Jayakumar v. Young Mens Indian Asso

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.12.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA S.A.No.72 of 2020

1. Jayakumar

2. N.T.Arasu ... Appellants Vs.

Young Men's Indian Association (YMIA) A Society Registered under Societies Registration Act, 1960, Represented by its Secretary K.Prabhakaran Residing at No.49, Moore Street, Chennai - 1.

... Respondents Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 26.06.2019 passed in A.S. No.29 of 2019 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the decree and judgment dated 06.03.2017 passed in O.S.No.2124 of 2013, on the file of the XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. For Appellants : Mr.E.Prabu For Respondent : Mr.Vaibhav R.Venkatesh

JUDGMENT

The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2124 of 2013 before the XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. They filed the suit for declaration that the orders passed by the respondent / defendant on 14.10.2011 removing the plaintiffs from their life membership of Young Men's Indian Association (YMIA) is illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. They have also prayed for cost of the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present second appeal would also be indicated.

3. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows : 3.1. The plaintiffs are residing permanently at Chennai and they are doing social service. The defendant Young Men's Indian Association (YMIA) is a society established in the year 1914 by a group of social activists which includes the great freedom fighter, Dr.Annie

Besant. It was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The plaintiffs initially became members in the society in 1970 and 1976 respectively and subsequently, they became life members in the year 1996.

3.2. During 1996, a complex in the name and style of 'Gokhale Hall' was constructed in Armenian Street, Chennai. The rooms were rented out for the students from far away places. There was another building in the second line Beach Road, Parrys, Chennai where a newspaper 'New India' was being run by the defendant. They also acquired a property in Mylapore, Chennai. While so, one Mr.Narayanasamy enrolled around 51 persons as life members in the defendant's society to take entire control over the same. This was done in the year 1996. Mr.Narayanasamy and his men misappropriated the funds of the defendant's society and also did several malpractices. 3.3. In this connection, one Mr.Krishnamani, an associate member of the defendant's society lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, B-1 Police Station, Chennai. Since no FIR was registered, Crl.O.P.No.4453/2009 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai.

Based on which, FIR in Crime No.288/2009 was registered. However, the police did not take any action.

3.4. In the year 2008, one Mr.Venkatesan, sold to third parties a 'Hack Squat Apparatus' an important instrument available in the gym managed by the defendant without any necessity and without any permission from the governing body. The same Mr.Venkatesan sold the newspaper and magazines weighing around two tonnes and misappropriated the sale proceeds. Thereafter, a police complaint was lodged against the management of the defendant and despite several reminders, no action was taken by the police. Thus there were several instances of misappropriation in the defendant's society. 3.5. One Mr.L.Palamalai was elected as President of the defendant's society during 2006. He was not a life member of the defendant or a member of the governing body. Subsequently, during April 2010 Palamalai resigned his post and on the same day without any agenda, one Mr.Sampath was elected as the President. Similarly, B.S.Raghavan, R.Anand, Rajan Mathew, A.K.Rajan and S.Bairaj did not attend three consecutive meetings of the defendant governing body and

therefore, they were not eligible to contest the election. The bye-laws were amended in the year 1996 without any approval by the General Body Meeting. In this regard, the plaintiffs and other affected members gave a complaint to the Registrar of Societies. However, no action was forthcoming. In the circumstances, Annual General Body Meeting was held on 29.12.2009. One Mr.S.M.A.Siddique, a General Body Member resigned his post in the meeting. One Mr.V.M.Sivasubramaniam was elected as general body member in the very same meeting. 3.6. A part of the Gokhale hall was rented out to one Mr.Venkata Krishna Rao for running a hotel under the name "Palimar Hotel". Since Venkata Krishna Rao defaulted in payment of rent, eviction proceedings were initiated by the defendant against the tenant. An order of eviction was passed against the tenant in the year 2002. No effective steps were taken by the defendant to collect the rental arrears of Rs.30,00,000/- from him.

