Local Unit Of A Registered Society Can't Institute Suit Unless Byelaws Authorise It : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its bye­laws.

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. The fact that the plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local unit or a Sakha unit of a registered society is of no consequence, unless the bye­laws support the institution of such a suit.

Under section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, "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".

A Bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian therefore observed that unless the plaintiff in a suit 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.

"A society registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its bye­laws.

"...unless the plaintiff in a suit 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 of a registered society is of no consequence, unless the bye­laws support the institution of such a suit"

The subject matter of the present dispute relates to the right to management and administration of a mosque and its properties.

In the present case, the Waqf Tribunal had held that the appellant Mahal Committee is a legal entity, entitled to sue and be sued solely on the ground that it was one of the Sakha units affiliated to a registered society by name Kerala Naduvathil Mujahideen.

Disagreeing with the Tribunal's view, the Bench said that the Waqf Tribunal committed a gross illegality, first in not framing an issue about the status of the Mahal Committee and then in recording a finding as though the local unit of a registered society which is in enjoyment of affiliated status, was entitled to sue.

The Bench further observed that such an illegality committed by the Tribunal was liable to be corrected by the High Court under its revisional jurisdiction.

The Bench has therefore dismissed the civil appeal filed challenging Kerala High court's judgment in two Civil Revision Petitions filed under the proviso to sub­ section (9) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, reversing the judgment of the Waqf Tribunal and decreeing the suit of the respondents in entirety, but dismissing the appellant's suit.

In the present case, the appellants had sought a declaration of nullity in their own suit in respect of a certificate issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Kerala Waqf Board dated 24.03.2004 in favour of Salafi Trust.

They sought two sets of reliefs from the Waqf Tribunal.

• To declare the certificate dated 24.03.2004 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Kerala Waqf Board in favour of Salafi Trust as null and void
  
• A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their management and administration of the mosque and its properties.

The Tribunal granted the relief of injunction, but refused the relief of declaration. However, these three appellants did not choose to challenge the Judgment of the Waqf Tribunal rejecting the relief of declaration.

Then respondents sought two sets of reliefs from the Tribunal: 

• A declaration that the A.K. Babu ( second respondent) is the Secretary of Salafi Trust (first respondent)
  
• A permanent injunction restraining the appellant P.Nazeer, the Secretary of the Mahal Committee from interfering with their right of management of the mosque.

Here the Tribunal granted the relief of declaration, but it did not grant the relief of injunction.

The High Court in its impugned order found that Mahal Committee is not a registered entity and hence not entitled to file a suit and the suit was not even filed in a representative capacity after following the procedure prescribed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC.

Further, the Court observed that though the challenge was to the management and administration of a mosque and its immovable properties, there was no schedule of property attached to the plaint in the suit.

It was observed that as per the evidence on record, it was the Salafi Trust which was in management and administration of the mosque and its properties. On the basis of these findings, the High Court decreed the suit filed by the respondents in entirety and dismissed the suit filed by the appellants in full.

The Supreme Court  observed that the Mahal Committee did not file any revision against the rejection by the Waqf Tribunal of the relief of declaration regarding the certificate dated 24.03.2004 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Kerala State Waqf Board.

While noting that the rejection by the Waqf Tribunal, of the prayer for declaring the said certificate to be null and void was fatal to appellant's claim, yet the appellants did not choose to file a revision, the Court observed that today they cannot take umbrage under the fact that the Tribunal found them to be in management and administration of the waqf.

According to the Bench, once it is admitted that it was the respondent Salafi Trust who got the mosque registered as a waqf under the Waqf Act and admitted that the mosque was constructed in a vacant plot demised by Salafi Trust, it was not open to them to go against the statutory prescriptions and claim to be the Mutawalli.

While observing that the High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction correctly and justly, the Bench refused to go into each of the issues in the impugned judgement

Case Details: P Nazeer Etc v Salafi Trust & Anr CA 3132/2016 

Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 334

Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Section 6 - A society registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its bye­laws -Unless the plaintiff in a suit 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 of a registered society is of no consequence, unless the bye­laws support the institution of such a suit (Para 15)

Click here to read/download the judgment