K. Kannan, J. - (1.) Both the cases are connected in the sense that they are between the same parties though the reliefs claimed were distinct but in relation to the affairs of Arya Samaj, Alipur. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for a declaration that the sale made by the defendants Nos.2 to 5 in favour of the 1st defendant is void and for an injunction restraining them from in any manner interfering with the possession of the property. At the time of institution of suit, there had been merely an agreement of sale but subsequently, the sale deed had been executed on 01.12.1978. The plaintiffs had, therefore, amended the plaint to bring the subsequent event and has sought for a declaration of sale as invalid and void. The trial Court held that the property belonging to Arya Samaj, Alipur but proceeded to dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, who were admittedly not owners. The court found that they had no locus standi to institute the suit in relation to the property belonged to the society. The Appellate Court affirmed the finding that the plaintiffs did not have locus standi but held that the sale had been properly executed on appropriate resolution of the Executive Committee of the Arya Samaj. The plaintiffs were contending that defendants No.2 to 5 have been acting office-bearers of Arya Samaj, Rishi Nagar, Sonepat when the property actually belonged to the Arya Samaj, Alipur. The Appellate Court found that Arya Samaj Alipur Punarsthapit, Sonepat was really the same as Arya Samaj, Alipur and the attempt of the plaintiffs in trying to show that there were two different entities was not justified. The Court also found that the sale had been properly made and there was no scope for interference.
(2.) On the basis of pleadings, following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration in RSA No.831 of 1983:- (i) whether the sale by defendants No.2 to 5 was valid and binding on the Arya Samaj, Alipur on the ground that the defendants No.2 to 5 had the competency to represent the society and bind the society? (ii) whether the plaintiffs, who claimed to be members of the society, the locus standi to impeach the sale by the persons claiming to be the authorised persons to sell the property of the society in favour of 1st defendant?
(3.) On the first issue of whether the plaintiff could maintain the action for declaration of injunction, the answer resides in the fact that the provisions of Section 5 and 6 of the Societies Registration Act itself detail as to who could be competent to represent a society and how a suit could be filed by or against a registered society. Admittedly, the suit is filed on the basis that the property belongs to a registered society of Arya Samaj, Alipur. The plaintiffs are two of the life members and the declaration in relation to the property of the society could be done only in the manner contemplated under the provisions of the said Act. It should be first determined as to how the title to the property belonging to a registered society itself could vest. Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act reads thus:- "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 by their proper title.";