3.7.Though the defendant's society is a non profit organization, bonus for Pongal and Deepavali was given to the staff of the society. In the Gokhale hall premises, there was a hostel and mess. However, the

mess was closed and the utensils and furniture were sold. The sale proceeds were also misappropriated by some of the members. The office of the defendant society was shifted from Gokhale hall to New India building. At the time of shifting, old teakwood and rose wood furniture were clandestinely sold and the sale proceeds were misappropriated. Some of the members were also not allowed to renew the membership. 3.8. Clause 25 of the bye-laws specifically provides that at the time of enrollment, the defendant has to supply a copy of the bye-laws. The second plaintiff has been making several requests to the defendant to furnish him a copy of the bye-laws and also offered to pay the necessary charges. But all his attempts went in vain. In the circumstances, another Annual General Body Meeting was conducted on 25.09.2010 at 5.00 p.m.

Though there were 210 life members, only 34 members participated in the Annual General Body Meeting. Since necessary quorum was not present, the plaintiffs objected for conducting the meeting. Therefore, the Chairman of the Annual General Body Meeting dissolved the meeting. However, on 18.11.2010 a show cause memo was issued to the plaintiffs stating that they misbehaved in the Annual General Body Meeting.

were also suspended from their membership. Therefore, the plaintiffs by their letter dated 01.12.2010 refuted the allegations made in the memo dated 18.11.2010. On 08.03.2011, they had also demanded a copy of the complaint based upon which the order of suspension was passed. However, there was no response from the defendant in this regard. 3.9. One Mr.Paranjothi, retired District Judge, was appointed by the defendant to enquire into allegations made against the plaintiffs and other members. The Enquiry Committee vide its letter dated 23.05.2011 summoned the plaintiffs to appear before it on 06.06.2011. On receiving the said notice the plaintiffs sent a letter to the Secretary of the defendant on 24.05.2011 demanding a copy of the complaint. However, the plaintiffs were not given any copy of the complaint.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs personally appeared before the Enquiry Committee on 06.06.2011. The next date of hearing was not informed to the plaintiffs by the Enquiry Committee. On 07.06.2011, the plaintiffs had sent written letters (Ex.A7 and Ex.A8) to the Chairman of the committee demanding a copy of the complaint.

order dated 14.10.2011 (Ex.A9 and Ex.A10) was passed by the defendant, removing the plaintiffs from life membership of the defendant's society. The removal of the plaintiffs from life membership is in violation of the clause 59 of the bye-laws of the society. As per clause 11 of the bye-laws, a person cannot continue to hold his membership, if, he is in arrears of any amount to the defendant for a period exceeding 45 days and the persons who removed them were such members and therefore, the removal itself was invalid.

3.10. In the present case, the President Mr.V.R.S.Sambath, Joint Secretary Mr.G.Porchelvan, Honorary Secretary R.Ramachandran have not paid their subscription and therefore, they cannot be life member. However, all three of them were part of the Enquiry Committee of Young Men's Indian Association (YMIA) in which the decision for removal of the plaintiffs was taken. The show cause notice dated 18.11.2010 (Ex.B3) is based on a complaint given by some persons and right from the beginning the plaintiffs have been requesting for the supply of the copy of the said complaint. Since the plaintiffs were suspended without furnishing the copy of the complaint, they filed the

suit in O.S.No.14401/2010 before the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, challenging the order of suspension. Since subsequently, the plaintiffs were removed from their life membership they did not pursue the case in O.S.No.14401/2010 and therefore, the suit was dismissed for default. The plaintiffs have therefore filed the present suit for declaring that the order of removal of their life membership in the defendant's society is illegal and null and void.

