1. This appeal is filed by Noor Educational Trust (for short, ‘the Trust’) against the orders dated 15.09.2021 passed in I.A.No.332 of 2021 in O.S.No.72 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, allowing the application filed by Defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit for rejection of the plaint.

2. The appellant – Trust herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit.

3. The backdrop of the case, in brief, is as follows:

One late Mirza Ahmed Baig had established a Society under the name of “Noor Educational Society” (for short, ‘the society”) on 22.11.1986 and the said Society purchased various extents of land, totalling to Acs.22.22 guntas, in Sy.No.27/A1 under a registered sale deed dated 22.10.1998 vide Document No.4970 of 1998 of the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Shadnagar. The agricultural land was converted into non-agricultural, as per the Land Conversion Certificate dated 13.09.1999 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Farooqnagar, Shadnagar, and also established Noor College of Engineering and Technology and Noor P.G.College of Computer Sciences, to impart higher education.

4. Later, to achieve the aims and objectives of the Society in more efficient way, it was decided to dissolve the Society in a General Body Meeting held on 01.04.2002 by passing a resolution, and, after its dissolution, in its place, Mirza Ahmed Baig constituted a trust, namely, “Noor Educational Trust”, registered under Deed of Declaration dated 09.04.2002, vide Document No.34/IV/2002 of Sub-Registrar, Azampura, represented by its trustee – Mirza Mohammed Hussain Baig and M/s.ZNS Builders and Developers - second defendant was the signatory to the registered trust deed.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Deed of Declaration of Trust was registered on 09.04.2002, and thus, the acts of the first defendant to claim the existence of Society even after 01.04.2002, are false. Mr.Mirza Ahmed Baig died on 25.07.2017. Thereafter, the first defendant continued to be the trustee of the Trust, fabricated document in the form of antedated letter and finally brought into existence the void sale deed dated 06.07.2002 vide Document No.10365 of 2021 of Sub-Registrar, Farooqnagar, and therefore, the plaintiff - Trust filed O.S.No.72 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Mahabubagar, for declaring the sale deed as void, abinitio and is not binding on the Noor Educational Trust and also to restrain Defendant Nos.1 to 3 from interfering into peaceful possession of the suit schedule property of the Trust and for perpetual injunction.

6. During the pendency of the said suit, defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed I.A.No.332 of 2021 in the present suit to reject the plaint. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is contended that the plaintiff in the suit filed W.P.No.6177 of 2019 seeking directions to the registration authorities to receive the documents presented by it for sale of the Trust property, situated in Sy.No.618 total extent of land admeasuring Acs.13.18 guntas situated in Chatanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and it was allowed on 25.03.2019, and as such, the transaction occurred in the name of Defendant Nos.2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 06.07.2021, is absolutely legal. They stated that the plaintiff filed resolution of the general body meeting of the Society, in which, he signed in the capacity of its treasurer and the said resolution was filed before this Court, wherein it was stated that since the Society is running into severe losses and for the sake of survival of the Society and its objectives, the Society resolved to sell off its properties to generate funds, which indicates that the Society still exists.

7. It is further stated in the accompanying affidavit that the plaintiff also filed another W.P.No.5647 of 2019 seeking directions against the Government Officials from interfering with Society’s possession of its lands and this Court by its order dated 19.03.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 held that the respondents therein not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the subject land, even if warranted, except in accordance with the due procedure laid down by law. According to the respondents herein, this finding shows that the Society is an active existing entity and holder of title in possession.

8. The respondents stated that the plaintiff also represented and defended the Society in O.S.No.263 of 2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, which was re-numbered as O.S.No.143 of 2014 and O.S.No.28 of 2017 was also filed before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar. They filed certified copies of the Vakalat and written statement in O.S.No.263 of 2010 and chief-examination affidavit in O.S.No.143 of 2014 to show that the Society is the title holder and also possessor of the suit lands. They are bona fide and genuine purchasers of the schedule property. The sale deed was also registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Farooqnagar, without any objections. Having represented the above suits in the capacity of Treasurer of the Society, the plaintiff has now filed the present suit stating that the Society was dissolved, but he has not given any intimation of the resolution to the Registrar of Societies, Telangana, as required under Section 24 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act of 2001’).

