Civil Suit No. 116 of 2007 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK R.S.A. NO.323 OF 2016 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment dated 19.05.2016 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Cuttack in R.F.A. No.48 of 2010/46 of 2014 confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2010 and 19.04.2010 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack in Civil Suit No.116 of 2007. ---- Ghanababa Janamangala Parishad …. Appellant -versus- Sadhu Charan Das & Another …. Respondents Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - Mr. A.C. Mohapatra, Advocate. For Respondents - -------------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 14.11.2023 :: Date of Judgment:04.12.2023 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment dated 19.05.2016 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Cuttack in R.F.A. No.48 of 2010/46 of 2014. The present Appellant as the Plaintiff had filed the Civil Suit No.116 of 2007 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, RSA No.323 of 2016 Page 1 of 8 {{ 2 }} Cuttack seeking the relief of permanent injunction in restraining the Respondents (Defendants) from causing interference in the peaceful running of Appellant-Society (Plaintiff) at Naraj in future and from transferring the immovable assets of the said Appellant-Society in any way at any time in future. The suit filed arraigning the Respondents as the Defendants having been dismissed, the present Appellant as the unsuccessful Plaintiff had carried the Appeal under section-96 of the Code. The First Appeal has also been dismissed. Therefore, the present Second Appeal is at the instance of the Appellant, who has been in unsuccessful in both the Courts below. 2. One Sanatan Dalei, claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society at Naraj and representing the Society has filed the suit claiming the reliefs as aforestated. 3. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court. 4. The case of the Plaintiff is that one Ghana Baba, a Sadhu of Alekha Mahima Dharma established an Ashram at Naraj in the name of “Ghana Baba Mandir”, which was subsequently renamed as “Ghana Baba Janamangal Parishad”. The Society was registered in the year RSA No.323 of 2016 Page 2 of 8 {{ 3 }} 1956 as the disciple, Hari Baba carried the good work like establishment of Ayurvedic Hospital for the poor, a School, a garden having the valuable plants were planted especially for the poor and down trodden. It is further stated that Hari Baba died in the year 2001 on the day of Chaitrapurnima and thereafter some reputed persons came and joined in carrying out affairs activities of the Parishad. It is stated that Defendant No.1 being a disciple of Alekha Dharma was picked up by the Parishad during the lifetime of Hari Baba. He in order to fulfill his evil design running against the ideals of Alekha Dharma had joined hands with other Defendants and made all their attempts to keep the Plaintiff away from the affairs of the Society so that, they would take steps to form another Society in the same name. They misappropriated huge money and assets. They tried to destroy and damage the fruit bearing trees as well as the herbal medicinal plants standing over the land of the Society and forcibly kept the premises under lock and key and preventing the entry of the general public. The Defendants did not allow the regular meeting of the Society to take place. The Plaintiff claims himself to be the lawful Secretary of the Society and therefore, he sought for the injunction by filing the present suit. RSA No.323 of 2016 Page 3 of 8 {{ 4 }} 5. The Defendant No.1 appearing in the suit while traversing the plaint averments stated that the Plaintiff has no locus-standi to institute the suit as he is not the Secretary of the Society. It is stated that Mohima Gosain, the initial propagator of Alekha Dharma, during his movement from Khandagiri to Kapilash was taking rest at Naraj and said place was named as Mahima Ashram and after the Mahaprayan of Mahima Gosain, his principal disciple Sidha Bada Krupasindhu Baba used to stay in the said Ashram along with two disciples namely, Ghanashyam Baba and Dharmanda Baba. It is further stated that Ghanashyam Baba was having the disciples and after death of Bada Krupasindhu Baba, Ghana Baba and Dharmananda Baba came to manage. Ghana Baba was having a disciple named Hari Baba and Dharmananda Baba having a disciple named Chakradhara Baba (Defendant No.1) and they resided in the Ashram. Hari Baba in the memory of Ghana Baba had established Parishad called Ghana Baba Janamangal Parishad and that was registered as society in which Hari Baba was the adviser. The working Committee of the Society was formed in the year 1996-97 as per byelaw, the term of the Committee was for two years and after death of Hari Baba, the Defendant No.1 became the adviser. As per the byelaw, after expiry of the term, new Committee was to be formed by way of election