4. The suit in O.S.No.2124 of 2013 was resisted by the defendant on the following grounds:

i. Since the plaintiffs have made several allegations against one Mr.Narayanasamy, the suit is bad for not making the said Mr.Narayanasamy as a party to the proceedings. ii. The plaintiffs on various occasions were suspended from their membership.

iii. The narration of the facts with regard to misappropriation of funds and malpractices in the defendant's society are unfounded. iv. The plaintiffs are also making all these allegations after a lapse of

15 years.

v. All the accounts are maintained properly by the defendant and is audited by Statutory Auditors.

vi. The amendments to bye-laws were made as early as 1996 and the plaintiffs cannot question the same at this point of time. vii.The plaintiffs have made several bald allegations against the defendant without producing the documents.

viii.The plaintiffs abused the members who were present in the Annual General Body Meeting on 25.09.2010 with unparliamentary words and stalled the proceedings. Therefore, the plaintiffs were suspended from membership, as against which the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.14401/2010 before the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. Subsequently, the plaintiffs did not pursue the matter and therefore, the same was dismissed for default.

ix. The present suit is thus barred by res judicata. The show cause notice issued to the plaintiffs is self explanatory. They did not also participate in the enquiry proceedings conducted by the retired

District Judge. Therefore, they cannot contend that the principles of natural justice have been violated. Therefore, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :

"i. Whether the order dated 14.10.2011 is legal valid and enforceable?

ii. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for ? iv. To what other reliefs ?"

6. In the trial court, the second plaintiff examined himself (P.W.1) and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A17. The Honorary Secretary of the Society was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B12 were marked.

7. The learned trial court judge after analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs vide his decree and judgment dated 06.03.2017, on the

following grounds :

i. Though the plaintiffs requested for a copy of the complaint through their letters Ex.A1 and Ex.A3, the defendant did not furnish the copy of the complaint to the plaintiffs. ii. A perusal of the report of the Enquiry Committee headed by the retired District Judge shows that no complaint was actually given against the plaintiffs.

iii. The retired District Judge had, infact, after perusing the proceedings of the Annual General Body Meeting (Ex.B1) and the copy of the proceedings of the Executive Committee meeting (Ex.B2) opined that the plaintiffs were found guilty of misbehaving in the Annual General Body Meeting. iv. The plaintiffs were not also heard before passing an order of removal of their membership and thus the principles of natural justice was violated.

8. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed by the trial court judge, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S. No.29 of 2019 before

the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, after analysing the evidence on record, reversed the findings recorded by the trial court judge vide her decree and judgment dated 26.06.2019, as against which the present second appeal is filed.

9. At the time of admission the following substantial questions of law were framed by my learned predecessor. "(a) Has not the lower Appellate Court committed jurisdictional error in not framing proper points for consideration based on the pleadings and evidences and reversed the well reasoned judgment and decree of the Trial Court without even setting aside the findings of the issues rendered by the Trial Court in total contravention of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC?

(b) Has not the first Appellate Court committed grave illegality in simply taken the defendants Exhibits without testing its evidentiary and probative value and as to whether it is proved and had satisfied the test of following the principles of natural justice and reasonableness as questioned by the

appellants in the light of the oral and documentary evidence available on records.

(c) The First Appellate Court ought to have seen that natural justice and due procedure was not followed in issuing the show cause under Ex.B3 was issued and despite letters of the appellants under Exs.A1 to A8 neither the respondent herein nor the Enquiry Committee has furnished the alleged copy of the complaint under which proceedings have been initiated against the appellants ?"

10. Heard Mr.E.Prabu, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Vaibhav R.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondent.

11. The appellants, namely Jayakumar and N.T.Arasu were life members in the Young Men's Indian Association (YMIA), the defendant/respondent herein. The appellants / plaintiffs have made several allegations of misappropriation of funds of the defendant's society by one Narayanasamy, Venkatesan, B.S.Raghavan and others. However, no evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs in this regard. It is relevant to point out that the suit is not with regard to misappropriation

of funds by some members of the defendant society.

12. An Annual General Body Meeting was conducted on 25.09.2010 and in the said meeting, it is alleged that, the present appellants and others used unparliamentary words against the staff and other life members of the defendant society and also threatened them with dire consequences. The relevant portion of the minutes of the Annual General Body Meeting (Ex.B1) recorded on 25.09.2010 is extracted hereunder:

" The president then ordered the meeting and read out the first item of the Agenda viz., passing of a annual report on the affairs and activities of the Association for the year ending 2010 (April 2009 to July 2010).

