CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Date of Reserved 28/08/2026

Date of Pronounced 01/10/2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

CRP(MD) NOs.343 and

468 of 2026

{CNR: HCMD010133272026} Case QR

and

CMP(MD)Nos.10714, 10717, 1561 and 2092 of 2026

(1)CRP(MD)No.343 of 2026:-

Rajakumar Nadar : Petitioner/13

rd

Respondent/

7

th

Defendant

Vs.

1.S.Vaikunda Rajan : 1

st

Respondent/Petitioner/

Proposed 7

th

Plaintiff

C.Kamaraj Nadar (Died)

2.N.Selvakumar Nadar

3.S.Sundarraj @ Sundar Nadar

4.P.Rajasekar Nadar

5.K.Usha

6.E.Packiya Raj : Respondents 2 to 6/

Respondents/Plaintiffs 2 to 6

7.Anitha R.Sivanandham Nadar

8.Tirunelveli Dakshina Mara Nadar Sangam

9.District Registrar of Societies (Administration),

Tirunelveli Registration District,

Combined Registrar Registration Office,

Behind Thooyaovan School,

Sankar Colony, Palayankottai,

Tirunelveli District.

1/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

10.Joint Director of College Education,

Office of the Joint Director of College Education,

Near Rani Anna College,

Tirunelveli.

11.Tamil Nadu Government,

through its District Collector,

Tirunelveli.

12.Kalidasan Nadar : Respondents 7 to 12/

Respondents 7 to 12/

Defendants 1 to 7

13.A.Selvaraj Nadar

14.V.P.Ramanathan Nadar

15.Kamaraj Nadar

16.Kamaraj Nadar, S/o.Selvam Nadar

17.Umari Shankar Nadar

18.Vaithiyalingam Nadar

19.Kalyanasundaram Nadar

20.Sivabalan Nadar

21.Arumuganainar Nadar

22.Sivasankar Nadar : Respondents 13 to 22/

Respondents 14 to 23/

Defendants 8 to 17

23.S.Selvan Nadar

24.Nithiyapalaiya Nadar

25.Essakkimuthu @ Asokan Nadar

26.Ravinthiran Nadar : Respondents 23 to 26/

Respondents 25to 28/

Defendants 19 to 22

27.Thanithangam

28.Nainar Nadar

29.Pirmanatha Nadar

30.Ramasubbu Nadar

31.Janakar Nadar

32.Satishkumar Nadar

33.Selvaraj Nadar

34.Thangavelu Nadar

35.Palraj Nadar

36.Chellapandi Nadar

2/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

37.Radhakrishnan Nadar

38.Ramesh Nadar

39.Manikavasagam Nadar

40.Ragunathan Nadar

41.Asokan Nadar

42.Ragavan Nadar

43.Soundarraj Nadar

44.Anbulingam Nadar

45.Kaniraj Nadar : Respondents 27 to 45/

Respondents 30 to 48/

Defendants 24 to 42

PRAYER: This Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order passed in IA

No.115 of 2025 in OS No.205 of 2022, on the file of the Principal Sub

Court, Tirunelveli, dated 04/11/2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sakar

Senior Counsel

for Mr.V.S.Rishikesh

For 1

st

Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari

Senior Counsel

for Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan

Mr.L.Prabahkaran

For R2 to R5 : Mr.L.Prabhakar

For 7

th

Respondent : Mr.H.Arumugam

For 8

th

Respondent : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram

for Mr.R.T.Arivu Kumar

(2)CRP(MD)No.468 of 2026:-

1.Rajakumar Nadar

2.Kamaraj Nadar

3.Kalyanasundaram Nadar

4.Selvan Nadar

3/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

5.Piramantha Nadar

6.Thangavelu Nadar

7.Palraj Nadar

8.Regavan Nadar

9.Soundarraj Nadar

10.Kaniraj Nadar : Petitioners/Petitioners/

D7,D11,D14, D19, D26, D31

D32, D39, D40 and D42

Vs.

C.Kamaraj Nadar (Died)

1.N.Selvakumar

2.S.Sundarraj @ Sundar Nadar

3.P.Rajasekar Nadar

4.K.Usha

5.E.Packiyaraj : Respondents/Respondents/

Plaintiffs 2 to 6

PRAYER:-This Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, as against the fair and decretal order passed in

IA No.117 of 2025 in OS No.205 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub

Court, Tirunelveli, dated 07/11/2025.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Srinivasaraghavan

for Mr.V.S.Rishkesh

For R1 to R4 : Mr.V.Raghavachari

Senior Counsel

for Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan

& Mr.L.Prabhkar

For 5

th

Respondent : No appearance

4/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

COMMON ORDER

CRP(MD)No.343 of 2026 has been filed challenging the fair and

decreetal order passed in I.A.No.115 of 2025 in O.S.No.205 of 2022,

dated 04/11/2025 by the learned Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli,

whereas CRP(MD)No.468 of 2026 has been filed challenging the fair

and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.117 of 2025 in O.S.No.205 of 2022,

dated 07/11/2025 by the learned Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli.