or nomination by the RSA No.323 of 2016 Page 4 of 8 {{ 5 }} adviser. But after expiry of the term of the first Committee, no election, or selection or nomination of office bearers was made for which the first Secretary, Alekha Chandra Majhi was continuing as such and had no point of time, the Plaintiff was ever been elected or nominated or selected as the Secretary of the Parishad. It is further asserted that Ghana Baba Mandir was never renamed as Ghana Baba Janamangala Parishad, because Ghana Baba Mandir is situated in five plots of land where as Ghana Baba Janamangala Parishad was situated over one plot of land in mouza Arilo. So the Plaintiff’s case regarding establishment of Ghana Baba Mandir which was later on called as Ghana Baba Janamangala Parishad is wholly false and concocted. It is therefore, said that the question of election of Plaintiff (Sanatan Dalei) as the Secretary of the Plaintiff’s Society did not arise. Sanatan Dalei has managed to initiate one Intestate case through one Alekha Chandra Majhi, the First Secretary bearing No.22 of 2002 and obtained one Succession Certificate by way of manipulation which has been cancelled by order passed in CMA No.462 of 2007 being instituted by the Defendant No.1 under section-383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which was finally decided on 09.12.2010. Therefore, it is said that the Plaintiff is having no locus-standi to institute the relief seeking relief as prayed for. RSA No.323 of 2016 Page 5 of 8 {{ 6 }} 6. The Trial Court on the above rival pleadings having framed five issues, has held that Sanatan Dalei who is claiming to be the Secretary of the Society and has filed the suit representing the Society has no locus-standi to file the suit seeking the relief as advanced therein. Other issues with regard to the infringement in the right of the Plaintiff’s Society by the Defendants has accordingly been answered against the Plaintiff. The suit being dismissed, Sanatan Dalei again as the Secretary of the Society having carried the First Appeal has also been unsuccessful. 7. Mr. A.C. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Appellant (Plaintiff) submitted that the Courts below have erred both on facts and law in holding that the Sanatan Dalei, who has filed the suit representing the Society has no locus-standi and therefore, the suit seeking relief is liable to be dismissed. According to him, keeping in view the pleadings and evidence on record available, the said finding suffers from the vice of perversity. He therefore, urged for admission of this Appeal to answer the above as the substantial question of law. 8. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below. I have also gone through the plaint and written statement filed by the parties as well as the evidence, both oral and documentary, let in by them. RSA No.323 of 2016 Page 6 of 8 {{ 7 }} 9. It is the evidence of Sanatan Dalei that one Alekha Chandra Majhi was the first Secretary of the Plaintiff’s Parishad. Sanatan has stated to have never seen the resolution book of the Parishad maintained prior to the year 2006. It has also been deposed by him that CMA No.462 of 2007 was filed by the Defendant No.1 against Alekha Chandra Majhi in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack; wherein, he was a witness on behalf of Alekha Chandra Majhi and that the Opposite Party in that case filed show-cause on 08.05.2008 and that he signed on the show-cause wherein it had not mentioned that Alekha Majhi was and is the Secretary of the Parishad. Thus, it is clear that there has been suppression of material facts in the plaint filed by the Sanatan representing the Society examined as P.W.1. So, when Sanatan has no knowledge regarding the function of the Parishad his evidence to have taken charge from one Banabihari Das (P.W.3), Ex-Secretary of the Parishad falls flat. It does not so revel from his evidence which is full of inconsistencies. Having said that Alekha Chandra Majhi was the Secretary of the Parishad, Sanatan (P.W.1) has further contradicted that he took over the charge from Banabihari Das (P.W.3) on 20.05.2007. No such resolution of the Society has been filed in support of the Authority of Sanatan to represent the Society in filing the suit. RSA No.323 of 2016 Page 7 of 8 {{ 8 }} With such state of affairs, in the pleading and evidence, the Courts below when have found that Sanatan Dalei has having no locus- standi to represent the Society in filing the suit in seeking the relief, this Court is not in a position to say that the decision suffers from the vice of perversity. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant fails and this Court is of the view that there arises no substantial question of law for being answered meriting its admission of this Appeal. 10.
Decision
In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Narayan (D. Dash), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Dec-2023 15:08:35 RSA No.323 of 2016 Page 8 of 8