When the same was supposed to be passed S/Sri N.G.Harikrishnan, N.T.Arasu, K.Venkatesan, Ragu S, B.Narasimhulu have come to the podium one by one for expressing their views. While they were expressing their views lot of unparliamentary words and disrespectful words poured of their mouths liberally besides unwanted subjects which are

not at all relevant to the meeting.

While E.Jayakumar, S.Thirubalan shouted from their seats and on many occasion Mr.E.Jaykumar rushed from his seat to the dais where presiding officer and honorary secretary were seated shouting some thing which are absolutely not connected to the meeting.

In spite of repeated request made by the president to the above members on number of occasions to present their views in brief manner they never cared and on account of this nearly after 1 and half hour from the commencement of the meeting, none of the agenda could be completed. In addition suddenly the above mentioned members stood up and said that the required quorum of members is not there and even if the meeting held, it will be invalid. Besides the above, some act of misconduct have also taken place outside the committee hall. Mr.Jayakumar shouted at Mr. Deenadayalu saying that he will beat him if he did not give the register who at the entrance hall was seated to get the eligible member's signature in the attendance

register. Since Mr. Deenadayalu said that he will get the permission from the presiding officer whether to get signature from the eligible members who came late for the meeting, on hearing those words at once Mr.E.Jayakumar snatched the attendance register from Mr.Deenadayalu, pulling him down. This was supported by Mr.N.T.Aarasu by putting a long tick mark in the register and signing at the bottom of the register."

13. On 16.11.2010, an Executive Committee meeting was held and in the said meeting the misconduct and misbehaviour of the appellants herein and the other persons during the Annual General Body Meeting held on 25.09.2010 was discussed and the Executive Committee members decided to suspend eight members including the present appellants. The relevant portion of the Executive Committee meeting is extracted hereunder :

"5) Any other item with the Action to be taken against members who permission of the chair have committed misconduct at the AGM held on 25.09.2010 at our Mylapore premises ................................................................... The committee discussed the matter at

length based on the report by the Presiding Officer and the Manager.

The matter was seriously viewed by the Committee and it was decided to suspend the so called persons from the membership of the Association with effect from 16.11.2010.

It was further decided that besides their suspension with effect from 16.11.2010, they are also not entitled to that any post or to be take part in any of the activities / meetings if the Association whenever is applicable to them.

The committee also decided the matter may be brought to the notice of the Governing Body.

The suspended members are as follows :

1. Mr.K.Venkatesan - Chairman, AC and a member of the both Executive Committee and Governing Body

2. Mr.N.G.Harikrishnan - a member of the Activities Committee, Governing Body and also member in charge of Boxing and Karate sections of YMIA

3. Mr.B.Narasimhulu - a member of the Activities Committee and member in charge of Library section

4. Mr.S.Thirubalan - a member of the Activities Committee and member in charge of Chess section

5. Mr.N.T.Arasu - An eligible member of the Association who has already been suspended from YMIA and case in the court is pending in this regard

6. Mr.E.Jayakumar - An eligible member of the Association

7. Mr.S.Ragu - An eligible member of the Association

8. Mr.M.Ganesan - An Associate member of the Association.

It was also decided that they may be intimated by the Honorary Secretary by a suitable letter of the committee's decision with proper procedure and may also be out on the notice board for information."

14. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 18.11.2010 (Ex.B3) was issued to the appellants herein as to why their membership should not be revoked. They were further requested to submit their

written representations. The appellants / plaintiffs received the notice and sent their reply on 30.11.2010 (Ex.A1) and 01.12.2010 (Ex.A2) stating that they have given several complaints of misappropriation of funds by some of the members to the secretary of the defendant society and that no action was taken on those complaints. However, the appellants / plaintiffs did not submit any written representation as advised in the show cause notice (Ex.B3). Subsequently, on 19.03.2011 the Executive Committee decided to constitute a special Enquiry Committee headed by Mr.Paranjothi, retired District Judge, to conduct an enquiry against the present appellants and others. The minutes of the Executive Committee meeting dated 19.03.2011 was marked as Ex.B5. Accordingly, Mr.Paranjothi, retired District Judge, conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 07.08.2011 to the defendant society. In the report, Mr.Paranjothi had observed thus :

