Society Vs. Mahathma Gandhi KakshiVidyapeeth: AIR 2017 All. 60

[46]    All. Muslim Welfare Society Vs. Asst. Registrar: AIR 1992 All. 43;

        All India Council Vs. Asst. Registrar: AIR 1988 All. 236 .

[47]    2005-2 Mad LJ 335

[48]    Committee of Management Vs. Commissioner, Kanpur Region: 2008 -1 AWC 695; 2008 -1 ADJ 706; 2008-70 All LR 368.

[49]    In Mrigan Maity Vs. Daridra Bandhab Bhandar: 2011-4 Cal LT 226 it is observed that though only a few members of the society  have shown any interest in matters pertaining to the society for 36 years or so, it might  still not be presumed that the society was defunct that would warrant dissolution under the So. Rgn. Act.

[50]    Assam, Orissa, Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Nagaland, Pondicherry, etc. Maharashtra Amendment to Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Sub Sec. 5 of Sec.  3A) lays down that a society which fails to get its certificate of registration renewed in accordance with this section with one year from the expiration of the period for which the certificate was operative shall become an unregistered society.

[51]    Karnataka, MP, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Travancore-Cochin, etc.

[52]    AIR 2007 SC 1337. Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Netaji Cricket Club [(2005) 4 SCC 741: AIR 2005 SC 592] referred to in this decision.

[53]    AIR 1991 SC 413

[54]    2009-3-RCR(CIVIL) 133

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act (on Purchase Certificate,  Plantation-Exemption & Ceiling Area) in a Nutshell
• Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Production of Documents in Court: Order 11, Rule 14 CPC is not independent from Rule 12
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice for the Same Cause of Action
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• EFFECT OF MARKING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT OBJECTION
• PRODUCTION, ADMISSIBILITY & PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, Order Without Jurisdiction and Sham Transactions
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; When ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged in Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney is Sufficient for Registration of a Deed
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• The Law and Principles of Mandatory Injunction
• Declaration and Injunction
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse, Cannot be Placed in a Straight-Jacket & Not a Judicial Cure-all.
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Is Permission of Court Mandatory when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
• Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept

Evidence Act

• EFFECT OF MARKING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT OBJECTION
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ under Sec. 65B Evidence Act.
• OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY & PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
• Sections 65A & 65B, Evidence Act and Arjun Panditrao: in Nutshell
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Admissibility of Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Rules on Burden of proof and Adverse Inference
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of its Contents
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate for Computer Output
• Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Collateral Purpose
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting Witnesses
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests in Criminal Investigation

Constitution

• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
• Why No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits)? What are the Counter Arguments?
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation Case: Supreme Court Fixed Upper Limit at 50%.
• Separation Of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature, Executive or Judiciary ?
• ‘Is Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’ Stands Tagged-on with Sabarimala Revision-Reference Matter
• Is Excommunication of Parsi Women for Marrying Outside, Unconstitutional
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
• M. Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das –Pragmatic Verdict on Ayodhya Disputes
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Effect and Outcome – Never Ending Controversy
• CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?

Contract Act

• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Contract Act and other Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?

Easement

• What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit” in Easement by Prescription?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition

Club/Society

• State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs
• Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
• Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
• Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs and Companies
• How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs of a Club or Society
• Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
• Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers of Societies
• Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies.
• Management of Societies and Clubs, And Powers of General Body and Governing Body
• Court Interference in Election Process
• Clubs and Societies, Bye Laws Fundamental
• Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
• Societies and Branches
• Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
• Clubs and Societies: General Features

Trusts/Religion

• Philosophy of Idol Worship
• Vesting of Property in Public Trusts
• Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
• Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
• Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Public & Private Trusts in India.
• What is Trust in Indian Law?
• Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Vesting of Property in Trusts
• Indian Law of Trusts Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• M. Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das –Pragmatic Verdict on Ayodhya Disputes
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Is Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’ Stands Tagged-on with Sabarimala Revision-Reference Matter
• Is Excommunication of Parsi Women for Marrying Outside, Unconstitutional.

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

1. Introduction

Under English law of trusts, there is ‘duel ownership’ over the trust property.

• First is the ‘legal ownership’. It is vested with trustees.
• The other is the ‘equitable or beneficial ownership’. It is vested with the beneficiaries.

Indian law on trusts differs from English-Trust-Law on the doctrine of ‘duel ownership’. Because, under Indian law:

1. Trustee is the ‘sole’ (legal) owner of the trust property.
2. Beneficiaries do not have ‘beneficial ownership’; they have only ‘beneficial interest’.
3. Trustees only ‘hold’ the trust property, and it is for mere administration.
4. Trustees hold the trust property for the ‘benefit of the beneficiaries’; not ‘on their behalf‘.
5. Since the trustees only ‘hold’ the properties for the beneficiaries, no legal ‘title’ vests with the trustees, though they have legal ‘ownership’.