2.I.A.No.115 of 2025 was filed by one S.Vaikunda Rajan seeking

to implead himself as a plaintiff, whereas I.A.No.117 of 2025 was filed

by defendants 7, 11, 14, 19, 26, 31, 32, 39, 40 and 42 seeking dismissal

of the suit as having become infructuous.

3.Originally, O.S No.205 of 2022 was filed by one Kamaraj Nadar

against the respondents viz., Anitha Sivanantham Nadar and Tirunelveli

Dakshina Mara Nadar Sangam, rep. by its Secretary, seeking a

declaration that the notice issued for convening the meeting on

04/05/2022 was illegal and for a consequential mandatory injunction

restraining the respondents from conducting the said meeting on

04/05/2022 or any other further meetings and to pass injunction

restraining the defendants from conducting election .

5/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

4.Subsequently, the said Kamaraj Nadar died, leaving behind his

children, who were already impleaded as parties to the suit. Thereafter,

the General Body meeting was conducted on 04/05/2022 and an election

was also conducted by the respondents. Hence, an application for

amendment was filed seeking a declaration that the General Body

meeting held on 04/05/2022 was null and void and for a permanent

injunction restraining the respondents from conducting any further

meetings.

5.It is further submitted that the election was originally conducted

on 31/08/2021 and Form-VII was submitted to the District Registrar.

However, the same was not accepted on the ground that 21 clear days

notice had not been given. Thereafter, Anitha R.Sivanandham Nadar was

requested to convene the meeting, but she did not conduct the meeting.

Consequently, the election was conducted on 04/05/2022 and Form-VII

was thereafter submitted with 21 clear days' notice. However, the District

Registrar, Tirunelveli, did not take the same on file. Subsequently, the

District Registrar admitted Form-VII, subject to the outcome of the suits

in O.S.Nos.342 of 2021 and 205 of 2022.

6/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

6.Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed W.P.(MD)No.15333 of

2022 seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records

pertaining to the proceedings in No.5187/E1/2021, dated 28/06/2022 on

the file of the second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct

the second respondent to accept Form-VII submitted by the petitioner in

respect of the General Body meeting dated 31/08/2021.

7.This Court dismissed the said writ petition, holding that no

restraint order had been passed by the Civil Court restraining the District

Registrar from taking Form-VII submitted by the fourth respondent on

file, placing reliance upon the judgments of this Court reported in 2008

(1) MLJ 1308 [R.Muralidaran Vs. District Registrar] and 2013 (2)

CTC 241 [Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi Registered Society Vs. State of Tamil

Nadu]. This Court further held that the matter warrant no interférence.

8.Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred W.A.

(MD)No.1448 of 2022 before the Division Bench of this Court. The

Division Bench of this Court granted liberty to both parties to raise all

their contentions before the Civil Court in O.S.Nos.342 of 2021 and 205

7/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

of 2022, pending before the learned Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The

Division Bench further directed the trial Court to dispose of the said suits

on merits, on or before 31/07/2023, without being influenced by any of

the observations made by the District Registrar in his order dated

28/06/2022.

9.The petitioner in CRP(MD)No.343 of 2026 further contended

that the trial had commenced and P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined. The

examination of all the parties was completed on 12/02/2025. At that

stage, P.W.2 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C.

seeking to implead himself as the 7

th

plaintiff, claiming that he is a life

member of the Society and that he had already been examined as P.W.2.

It is stated that, apprehending that the defendants might approach the

plaintiff, he sought to implead himself as a plaintiff and effectively

conduct the proceedings.

10.The contention of the revision petitioner is that already he has

been examined as P.W.2, through him documents were marked as Exs.P7

to P28. They further stated that P.W.2 had been removed from the

membership of the Society as early as on 31/12/2024 and that he had not

8/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

challenged the said removal. Therefore, he is no longer a member of the

Society and has no locus standi to seek impleadment as a plaintiff.

11.It is also contended that he did not come forward with the

application for impleadment at the initial stage and has filed the same

only at a belated stage, after the trial had substantially progressed. D.W.1

and D.W.2 have also been examined. His impleadment at this stage

would further delay the disposal of the suit. Therefore, P.W.2 is neither a

necessary nor a proper party to the suit and the application seeking his

impleadment is liable to be dismissed and prays for allowing

CRP(MD)No.343 of 2026 by setting aside the impugned order of the trial

court.