"3. In this matter, the Enquiry Committee had adopted Independent precedure of Enquiry without getting into the past complaints preferred against these members regarding the Incidence happened on A.G.M. for avoiding unnecessary prejudice against them. Therefore as

contemplated and requested to the Enquiry Committee, it has followed its own procedure calling for statements of allegation for or against the above mentioned delinquents and staffs of YMIA and the notification also displayed in the Notice Board. Accordingly, Messrs.Ashok Kumar, Ranganathan, V.Venkatramanan, Deenadayalu, Manickam, staffs of the YMIA serving In various posts came forward and gave statements before this Committee. Further 'the Honorary Secretary, Mr.R.Ramachandran and the General Body members Prof. M.Muthuvelu and Dr.R.Rajamohan also came forward to record their statements of allegation against the above mentioned delinquents.

4. After recording those statements, the copies of the statements were duly attested by the Manager of the YMIA, Mr.M.Jayaraman and furnished to all the delinquents and it was ascertained that all the copies were received by every one of them and they were called for questioning the charges against them. Accordingly, all the 8 members appeared before this committee and denied the charges. As above mentioned, Mr.Venkatesan, Mr. Harikrishnan, Mr.Narasimhulu, Mr.Raghu and Mr.Thirubalan, the life members had participated in this enquiry."

15. Mr.E.Prabu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that appointing an independent committee for enquiring into the allegations levelled against the appellants is in violation of the clause 54 of the bye-laws of the society. It is also his submission that the order of suspension was based on the complaints given by certain members in the Annual General Body Meeting and that the said complaints were not taken up for consideration by the Enquiry Committee headed by Mr.Paranjothi, retired District Judge. On the contrary, he had conducted an independent enquiry by recording the statements of various members and staff of the society. It is his further submission that despite repeated letters sent by the appellants herein requesting the defendant society to furnish copies of the complaints to them, their requests were not acceded to. Thus, according to the learned counsel of the appellants, the defendant society had violated the principles of natural justice.

16. Per contra Mr.Vaibhav R.Venkatesh, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent would contend that the show cause notice itself is self explanatory. Though the appellants were given opportunity to file their written submissions they did not do so and therefore, they cannot now contend that the principles of natural justice has been violated. He also contended that the appellants did not present themselves before the Enquiry Committee after the first hearing when summoned and therefore, it cannot be stated that opportunity to be heard was denied.

17. It is seen from the report of the Enquiry Committee that the present appellants appeared before the Enquiry Committee and their statements were also recorded. While the other suspended members cross examined the witnesses, the present appellants did not participate in the subsequent hearings. Though it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were not intimated about the subsequent hearings, it is relevant to point out that the Enquiry Committee had specifically observed that the present appellants refused to participate even after sufficient opportunities were given to them. It is also pertinent

to point out that the Enquiry Committee was headed by a retired District Judge and there is no reason or valid ground to conclude that his observation in this regard is biased. The retired District Judge also held that the allegations against the present appellants were proved beyond reasonable doubt and based on the findings of the retired District Judge, the Executive Committee resolved to remove the present appellants and others. The minutes of the Executive Committee meeting dated 19.09.2011 is marked as Ex.B6. Subsequently, the removal of the appellants from the register of members was intimated to the appellants vide letters dated 14.10.2011 (Ex.A9 = Ex.B8). They were also directed to prefer an appeal, if any, to the governing body within 30 days from the date of receipt of the communication as per clause 57 of the bye-laws.

Accordingly, an appeal was preferred by the appellants. Thereafter, on 19.11.2011 it is alleged that the appellants herein and other members unauthorizedly entered into YMIA hall and disrupted the meeting of the governing body. This was also recorded in the minutes of the governing body meeting held on 19.11.2011 (Ex.B11). This was the second incident of unruly behaviour by the appellants.