2. Salmond Propounds doctrine of ‘Duel Ownership’

Under English law, when the author of the trust creates a trust, by the dedication of the endowed property, he transfers the ‘legal ownership’ on the trust-property to the trustees and ‘beneficial ownership’ to the beneficiaries. Salmond on Jurisprudence (12^th  Edition, page 256) refers these propositions as under:

• “A trustee is the legal owner of the property, the actual owner thereof having lost title thereto by the creation of a trust. The equitable ownership in the trust property vests in the beneficiaries. The trust is thus an incident of dual ownership in which the creator of the trust no longer figures.”

3. Doctrine of ‘Duel Ownership’ has no Universal Acceptance.

Doctrine of duel-ownership on trust property is peculiar to English law. It has no universal acceptance.

In The I Congresso Del Partido [(1977) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 536 ] the Queen’s Bench Division (Admiralty Court) pointed out that the trust-concept ‘involving a dichotomy between legal and equitable ownership is unknown to some, and perhaps most, other jurisdictions’. [Referred to in Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. “Dong Do” v. Ramesh Kumar, (2000) 1 Cal LT 367 ].

Definition of trust in the Indian Trusts Act, 1882

Sec. 3 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 defines trust as under:

• “Trust: A ‘trust’ is an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, and arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner, or declared and accepted by him, for the benefit of another, or of another and the owner:

From the definition it is clear that ‘Trust’, in law, holds the following conceptions:

• Trust is ‘an obligation’ upon the trustee.
• It is to administer the endowed property.
• The administration must be done by the trustee as if he is the owner.
• It must be done by him accepting the desire of the author.
• And, the same must be for the benefit of the beneficiaries.

4. ‘Trustee’ is the Sole ‘Owner’ According to    the Definition of ‘Trust’

From the definition of ‘trust’ in the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 it is clear that the Act does not recognise ‘beneficial ownership’ in the beneficiaries. It recognises ‘ownership in trustee’ alone.

The definition of trust in Sec. 3 can be analysed as under:

(i) A ‘trust’ is an obligation-

• annexed to the ownership of property (to administer), and
• (i) arising out of a confidence reposed in (trustee, by the author) and accepted by the owner (that is, trustee, the legal owner), or (ii) declared and accepted by him(that is, trustee),^#
  • for the benefit of another, or of another and the owner (that is, trustee, the legal owner).
• ^{# the obligation that is declared and accepted by the same person. This situation comes-up when the the author himself declares to act as trustee. See notes below under the head: ‘Obligation … Declared And Accepted By Him’.}

(ii) Confidence is ‘Reposed’ by the Author

Trust is defined to be an obligation arising out of a confidence ‘reposed in’ (the owner/trustee). When the ‘author of the trust’ is defined, it is stated:

• “The person who reposes or declares the confidence is called the ‘author of the trust’.”

Therefore, it is definite that the words, ‘confidence reposed in the owner’, denote the confidence that is ‘reposed’ by the author ‘in the owner’. _{(Allahabad Bank Vs. IT Commr.: AIR 1953 SC 476; Chikkamuniyappa Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka: ILR 1997  Kar 2460; Dinshaw Rusi Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra: AIR 2017 SC 1557.)}

(iii) The ‘Owner’ in whom  the Confidence is ‘Reposed’, is Trustee

As stated above, it is the author who ‘reposes’ the confidence; and the confidence is ‘reposed in’ the ‘owner‘. Then, who is the ‘owner’?

• It is trustee. _{(Khairul Bashar Vs. ThannuLal: AIR1957 All 553; Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co Vs. CIT: 1966-61 ITR 572 (Bom); Christopher Karkada VS Church of South India: ILR 2012  Kar 725; Chockalinga Sethurayar Vs. Arumanayakain: AIR  1969 SC 569;       Rajah SagiJanaki Vs. Appururu Bhukta: 1976-2 AndWR 117, 1976-1 APLJ 312;       Special Secy. Govt of WB Vs. State Bank of India: AIR  1989 Cal 40; CIT Vs. K Shyamaraju: 1991-1 KantLJ 233; Chikkamuniyappa Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka: ILR 1997  Kar 2460.)}

The nexus between owner and trustee is clear from the definitions of ‘trust’ and ‘trustee’.

• When ‘trust’ is defined, it is stated:
  • the confidence is ‘accepted by the owner’;
• When ‘trustee’ is defined, it is stated:
  • the confidence is ‘accepted by the trustee’.

According to the definition of trust, the ‘obligation’ stands ‘annexed to the ownership’ of the trust-property. Sec. 6 of the Trusts Act makes it clear that ‘a trust is created when the author of the trust transfers the trust property to the trustee’. Therefore, the ‘obligation’ upon the trustee casts a duty upon him to administer the trust-property as (if) he is its ‘owner’.

