http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6619 of 2000

PETITIONER: Shri Ram Chandra Mission & Anr

RESPONDENT: P. Rajagopalachari  & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/04/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6619 OF 2000

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

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

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

2.      The special leaves were filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena  and others, Uma Shankar and Another, the present appellants  and another. Special leave by the Umesh Chandra Saxena and  Anr. Sri. P. Rajagopalichari were the respondent while in the  first special leave by Umesh Chandra Saxena and Anr. The  Administrative General, U.P. Allahabad and others were the  parties.   3.      Background facts as highlighted by the appellant in this  appeal are as follows: Sh. Ram Chandra Mission-Society was registered,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

established and founded by Maharaj, Shri Ram Chandra Ji  Maharaj with its constitution, bye laws and Memorandum of  Society on 21.7.1995.  Purportedly there was a covering letter  to the intimation dated 23.3.1974 alleged to have been  executed by the founder in favour of respondent P.  Rajagopalachari.  This intimation according to the appellant  was the result of manipulation and fraud.  The nomination  was declared him to be the president of society and clearly  stated that he shall work for the Mission and he is "President  of Sahaj Marga System". On 16.4.1982 nomination was  executed in favour of Shri Umesh Chandra Saxena as spiritual  representative in the direct line of succession and he was  nominated as the successor or President under Rules 3 and 4  of the registered constitution, bye laws of the society.  The  nomination/declaration clearly stated that the previous  nomination if any made by the founder stand superseded and  cancelled.  Founder - Shri Ram Chandraji Maharaj breathed  his last on 19.4.983.  On 4.1.1984 a civil suit was filed by  three members of the Society in the Court of Civil Judge,  Shahjanpur who granted ex-parte injunction restraining P.  Rajgopalachari from acting as President.   On 6.2.1984 and  7.2.1984 working Committee meeting was held at head  quarters and after perusal of booklet Sh. U.C. Saxena was  declared as a successor or President and also the spiritual  representation in the direct line of succession on the basis of  nomination of 16.4.1982.  The claim of P. Rajgopalachari  based on the alleged nomination dated 23.3.1994 was treated  as rejected.  On 8.2.1984 General Body was held at the head  quarter of the Society and the claim of Sh. Umesh Chandra  Saxena was approved and he was declared as spiritual  representative in the direct line of succession and also as the  successor or President of the society.  Claim of P.  Rajgopalachari based on the alleged nomination was rejected.   On 15.2.1982 a circular was issued by Secretary Sh. S. A.  Sarnad informing all members regarding the declaration of Sh.  Umesh Chandra Saxena as Successor President and the  spiritual representative in the direct line of succession.  An  amendment was carried out to the Societies Registration Act,  1860 on 30.4.1984.  Section 3(A) was amended by the  substitution of sub section 4 of Section 3(A) and addition of a  proviso to Section 4(1). By virtue of Section 3(a)(4). List of the  members of the managing Committee Body elected was  required to be filed.  Ex-parte injunction was granted on  4.1.1984 was confirmed on 9.4.1984.  In appeal by respondent  No. 1, P. Rajgopalachari the High Court granted stay of  injunction.  The High Court allowed the first appeal and set  aside the injunction order.  SLP filed against the order of the  High Court was dismissed by this Court on 27.9.1985.  The  suit was subsequently withdrawn on 10.7.1997 on giving of an  undertaking not to alignate and not to shift the head quarters.   On 23.1.1988 elections were held at the head quarters in  accordance with Section 3(A)(4) and Section 4 and the office  bearers were duly elected  Sh. S.P. Srivastava as President and  Sh. B.D. Mahajan as Secretary respectively.  On 24.4.1990 in  proceeding under Section 25 of the Act report of the Tehsildar  counter signed by the SDM as the prescribed authority under  Section 25 was passed recognizing the representation of  aforesaid two persons as the President and Secretary.  On  29.7.1991 another report was given by the tehsildar and K.G.  in a proceeding under Section 25 recognising the same  position.  The aforesaid reports were questioned on behalf of  respondent No. 1 before the prescribed authority by an  application called SU-2/91 the application was rejected by the  prescribed authority and earlier reports were confirmed.  An  application was moved by 75 members of the society for action

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

under Section 25(2) of the Act on 20.4.1993.  On 15.2.1994  elections were held and Sh. Umesh Chandra Saxena and  Sh.K.V. Reddy were elected as President and Secretary  respectively. on 29.9.1994 the Assistant Registrar passed  order holding that since the Constitution provides for  nomination of President election cannot be conducted. He also  held that in view of the interim orders in civil suit OS (No.) 200  of 1983 the respondent No. 1 P. Rajagopalachari shall  continue to work as President.   As noted above the suit was  withdrawn on 10.7.1997 with liberty to file fresh suit.  On  10.7.1997 writ petition No. 37023 of 1994 filed against the  order dated 29.9.1994 was dismissed by learned Single Judge.  On 24.11.1998 the Division Bench dismissed the special leave  No. 580 of 1987 holding that since under the Rules of the  society the post of the President and Members of the working  committee is not an elected one, Section 25 would not come  out and took play. The High Court, however held that  Registrar had no authority to direct anybody to continue an  office.  It was further held that the application under Section  25(2) itself was untenable and so was the writ petition.  On  22.1.1999 elections were held and again Umesh Chandra  Saxena and Sh. K. V. Reddy were elected as President and  Secretary in accordance with the amended provisions of the  Act.  On 3.11.2003 Sh. Umesh Chandra Saxena expired and  Navneet Kumar Saxena was elected unanimously as the  President of the Society in an emergent meeting which was  held at Hyderabad by working committee.  The general Body  on 22.11.2003 had approved and confirmed the election of the  Navneet Kumar Saxena as the President of the society.   Further the amendment proposed and adopted by the General  body of the society, in order to make the rules in consonance  of the provisions of the Act. On 12.2.2005 elections were held  in the society for electing the Managing committee and again  Navneet Kumar Saxena and K. V. Reddy was elected as the  president and Secretary respectively.   

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

effect.  The stand is strongly opposed by the respondent to say  that nomination were not merely in respect of the Sahaj Marg  system system but it was in respect of President itself.     

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

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

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

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