9. The respondents strongly contend that the Society still exists in the Registrar of Societies and the said Society is also in possession of a valid certificate of registration bearing No.2826 dated 22.1.1986. Indeed, the Trust was set up separately in order to support other educational causes such as awarding of scholarships and other related activities for deserving and underprivileged students. They also relied upon Section 25 of the Act of 2001 and further stated that none of the mandatory steps required under Sections 24 and 25 of the Act of 2001 were initiated or followed by the plaintiff, and thus, it has no locus-standi to file the suit.

10. The respondents would further submit that on 05.02.2021 the Society represented by its Joint Secretary entered into a rental agreement with the Principal/Special Officer of MJPTBCW Residential School, Shadnagar, leasing out its defunct buildings, and thus, the Society was an active body organization at the time of execution of sale deed. They would also contend that the Trust Declaration Deed was executed on 09.04.2002 and as such Society was dissolved before declaration of Trust was signed on 09.04.2002 and thus, the very author of Trust was a non-existing entity as on 09.04.2002. As such the Deed of Trust is void and ab initio as per the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.

11. According to the respondents, though in the Trust Deed it was declared to be a ‘Family Trust’, the objects of the Trust indicate that it was set up for a greater public interest of education. The ownership titles of the Noor College of Engineering and Technology and Noor P.G. College of Computer Sciences are still remaining with the Society before execution of sale deed on 06.07.2021. Moreover, mere registration of the Trust Declaration Deed does not confer any right upon the Trustees and the property shall be transferred in their name. They would further state that the plaintiff is a habitual litigant and had filed an S.O.P.No.24 of 2020 by another sister society-Moghal Educational Society, but it was rejected on 17.02.2021. Basing on the complaint lodged by the plaintiff against the respondents herein, an FIR No.562 of 2021 dated 09.07.2021 was registered but the Investigating Officer filed a final report on 31.07.2021 citing the reasons for such closure as ‘false complaint’.

12. The second defendant also relied upon letter dated 03.08.2021 addressed by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records to the District Town and Country Planning Officer, R.R. District and also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in T.ARVINDANDAM V/s. T.V.SATTYAPAL AIR 1977 SC 2421 [LQ/SC/1977/296] and requested the Court below to reject the plaint.

13. After considering the rival submissions made by both the parties and on perusing the material available on record, the Court below, while allowing the application filed by the Defendant Nos.2 and 3 for rejection of the plaint, observed that the actual dispute is in respect of existence or non-existence of the Society and also transfer of its properties, as per the version of the plaintiff to the plaintiff Trust. As per Section 23 of the Act of 2001, in the event of any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the Society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26 of 1996) or may file an application in the District Court concerned.

14. The Court below relied upon a decision of this Court reported in ANDHRA EVANGELICAL LUTHERN CHURCH, GUNTUR V/s. B.SYAMSUNDAR 2003 (2) ALD 191 [LQ/TelHC/2002/1356] and observed that the suit is barred by the Act of 2001 and is not filed by authorized person. Signature on writ petitions filed subsequent to 09.04.2002 were denied and thus it is a vexatious litigation. The Court below relied upon the decision T.ARVINDAM’s case (supra) and held that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action and is barred by law and finally rejected the plaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff would contend that the Court below erroneously applied Section 23 of the Act of 2001, while acknowledging that there is a dispute between the parties with respect to the existence of the Society, since the said Act was made applicable to the State of Telangana only from 18.08.2014. It is further stated that the resolution dated 01.04.2002 unambiguously speaks of the fact that the Society is dissolved, and in its place, the Trust is created.

16. While denying the contention as regards filing of authorisation to file the suit, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per Section 13 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, a duty is cast on every trustee to defend Trust properties. The another ground urged by the appellantplaintiff is that Section 23 of the Act of 2001 does not apply to the case on hand and that the decision referred to by the Court below in ANDHRA EVANGELICAL LUTHERN CHURCH’s case (supra) cannot be made applicable, since the facts of that case and the facts of this appeal are altogether different. According to the appellant, the Court below erred in following the requirements of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; that the Court below erroneously relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.ARVINDAM’s case (supra) and rejected the plaint; and therefore, the order of rejection deserves to be set aside.