(iv) The definition of Trust can be explained as under:

5. Indian Law Recognises ‘Legal Ownership‘ on Trustees; Not ‘Title‘

The Privy Council, in Chhatra Kumari Vs.  Mohan Bikram _{(AIR 1931 PC 196)} held as under:

• “The Indian Law does not recognise legal and equitable estates. By that law, therefore, there can be but one owner; and where the property is vested in a trustee, the owner must, their Lordship think, be the trustee. This is the view embodied in the Indian Trusts Act: See Sec. 3, 55, 56, etc. … ” _{(Quoted in Special Secy. Govt of W B Vs. State Bank of India: AIR 1989 Cal 40; Christopher Karkada Vs. Church of South India: ILR 2012  Kar. 72; Raja Sir Muthiah Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of IT: 1984-38 CTR 76: 1984-17 TAXMAN 142: 1984-148 ITR532: Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ganga Properties Ltd: 1970-77 ITR 637; Sardarilal Vs. Shrimati Shakuntla Devi: AIR 1961 P&H 378.)}

Inasmuch as Indian Law does not recognise legal and equitable estates (‘ownership’) _{(Chhatra Kumari Vs.  Mohan Bikram: AIR 1931 PC 196.)} and trustee alone has ownership (legal ownership), this ‘ownership’ of trustees is not the ‘legal (or trust) ownership’ that is understood in English law.

In English law, when ‘legal ownership’ is referred to, it denotes ‘legal estate’. It is one component the duel-ownership. It confers a ‘title’ upon the trustee. But, in Indian Law, the trust properties ‘vest’ in the trustees for the limited purpose of administration or management; and the trustees only ‘hold’ the properties. _{(Thiagesar Dharma Vanikam Vs. Comner. IT, Madras: AIR 1964   Mad 483).}

6. Indian Law Does Not Recognise Equitable Ownership (Estate) of Beneficiaries

Similarly, the Indian Trusts Act does not refer to ‘beneficial ownership’; it refers merely to ‘interest’ or ‘beneficial interest’ of the beneficiary. _{(See: Ram Bharose Sharma Vs. Mahant Ram Swaroop: 2001 AIR- SCW  4062:  Mitar Sain Vs. Data Ram: AIR 1926 All 7; Urshottam Vs. Kanhaiyalal: AIR 1966 Raj 70.)} It is clear from the following affirmations in the definition of ‘trust’ in Sec. 3 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882:

• (i) “A ‘trust’ is an obligation … arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner… for the benefit of another….”
• (ii) “(T)he ‘beneficial interest’…  is his (beneficiary’s) right against the trustee as owner of the trust property.”

In English law, when ‘beneficial interest’ is referred to, it denotes – ‘beneficial ownership’ or ‘beneficial estate’, the second component among the duel ownership.

The courts in India have followed the principles in Trusts Act, as to legal ownership of trustees and beneficial interest of the beneficiaries, in Common Law of Trust; and disfavoured doctrine of ‘duel ownership’ _{(Chhatra Kumari Devi Vs. Mohan Bikram Shah:  AIR 1931 PC 196; WO Holdsworth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh: AIR 1957 SC 887; Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Kripashankar: AIR 1971 SC 2463, Bai Dosabai Vs. Mathuradas: AIR 1980 SC 1334; Bomi Munchershaw Mistry Vs. Kesharwani Co Op H. Society: 1993-2-BCR-301; Hem Chandra Vs. Suradham Debya: AIR 1940 P.C. 134;       Ramabai Govind Vs. Raghunath Vasudevo: AIR 1952 Bom 106. Deoki Nandan  Vs.  Murlidhar:  AIR 1957 SC 133; Behari Lal Vs. Thakur Radha Ballabhji: AIR 1961 All 73)}.

Thus, under the Law of Trust in India, trustee holds the trust property as its sole (legal) owner, subject to the obligation to use this ownership for the benefit of the beneficiaries _{(Kansara Abdulrehman Sadruddin Vs. Trustees,  Maniar Jamat: AIR 1968 Guj 184)}.

The legal entitlement of beneficiaries in a trust (that is, beneficial interest) is legibly stated in The Province of Bihar v. FR Hayes,  1946-14 ITR 326 (Patna), by Fazl Ali, CJ (as he then was) while interpreting Bihar Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1938, referring the definition of trust in the Indian Trusts Act, as under:

• “The framers of the Act must be assumed to have known the accepted legal meaning of the expression and also known that the term ‘beneficiary’ in law is not generally used with reference to a full legal owner but with reference to a person who has ‘beneficial interest’ in some property which is usually in the possession and control of another person. The distinction between beneficial interest and legal ownership is one of the most notable features of a trust and in my judgment ‘beneficiaries’ referred to in Section 11 are those persons who have merely beneficial interest in a property while the legal ownership of the property vests in a person or persons who hold the property for their benefit.”