18. The governing body, while deciding the appeal filed by the appellants herein accepted the decision taken by the Executive Committee and upheld the removal of the appellants from life membership vide proceedings dated 19.01.2012 (Ex.B9). The appellants were also informed about the decision of the governing body vide its letter dated 14.02.2012 (Ex.B10).

19. The plaintiffs had already filed a suit in O.S.No.14401/2010 before the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, challenging the order of suspension of their life membership in the Executive Committee meeting held on 16.11.2010. Subsequently, the plaintiffs did not pursue the suit and therefore, the suit was dismissed for default. The plaintiffs then filed the present suit in O.S.No.2124/2013 challenging the order of removal from life membership on 14.02.2012.

20. The main contention of the appellants is that the appellants were not given sufficient opportunity to putforth their contentions either

before the Executive Committee or before the Enquiry Committee headed by Mr.Paranjothi, retired District Judge. It is also their contention that the copies of the complaints were not furnished to them.

21. At the outset, it may observed that the first instance of misconduct of the appellants / plaintiffs was recorded in the Annual General Body Meeting held on 25.09.2010 and the plaintiffs were also issued show cause notices to submit their written representations. The appellants / plaintiffs did not submit their written representations and on the other hand, were pressing the defendant to give them copies of the complaints against them.

22. As already observed, the show cause notice itself is self explanatory and the plaintiffs without submitting their written representations cannot contend that they have not been given any opportunity of being heard. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the earlier complaints given by some of the members against the plaintiffs were not taken into consideration by the Executive

Committee but on the other hand, a retired District Judge was appointed to enquire into allegations levelled against the appellants. The retired District Judge had also recorded statements of several persons without going into the earlier complaints. The show cause notice is based on the minutes recorded in the Annual General Body Meeting held on 25.09.2010 (Ex.B1) and it is not based on any specific complaint given by any other member or staff. Mr.Paranjothi, retired District Judge had independently recorded the statements of life members and staff of the defendant society who were present in the Annual General Body Meeting on 25.09.2010 with regard to the allegations levelled against the present appellants and other life members.

The present appellants initially appeared before the Enquiry Committee headed by the retired District Judge and subsequently, refused to participate in the enquiry proceedings. This was, in fact, recorded by the retired District Judge in his report dated 07.08.2011. Instead of giving representation, the plaintiffs gave letters dated 07.06.2011 (Ex.A7 and Ex.A8) to the Enquiry Committee requesting the latter to furnish them with copies of the complaints to them.

to participate in the enquiry proceedings. The first appellate court had analysed all these aspects of the case and had come to a conclusion that there was no violation of principles of natural justice.

23. It is also relevant to point out that the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal against their removal before the governing body of the defendant's society and this fact was suppressed in the plaint. When they have filed an appeal before the governing body, they have simultaneously filed the present suit. The plaintiffs want to justify their action by making several allegations against some of the life members of the defendant's society. According to them, neither the police nor the Registrar of the society took any action on the complaints given by them. The copies of those documents were not filed before this Court and in any event it is not the subject matter in the present suit. The only aspect which has to be analysed here is whether the plaintiffs were removed from the life membership after giving sufficient opportunity. As already observed, show cause notices were issued to them and they were directed to file their written submissions within thirty days. The plaintiffs

did not file their written submissions and on the contrary they had requested the defendant society to furnish copies of the complaints. They did not also fully participate in the enquiry proceedings headed by the retired District Judge. The contention of the appellants that the Enquiry Committee did not inform them about the subsequent hearings cannot be accepted in view of the observations of the retired District Judge in his report that the appellants herein refused to participate in the enquiry proceedings. The defendant had followed proper procedure before removing the present appellants from life membership. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the first appellate court and therefore, the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellants.

24. In the result, i. the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

ii. The decree and judgment dated 26.06.2019 passed in A.S. No.29 of 2019 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, is upheld.

iii. The decree and judgment dated 06.03.2017 passed in O.S.No.2124 of 2013, on the file of the XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, is set aside.

09.12.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl To

1. The XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

R. HEMALATHA, J.

mtl 09.12.2024