12.Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel appearing for the 7

th

respondent (Anitha R.Sivanandham Nadar) in C.R.P.(MD)No.343 of

2026 would contend that the suit was originally filed seeking an

injunction restraining the first respondent and its members from

conducting the General Body meeting. However, the meeting was

conducted and pursuant to the said General Body meeting, an election

was also conducted on 04/05/2022. Therefore, an application for

amendment was filed seeking to incorporate a prayer for declaring the

9/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

meeting conducted on 04/05/2022 by the first respondent as null and

void and for declaring the Form-VII submitted before the District

Registrar pursuant to the said meeting as null and void, besides

restraining the respondents from conducting any further election,

amending the bye-laws or conducting any further meeting or passing any

further resolution. During the pendency of the trial, the plaintiff

(Kamaraja Nadar) died and his legal heirs were impleaded as his legal

representatives. The suit was originally filed by Kamaraj Nadar, who was

not an office-bearer, but one of the members of the Society. The present

petitioner seeks to implead himself as a plaintiff on the ground that the

defendants attempted to purchase the existing plaintiff and therefore, he

is a necessary party to the suit. Even though he was a member, he was

subsequently removed pursuant to a resolution passed by the present

office-bearers namely the President and the Secretary. However, the trial

Court, without properly considering the objections, allowed the

application on the ground that he had the right to sue and that he had

vehemently deposed on behalf of the plaintiff. According to the learned

counsel, the said finding is not correct.

13.He referred to Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Societies

Registration Act, 1975 and submitted that no act or proceeding of a

10/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

registered society, committee or officer of the Society shall be deemed to

be invalid merely on the ground of any vacancy or defect in the

organisation of the society, the formation of the General Body or the

constitution of the committee; any defect or irregularity in the election or

appointment of a member of the committee or an officer of the society; or

any defect or irregularity in such act or proceeding not affecting the

merits of the case.

14.It is further submitted that an election had already been

conducted and pursuant to the resolution removing the plaintiff

S.Vaikunda Rajan from the membership of the Society, the said removal

cannot be questioned in the present proceedings. The respondents had

already filed Form-VII in respect of the newly elected members of the

Society. Initially, the said Form-VII was not accepted on the ground that

it had not been filed within the prescribed time. Subsequently, another

election was conducted and Form-VII was ultimately accepted, subject to

the result of the suits in O.S Nos.342 of 2021 and 205 of 2022. The

respondent challenged the same in W.P.(MD)No.15531 of 2022 and

W.P.No.1096 of 2022 and prays for the dismissal of the CRP(MD)No.343

of 2026.

11/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

15.In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in

Eternal Word Trust, represented by its Author R.Israel Jabaraj v.

Eternal Word Trust, a Registered Charitable Religious Trust,

reported in 2026 (3) CTC 693, wherein it has been held in paragraph 12

as follows:-

“12.The facts of the present case are almost

identical. However, the important and most relevant

distinction in my considered opinion is that the

Respondent has not challenged any of the actions taken

by the Petitioner, either removing the Respondent from

the post of Managing Trustee or removing the

Respondent even from the Primary Membership of the

Trust. In such circumstances, the Petitioner in the

present case stands on a better footing and a removal

Managing Trustee/Member, certainly does not have any

locus to intervene in an application filed by the

Petitioner Trust to sell the properties belonging to the

Trust. The petitioner is neither a proper nor necessary

party to adjudicate the issues that arise for

consideration before the Court in the Trust O.P since she

lost the locus to claim herself to be a member of the

Trust.”

12/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

16.The learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 in

CRP(MD)No.343 of 2026 submitted that after the death of Kamaraj

Nadar, Rajakumar Nadar filed I.A.No.117 of 2025 seeking dismissal of

the suit as infructuous under Section 151 of the C.P.C. It is submitted that

the respondents had earlier filed I.A.Nos.7 and 8 of 2022 in O.S.No.205

of 2022 seeking dismissal of the suit as infructuous.

17.The learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP(MD)No.468 of

2026 contended that the only issue arising in the suit is whether the

respondents were competent to convene the General Body meeting on

04/05/2022. The General Body meeting was admittedly held on

04/05/2022 and an election was also conducted on the same day,

pursuant to which new office-bearers were elected.

18.It is further submitted that as per the bye-laws of the Society,

the tenure of the elected members is three years and therefore, the tenure

of the members elected on 04/05/2022 had expired. Thereafter, another

election was conducted on 03/05/2025 and a new body was elected to

manage the affairs of the Sangam. Therefore, according to the learned

counsel, the relief sought in the suit has become infructuous.

13/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

19.It is submitted that the application was filed under Section 151

of the C.P.C., since there is no other specific provision to seek dismissal

of the suit on the ground that it has become infructuous.

20.Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Shipping Corporation of India Vs. Machado Brothers and

others, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 168, wherein it has been held in

paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 25, 28 and 29 as follows:-

“20.From the above, it is clear that if there is no specific

provision which prohibits the grant of relief sought in an

application filed under Section 151 of the Code, the courts have

all the necessary powers under Section 151 CPC to make a

suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process of court.

Therefore, the court exercising the power under Section 151 CPC

first has to consider whether exercise of such power is expressly

prohibited by any other provisions of the Code and, if there is no

such prohibition, then the Court will consider whether such

power should be exercised or not on the basis of the facts

mentioned in the application.

21.In the instant case, the appellant contends that during

the pendency of the first suit, certain subsequent events have

14/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

taken place which have made the first suit infructuous and, in

law, the said suit cannot be kept pending and continued solely for

the purpose of continuing an interim order made in the said suit.

22.While examining this question, we will have to consider

whether the court can take cognizance of a subsequent event to

decide whether the pending suit should be disposed of or kept

alive. If so, can a defendant make an application under Section

151 CPC for dismissing the pending suit on the ground that the

said suit has lost its cause of action? This Court in the case of

Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders,

(1975) 1 SCC 770, at paragraph 4, has held thus:

“We feel the submissions devoid of substance. First about

the jurisdiction and propriety vis-à-vis circumstances which

come into being subsequent to the commencement of the

proceedings. It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the

right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suito r

institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that

procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial

process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a

fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of

15/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it

cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render

inept the decretal remedy...”

25.Thus, it is clear that by the subsequent event, if the

original proceeding has become infructuous, ex debito justitiae,

it will be the duty of the court to take such action as is necessary

in the interest of justice, which includes disposing of infructuous

litigation. For the said purpose, it will be open to the parties

concerned to make an application under Section 151 of CPC to

bring to the notice of the court the facts and circumstances which

have made the pending litigation infructuous. Of course, when

such an application is made, the court will enquire into the

alleged facts and circumstances to find out whether the pending

litigation has in fact become infructuous or not.

28.Therefore, in our opinion, the courts below erred in

continuing an infructuous suit just to keep the interlocutory order

alive, which, in a manner of speaking, amounts to putting the

cart before the dead horse.

29.The next ground given by the courts below that the

dismissal of the suit would prejudice the respondent, again on the

16/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

ground of interlocutory order getting dissolved, cannot also be

sustained. If the suit in fact has become infructuous,

consequences of dismissal of such suit cannot cause any

prejudice to the plaintiff. As a matter of fact, the consequence

should be to the contrary, that is, such continuance of infructuous

suit would cause prejudice to the defendant.”

21.The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court

in Latin Catholic Fishermen's Educational Society v. Leenus (died)

and others, reported in 2024-5-L.W.122, wherein it has been held in

paragraphs 2 and 5 as follows:-

“2.The case on hand pertains to the affairs of the Latin

Catholic Fishermen Educational Society. It is a society registered

under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. One

Leenus and A.Xavier filed O.S.No.183 of 2011 on the file of the

Principal District Munsif Court, Eraniel, seeking declaration that

the election of the office-bearers of the society in the General

Body meeting held on 17.09.2021 is null and void. Permanent

injunction was sought against the official defendants from

ratifying the said meeting. Interestingly, some unusual features

17/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

are evident on the very face of it. Both the plaintiffs, namely,

Leenus and Xavier, were admittedly not members of the society.

The persons shown as defendants were not the ones who were

elected in the General Body meeting held on 17.09.2011. Neither

Rev.Fr.Joseph Justus nor Rev.Fr.M.Stephen were competent to

represent the society from the year 2011 onwards. They were

erstwhile office-bearers. It is well settled that the tenure of any

elected committee is three years as per Section 15 of the Tamil

Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The suit ought to have

been dismissed as infructuous by the year 2014 if it did not

warrant dismissal earlier on the ground of locus standi.

5.Looked at from any angle, the procedure adopted by the

court below appears to be grossly in breach of the statutory

provision. Though the revision petitioner herein was shown as

defendant in the suit, it was represented by a person who was not

competent to represent. The suit had been disposed of on the

basis of a conciliation report. The petitioner could not have

availed remedy under Section 96 of C.P.C. In this background,

invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is very much in order. The object of

conferring supervisory jurisdiction on the High Court is to

18/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

ensure that the courts below act within their bounds. In this case,

I clearly find that the court below had acted in breach of the

statutory procedure and had not even taken note of the fact that

the first plaintiff had passed away. If the matter was proposed to

be disposed of on the basis of compromise, the plaintiffs ought to

have been directed to appear in person. The suit itself deserved

burial as infructuous.”

22.The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Bajoria and others v. Hemant

Kumar Jalan and others, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 641, wherein it

has been held in paragraphs 17, 18 and 20 as follows:-

“17.It could thus be seen that the court has to find out as to

whether, in the background of the facts, the relief, as claimed in

the plaint, can be granted to the plaintiff. It has been held that if

the court finds that none of the reliefs sought in the plaint can be

granted to the plaintiff under the law, the question then arises as

to whether such a suit is to be allowed to continue and go for

trial. This Court answered the said question by holding that such

a suit should be thrown out at the threshold.

19/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

18.Therefore, the question that will have to be considered

is as to whether the reliefs as claimed in the plaint by the

plaintiffs could be granted or not. We do not propose to do that

exercise, inasmuch as the Division Bench of the High Court has

elaborately considered the issue as to whether, applying the

provisions of the said Act read with the aforesaid clauses in the

Partnership Deed, the reliefs, as claimed in the plaint, could be

granted or not.

20.It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the

power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is a

drastic one, and the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule

11 of CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. However, under

Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the duty is cast upon the court to

determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, by

scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with

the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any

law.”

23.In M.Biswas Vs. N.K.Bhattacharjee and others, reported in

2002(4) SCC 68, it has been held in para 10 as follows:-

20/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

“10.From the narration of facts and the contentions

raised on behalf of the parties, it is clear that the dispute raised

in the case has lost its relevance due to passage of time and

subsequent events which have taken place during the pendency

of the litigation. As noted earlier, the dispute in the case relates

to election of office bearers of the South Eastern Railway Mens'

Union. The dispute arose at a point of time when both the

appellant and the respondent No. 1 were members of the said

Union. Now both have ceased to be members of the Union.

Further, successive elections have been held to elect office

bearers and the office bearers so elected have been recognized

by the management. In the circumstances, continuing this

litigation will be like flogging the dead horse. Such litigation,

irrespective of the result, will neither benefit the parties in the

litigation nor will serve the interest of the Union. Accepting the

contentions raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the

successive elections held in the meantime were invalid because

he was not permitted to participate in it and to quash all such

elections and direct holding of fresh elections under the

supervision of the Court, will be contrary to democratic

functioning of the employees Union. Furthermore, Courts in the

present situation of exploding dockets can ill afford to stand time

in such an exercise.”

24.In The Music Academy rep, by its Executive Trustee Vs.

Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and others, reported in

2005(4) LW 67(DB), it has been held in paragraphs 35 to 37 as follows:-

21/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

“35.Contentions have been raised in the writ

petitions filed by R. Parthasarathy and N. Kuppuswami

Chetti that election on 24.6.2001 having been held on the

basis of the amended bye-laws of 1989 and the names of the

office bearers having not been communicated to the

Registrar within three months as required, it should be held

that there was no Executive Committee. As already held,

the provision in 1989 bye-laws could not have been

followed for holding the election and on that basis,

nomination of some of the candidates should not have been

rejected. However, illegal or erroneous rejection of

nomination of some of the candidates would not make the

entire election ipso facto void and the person, whose

nomination had been illegally or erroneously rejected,

could have challenged the election in a manner known to

law. In the absence of any challenge, it must be taken that

the persons elected were duly elected as there is no scope

for challenging such election in a collateral proceeding.

Moreover, in view of the provisions contained in Section

55 of the Act to the effect that no act or proceeding of the society

or any committee shall be deemed to be invalid merely on the

ground of any defect in the organisation of the society or the

formation of the general body or the constitution of the

committee and on the ground of any defect or Page 1333

irregularity in the election or appointment of a member of the

committee, notwithstanding some defects in the election of some

of the members, it must be held that the Executive Committee

had been validly elected and the act or proceedings of the

22/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

Society or the Committee cannot be impugned.

36.The contention to the effect that the Trustees could not

have been given a superior role vis-a-vis the members of the

Managing Committee even though acceptable, does not have

any practical effect in nullifying any of the action taken by the

Trustees which must be deemed to have been ratified by the

Managing Committee. The action taken by the Trustees /

Managing Committee can be taken to be valid in view of the

provisions contained in Section 55 of the Act.

37.A contention has been raised that the Committee if at

all taken to be constituted properly had tenure for 3 years and,

therefore, it had no right to continue the office beyond 3 years in

view of the specific provision contained in Section 15(4) of the

Act that the term of office of the members of the committee shall

not exceed three years from the date of their appointment.