7. Trustee Holds ‘For the Benefit Of’; Not ‘On Behalf Of’ the Beneficiaries

The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 repeatedly lays down – trustees are ‘holding’ trust property (Sec. 10, 29 and Chap. IX: Sec. 80 onwards).  It is subject to the obligation to use his ownership ‘for the benefit of’ the beneficiaries.

Sec. 10 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 reads:

• 10. Who may be trustee.—Every person capable of holding property may be a trustee; but, where the trust involves the exercise of discretion, he cannot execute it unless he is competent to contract.

Sec. 29 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 reads:

• 29. Liability of trustee where beneficiary’s interest is forfeited to Government.—When the beneficiary’s interest is forfeited or awarded by legal adjudication to the Government, the trustee is bound to hold the trust property to the extent of such interest for the benefit of such person in such manner as the State Government  may direct in this behalf.

In WO Holdsworth  Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh _{(AIR 1957 SC 887; See also: Ramabai Govind Vs. Raghunath Vasudevo: AIR 1952 Bom 106)} it is laid down by our Apex Court as under:

• “23. Whatever be the position in English Law, the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (2 of 1882) is clear and categoric on this point. … These definitions emphasise that the trustee is the owner of the trust property and the beneficiary only has a right against the trustee as owner of the trust property. The trustee is thus, the legal owner of the trust property and the property vests in him as such. He, no doubt, holds the trust property for the benefit of the beneficiaries but he does not hold it on their behalf. The expressions ‘for the benefit of’ and ‘on behalf of’ are not synonymous with each other. They convey different meanings.”

Our Apex Court observed in Comm. Wealth Tax Vs. Kirpashanker Dayashankar, AIR 1971 SC 2463, that the trustee holds the trust property ‘on his own right’ and not ‘on behalf of’ someone else though he holds it ‘for the benefit of’ the beneficiaries.Obligations are casted upon trustees, only to manage the trust property for the benefit of the beneficiaries. It is beyond doubt that the trustee has no ‘proprietary interest’ inasmuch as the beneficial interest is ‘carved out’_{(Christopher Karkada Vs. Church of South India: ILR 2012  Kar 725; Ramabai Govind Vs. Raghunath Vasudevo: AIR 1952 Bom 106; Special Secy. Govt. of W B Vs. State Bank of India: AIR 1989 Cal 40)} in the property itself. (It is not a mere ‘right’ similar to ‘right of easement’ for the dominant owner; but, it is an ‘interest’.) In dealings with the world at large, the trustee personates or represents as the owner of the property _{(Govardhandhari Devsthan  Vs. Collector of Ahmednagar: AIR 1982  Bom 332. Kapoorchand Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs. Parasnath Digambar: 2000-1 MPJR 199).}

8. View of Salmond Adopted  in Societies Registration Act

While dealing with the chief classes of persons on whose behalf the protection of trusteeship is extended, Salmond on Jurisprudence lays down (12^th  Edition, page 257) as under:

• “Thirdly, it is expedient that property in which large numbers of persons are interested in common should be vested in trustees.”

This ‘wider’ or ‘general’ principle is accepted in the Societies Registration Act when it refers to ‘trustees’ in Sec. 5. It reads as under:

• “5. Property of society how vested – The property, movable and immovable, belonging to a society registered under this Act, if not vested in trustees, shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the governing body of such society, and in all proceedings, civil and criminal, may be described as the property of the governing body of such society for their proper title.”

Read in this Cluster  (Click on the topic):

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
• Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
• What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
• ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC

Power of attorney

• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit

Title, ownership and Possession

• Title and Ownership in Indian Law
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law

Principles and Procedure

• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Declaration and Injunction
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Admission, Relevancy and Proof
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Proof and Truth of Documents
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

• Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote Full-Ownership?
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
• Vested interest and Contingent Interest
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
• Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE

Evidence Act – General

• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Rules on Burden of proof and Adverse Inference
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• Sec. 65B
• Sections 65A & 65B, Evidence Act and Arjun Panditrao: in Nutshell
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate for Computer Output
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• Law on Documents
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as a ‘Public Documents’?
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Collateral Purpose
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of its Contents
• Proof and Truth of Documents
• Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance

Contract Act

• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance

Easement

• What is Easement?
• Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit”?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
• Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition

Stamp Act

• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose

Will

• Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
• Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Religious issues
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
• No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
• Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
• Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

• General
  • General Features
  • Bye Laws Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Juristic Personality
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
  • Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
  • Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs
  • Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
  • How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing Body
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Classification of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts in India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
  • Philosophy of Idol Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
  • Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
  • Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions