RAJESH D DARBAR Vs. NARASINGRAO KRISHNAJI KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals are directed against the common judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The three appeals which disposed of by the judgment were preferred under 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 (for short the Act) wherein challenge was the common judgment and order dated 12.11.2002 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 60-62/2000 on the file of the Court of the Second Additional District Judge, Bijapur. The dispute relates the elections claimed have been conducted by two rival groups for the Managing Committee of the Vidya Vardhak Sangh, Bihapur, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short the "Societies Act"). It is also a registered body under the provisions of the Act. The dispute arose because names of 38 persons were included in the elecral rolls for the election. While the appellants claim that the 38 persons whose names are included in the elecral roll were not eligible participate in the process of election, the other group, that is, respondents 1 12 contested the claim. Initially after the election, the elected Committee started functioning in Ocber 1996, as the date of election was 6.10.1996. There is no dispute that subsequent committees have been elected as the term of office is 3 years. But the basic dispute about the eligibility of the 38 persons still continues haunt the Society. We need not go in the various disputes both factual and legal in detail. Two points have been urged by learned counsel for the appellants. They pointed out that the High Court lost sight of the fact that by passage of time the dispute as regards the validity of the election in Ocber 1996 became non est. Secondly, the High Court erroneously came the conclusion that the 38 persons were legally inducted as members. Such conclusion was arrived at by proceeding on erroneous premises. The High Court committed a faux pas by holding that the application filed by the respondents 1 12 for adducing additional evidence was not dealt with by the Charity Commissioner thereby prejudicing case of the respondents. It was pointed out by the appellant that the application was not pressed by the applicants and it is not as if the Charity Commissioner had not dealt with the application in the proper perspective.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 12 submitted that the dispute did not become infructuous by passage of time as these basic issues regarding eligibility remained. Further, the materials relied upon by the High Court conclude that 38 persons were legally inducted as members cannot be faulted because of the materials considered by the High Court.