However, it is apparent that when the Committee initiated steps

for holding the Annual General Body Meeting, a writ petition

had been filed on the ground that the very election of the

Committee itself was illegal and, therefore, no action can be

taken by such Committee and a restraint order had been passed.

Subsequently, by virtue of the interim orders passed by the

Court, such Committee was allowed to take certain decisions.

Reference has been made by Mr. K. Chandru, learned Senior

Counsel, regarding selection of an artist for award. It has been

submitted by him that even though the Court made it clear that

the Committee should carry on day-to-day affairs and no policy

decision should be taken, such a decision was taken by the

Committee. Similarly, reference was made regarding the

decision taken to hold musical function on 26.12.2005 in aid of

Tsunami victims. As already indicated at the threshold, the

23/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

Music Academy has a fair name not only within Tamil Nadu but

in other parts of the country. Internal differences should not

diminish the lustre of the Music Academy within and outside

Tamil Nadu. In view of the order passed by the Court, possibly it

would have been more prudent on the part of the existing

Committee not to take any such decisions. However, since such

decisions have already been taken and must have been

communicated to the persons concerned, we hope no further

ruckus would be raised on this aspect. However, if any such

question persists, it would be always open to the newly elected

Committee to consider such matter. It is needless to point out

that the newly elected Committee Members would take into

account all the relevant facts and circumstances, including the

question of fair name of the Music Academy while taking any

decision on any of the matter inter-connected with any decision

already taken by the existing Committee.”

25.In I.Nelson and another Vs., Kallayam Pastorate and others,

reported in (2006)11 SCC 624, it has been held in paragraphs 14 to 17 as

follows:-

“14.It is true that elections were being held under the

supervision of an Advocate Commissioner for sometime past. We will

also assume that there had been some mismanagement of the Church

of the properties on the part of the elected representatives. We may

also proceed on a further assumption that the provisions of the 1975

Act had also not been complied with. The question, however, remains

that as the appellants before us were not parties in the High Court,

the impugned order is whether sustainable in law. The High Court

proceeded to set aside all the elections in their entirety on the premise

24/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

that the society has become a defunct one.

15.While passing the impugned orders, the High Court did not

notice the relevant provisions of the 1975 Act. The councilors

representing the parties, for one reason or the other, did not also

bring to the notice of the High Court the effect of the provisions of the

1975 Act, vis-`-vis, the 1860 Act. The society, presumably keeping in

view the nature of its activities, was required to be compulsorily

registered. It is, however, not in dispute that it was so registered

under the Central Act of 1860. Once it is held that the society was

registered under the 1860 Act; in terms of Section 53 of the 1975 Act

it shall be deemed to be registered thereunder. The effect of a legal

fiction is well- known. Legal fiction created, it is trite, must be given

full effect.

16.....

17.We fail to understand as to why the Inspector General of

Registration, who was impleaded as a party in the suit, also did not

bring the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act to the notice of

the High Court. The statutory authority, while allowing the impugned

order to be passed by the High Court, abdicated itself of its statutory

functions. The society might not be, in fact, registered as such under

the 1975 Act, but, as it was registered under the 1860 Act, we have no

other option but to hold that it was deemed to be registered also

under the 1975 Act. Having regard to the provisions contained in

Section 53 thereof, once the society became a society registered under

the 1975 Act, all the consequences arising thereunder shall ensue. It

was, therefore, for the statutory authorities to take recourse to such

actions as are provided for in the 1975 Act or the Rules framed

thereunder. In the event, the society became defunct or other statutory

requirements were not complied with by the members of the society,

penal measures could have been taken but in no situation the election

25/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

of the office bearers could have been set aside. Right to contest an

election of an office-bearer of the society is a statutory right of the

member thereof. Such a right also exists under the bye-laws of the

society. It is not the case of the respondents that the bye- laws of the

society are invalid in law. Once a valid election was held, the High

Court, in our opinion, could not have directed setting aside of an

election only on the purported ground that it became defunct. An

almost similar question came up before this Court in Board of

Control for Cricket in India & Anr. vs. Netaji Cricket Club &

Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC 741], wherein this Court, despite its jurisdiction

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, did not venture to

consider the validity or otherwise of the election of the office-bearers

of BCCI as they had not been impleaded as parties therein, stating :

"On 11-10-2004, we had, after hearing the counsel

for the parties, observed that if a situation arises this Court

would go into the validity of the election of the office-

bearers of the Board held in the meeting dated 29- 9-2004,

but, as indicated hereinbefore, we did so under a mistaken

belief that the Board would be represented by the new

office-bearers and, thus, all parties would be before us.