17. Basing on the above pleadings, now the point that arises for consideration in this appeal would be ‘Whether the order passed by the Court below is wrong, if so, it is liable to be set aside.’

18. Before going into the issue in detail, it is apposite to extract the ingredients of Order-7 Rule-11 CPC, as under:

‘O-VII Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint.—The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9;

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamppaper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."

19. It is settled law that while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., the Court has to examine only the averments made in the plaint and not the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement. To reject the plaint it should appear from the statement in the plaint that it is barred by law, so that frivolous litigation need not be kept pending. It should be apparent from the reading of the plaint that the suit is not maintainable. In the judgment of RAJENDRA BAJORIA V/s. HEMANT KUMAR JALAN (Civil Appeal Nos.58195822 of 2021, dated 21.09.2021), it was held by the Supreme Court as under:

“ …..power conferred on the Court to terminate a civil action is a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. are required to be strictly adhered to. However, under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., 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…..underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. It is also held that underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. It is also held that as provided under Order VII Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, the order of rejection of the plaint shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiffs from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action.”

20. O.S.No.72 of 2021 was filed by the Educational Trust, represented by Mirza Mohammed Hussain Baig for declaring that the sale deed dated 06.06.2021 is ‘void ab-initio’ and is not binding on the Trust and also for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 from interfering with the valid physical possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants opposed the suit on the ground that suit is vexatious and against law and filed by the person without authorization. In view of Section 13 and 36 of the Indian Trust Act, 1982, a duty is cast upon on every trustee to defend the trust property. As such, the question of authorization or resolution to authorize a particular trust to file the suit does not arise. The appellant further stated that Mirza Mohammed Hussain Baig/defendant No.1 is also a signatory of the registered trust deed vide document No.34/IV/2002dated 09.04.2002.

21. The Court below specifically mentioned in the order that, the main dispute is with regard to existence and non-existence of the society and also transfer of its properties. Dispute means controversy having both positive and negative aspects. It postulates assertion of the claim of one party and its denial of them by the other. As the trial Court clearly acknowledges that there is dispute regarding existence of the society, it is a triable issue to be adjudicated after adducing evidence of both the parties.

22. As per Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 in the event of any dispute arising among the committee members or the members of the society in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of Registration and Stamp Act, 1996 or may file application before the District Court concerned and the said Court shall, after necessary enquiry, pass such orders as it may deem fit. Even as per the decision reported in ANDHRA EVANGELICAL LUTHERN CHURCH’s case (supra), jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred when dispute falls under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act of 2001. Having noticed that there is a dispute on status of the society, prima facie, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 2001 are attracted straight away. The appellant filed original trust deed before the trial Court during the arguments and asserted that the Trust is in existence and the Trust is trying to protect its properties. Thus, the judgment of ANDHRA EVANGELICAL LUTHERN CHURCH stated supra is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the said case, the plaintiff was a society, but, in this case, the plaintiff is a trust.

23. The other ground on which the plaint was rejected was denying signature on the writ petition filed subsequent to 09.04.2002 (the date of trust deed) by Mirza Mohammed Hussain Baig now representing the Trust; and the earlier litigation referred in the plaint shows that it is a vexatious litigation. As per the judgment of T.ARAVINDAM V/s. T.V.SATYAPAL AIR 1977 SC 2421 [LQ/SC/1977/296] , when there is no clear title or right to sue, the Court shall exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and nip it in the bud. The trial Court held that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and is barred by law. In fact the facts of the said case are entirely different from the facts of this case. The said judgment substantiates the rejection of plaint on the ground of “clever drafting to create an illusion of creation of cause of action.”

24. The issue whether the society was dissolved by way of trust deed dated 09.04.2002 with effect from 01.04.2002 and the present suit is filed by the trustee, who is not authorized to do so, and that the question as to whether the signature was denied are the core issues relating to the question of fact, which can be decided in the suit after framing the issues and adducing evidence in that regard. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff cannot be dismissed without conducting trial. Basing on the above facts, we are of the opinion that the trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint.

25. Hence, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 15.09.2021 passed in I.A.No.332 of 2021 in O.S.No.72 of 2021 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar and the Court below is directed to restore the suit and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. No Costs.

26. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.