However, it now stands admitted that the office-bearers

either in their personal capacity or official capacity are not

before us. They may have notice of the pendency of this

proceeding. They may be sitting on the fence and watching

the proceedings of this Court. But, unless they are made

parties in these proceedings, we would not be in a position

to entertain the dispute as regards validity of the meeting of

29-9-2004 resulting in the election of the office-bearers.

Giving an opportunity of hearing to the elected members in

26/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

a dispute of this nature is imperative and not a matter of

mere procedure, formality or technicality. The election

dispute, therefore, must be adjudicated upon by a proper

forum."

26.In Samson Premdoss Vs. Besant Nagar Club and others,

reported in 2025(6) CTC 21, it has been held in paragraph 17 as

follows:-

“17.The question with regard to the right of the Society

to pass orders, in view of the fact that the Society has been

defunct, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.Nelson's case, has held

that when a Society has been declared as defunct because of

statutory provisions under the Tamil Nadu Societies

Registration Act, 1975, it would entail penal measures to be

taken and in no situation, the election of office-bearers can be

set aside on that ground. Further, it is also brought to my notice

that steps have been taken to regularize the registration of the

Society. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, I do not find any reason to compel myself to

accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the actions taken by the Club are illegal in view of the

society being declared defunct.”

27.The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that none of the prayers

survives and that the suit has consequently become infructuous and is liable

to be dismissed as such.

27/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

28.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in

CRP(MD)No.468 of 2026 contended that the petitioner had suppressed

the fact that similar applications had already been filed by some other

persons seeking the very same relief of dismissal of the suit as

infructuous and that the present I.A.No.117 of 2025 had been filed

seeking the same relief.

29.It is submitted that the trial Court dismissed the application on

the ground that though the tenure of the elected office-bearers had come

to an end, the election conducted on 04/05/2022 itself is under challenge.

Therefore, the parties have to proceed with the trial in respect of the

amended plaint and the application seeking dismissal of the suit as

infructuous has no merit.

30.The learned counsel further submitted that another attempt has

been made by defendants 7, 11, 14, 19, 26, 31, 32, 39, 40 and 42 by filing

the revision petition viz., CRP(MD)No.468 of 2026. According to the

learned counsel, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner arise out of

proceedings under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, whereas the main prayer in

28/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

the present suit is to challenge the General Body meeting held on

04/05/2022 and the election conducted pursuant to the said meeting.

Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the prayer has become infructuous.

31.It is further submitted that the petitioners have been filing

several applications and despite the earlier order passed by this Court

directing expeditious disposal of the suit within a time frame, nearly 99

applications have been filed, thereby delaying the proceedings. Hence,

according to the learned counsel, there is no merit in the revision petition

and the same is liable to be dismissed.

32.So far as C.R.P.(MD)No.343 of 2026 is concerned, the

contention of the respondents is that the petitioner, who sought to be

impleaded as a plaintiff, had already been examined as P.W.2 and through

him, Exs.P.17 to P.28 were marked. Therefore, according to the

respondents, in order to drag on the proceedings, he had filed the present

application.

33.It is further submitted that the petitioner had been removed

from life membership of the Society and that the said fact had also been

published in the newspaper. He has not challenged the said removal.

Therefore, according to the respondents, he has no locus standi to seek

29/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

impleadment.

34.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

35.The suit was originally filed by Kamaraj Nadar, son of Rajendra

Nadar, challenging the meeting proposed to be held on 04/05/2022. The

notice issued convening the meeting on 04/05/2022 was challenged and a

prayer was also made restraining the respondents from conducting the

said meeting. However, the meeting was conducted and an election was

also held. Form-VII was thereafter submitted before the District

Registrar, which was initially rejected. Subsequently, another Form-VII

was submitted and was admitted subject to the outcome of the suit. The

same was challenged in a Writ, but the Writ Petition was dismissed,

against which, Writ Appeal filed which was dismissed, but liberty given

to put forth their individual grievances before the pending suit. The Writ

Appeal direction was issued to speedy trial. The trial also commenced.

Since the defendants already conducted general body meeting an

application for amendment was filed by the plaintiffs seeking a

declaration that the General Body meeting held on 04/05/2022 was null

and void and that the election conducted pursuant thereto was also null

and void and the same was allowed.

30/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

36.During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff, Kamaraj

Nadar, died on 20/09/2023. His wife, namely Usha, filed an application

seeking to implead herself as the 5

th

plaintiff. Similarly, certain members

filed I.A.Nos.2 to 4 of 2024 and all the applications were allowed by the

trial Court by order, dated 07/12/2023. Against the said order, the

defendants filed C.R.P Nos.331 to 333 of 2024 and C.R.P Nos.719 to 731

of 2024. This Court, dismissed that civil revision petitions, by order

dated 27/03/2024, held in paragraphs 28 to 30 as follows:-

“28.The prayer sought for by the deceased Kamaraj Nadar

is that the Special General Body meeting and the election held on

04.05.2022 are null and void.

29.As mentioned, I find that it is nothing but a common

cause, which is available to all the members to challenge the

same, if they are aggrieved.

30.No doubt that no proper application was filed, either by

K.Usha or any other persons under Order I Rule 8 CPC seeking

permission of this Court to represent the aggrieved persons of the

Sangam to continue the suit or to defend the suit, as the case may

be. That will not affect the right of Usha to continue the suit.

When K.Usha wanted to continue the suit for the benefit of the

aggrieved persons or members of the Sangam, I am of the

considered view that in this case, it is not the personal cause of

K.Usha. Therefore, the petitioner's stand is not correct.”

31/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

37.Further, the present applications have been filed by a member

of the society in respect of a common cause of members of the Society

and several documents have also been filed. In such circumstances, this

Court is of the view that the 1

st

respondent (S.Vaikunda Rajan) has not

sought to assert any independent right of his own. It is true that the

amendment sought belatedly, but the 1

st

respondent (S.Vaikunda Rajan)

explained the circumstances, he is not a third party, a member of the

society, already examined as witnesses relied numerous documents to

support the cause of society. Further, the original plaintiff, who filed the

suit died and no serious prejudice would be caused if he is impleaded as

one of the party. The 1

st

respondent in CRP(MD)No.343 of 2026 states

that he was removed from the society, but the election of defendants is

now under challenge and therefore, the contention of 1

st

respondent that

merely because he was removed from the life membership of the

Sangam, he has no locus to participate in the proceedings is

unsustainable. His removal is lawful or not, would be decided after

conclusion of trial.

38.Therefore, the trial Court has properly considered the issue and

allowed the application. This Court finds no infirmity in the order passed

32/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

by the trial Court. Accordingly, C.R.P.(MD)No.343 of 2026 is

dismissed.

39.So far as C.R.P(MD)No.468 of 2026 is concerned, the

contention of the petitioners is that the prayer sought for by the plaintiffs

has already become infructuous.

40.According to the petitioners, the respondents had challenged

the notice convening the meeting on 04/05/2022, as well as the election

conducted pursuant thereto. Since both the meeting and the election have

already taken place, it is contended that the suit has become infructuous.

41.This Court unable to accept the said contention. Once the

notice convening the meeting and the subsequently election were

specifically challenged, the fact that the meeting and the election

thereafter conducted would not by itself rendered the suit infructuous.

More particularly if the election was conducted independently and not in

accordance with the order of the court, the subsequent occurrence of the

election cannot defeat the substantive challenge raised by the petitioners.

The validity and legality of such election would still remain subject to

adjudication in the proceedings. Hence, it cannot be said that the suit has

33/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

become infructuous merely because the meeting and the election have

already been conducted.

42.Therefore, this Court cannot, at this stage, come to the

conclusion that the suit has become infructuous. The judgments relied

upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are

distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the present case. The

question raised in the suit is still under adjudication. Therefore,

CRP(MD)No.468 of 2026 also fails and the same is dismissed.

43.It is noted that the petitioners have filed as many as 99

petitions, which has resulted in the trial not being concluded within the

time stipulated by this Court in the order passed in W.A.(MD)No.1448 of

2022. In the circumstances, the trial court is hereby directed to strictly

comply with the directions issued by the court and to proceed with the

matter without granting unnecessary adjournment. The plaintiffs are

permitted to carry out the amendment sought for. The plaintiffs shall

carry out the amendment and file amended plaint within 14 days from the

date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the defendants shall be

afforded an opportunity to file their reply statement/additional written

statement as the case may be. If necessary, the trial court shall frame

additional issues arising out of the amendment. The entire proceedings,

34/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

including the filing of the reply statement and framing of additional

issues shall be completed within one month from the date of receipt of

copy of order. Thereafter, the trial court shall take up the main suit on a

day-to-day basis and shall conclude the trial and dispose of the suit

within three months thereafter, without granting any unnecessary

adjournment.

44.It is made clear that if either party resorts to filing unnecessary

or frivolous petitions in order to drag on the proceedings, the trial court

shall be at liberty to impose appropriate costs and proceed with the

matter in accordance with law.

45.In the both civil revision petitions are dismissed with the

above directions. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous

Petitions are closed.

01.10.2026

Index :Yes / No

Internet:Yes / No

er

35/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

To,

1.The Principal Sub Court,

Tirunelveli.

2.The Section Officer,

VR/ER Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

36/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

R.POORNIMA, J.

er

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

01/10/2026

37/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)Nos.343 and 468 of 2026

.

38/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis