B.P. Singh, J.
1. The appellants and respondents-3 to 6 were the defendants in a suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the Court of Principal Munsiff, Gulbarga, being O.S. No. 292/1971. That suit was partly decreed by the learned Munsiff. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal, which carne to be disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Gulbarga, by his Judgment and decree dated 31st July 1979 in R.A. No. 46/1979. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal but dismissed the cross-objections filed by some of the defendants. Some of the defendants have therefore preferred this Second Appeal.
2. The facts of this case, so far as they are necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be noticed: The plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of a Math popularly known as 'Shri Mallikarjun Math' situate at Asafgunj in the District of Gulbarga. They claimed that the land and other buildings where the Math is situate was granted by the then Government of Hyderabad to the father of the plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiffs being a religious minded person installed a deity known as 'Mallikarjun' by the side of the Samadhi of his Guru for the purpose of his own puja and worship. He used to arrange Bhajan, Keertan, procession of palanquin of the deity on annual festival days like Maha Shivaratri day and Shravan Mondays. On such occasions, members of the Lingayat community of Asafgunj attended those functions. In due course of time, the place came to be known as Shri Mallikarjun Math. After the death of their father, the plaintiffs continued the performance of pooja, keertan, bhajan, etc., and allowed the members of the Lingayat community to take part in the functions as before. However, some members of the community with ulterior designs and taking advantage of concession given by the plaintiffs to the members of their community, began to interfere in the regular pooja and worship of the deity. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs prevented them from going to the Math and interfering with the management of the Math. Defendant No. 9 and some other persons filed a representative suit being O.S.37/1/1951-52 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gulbarga against the plaintiffs and three others for a declaration that the said Math belonged to the Lingayat community of Asafgunj area and that they were entitled to have access to the deity and perform pooja, bhajan, keertan, etc., and for a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering in the exercise of their said rights. It was claimed by them in that suit that the Math was an old Math of Lingayat community and had been constructed with the help of public contributions and was being looked after and managed with the funds collected by the community. It was alleged in that suit that the plaintiffs were only entrusted with the work of pooja path etc., and had no personal interest or any right, title or interest in the properties of the said Math. That suit was contested, and by Judgment and decree dated 6-11-1951 the suit was partly decreed inasmuch as the plaintiffs were found entitled to have access to the said Math for the purpose of pooja, Bhajan, procession, etc., conducted by the plaintiffs on annual festival days. The Court, however, held that the Math was the private property of the plaintiffs and to that extent the suit was not decreed. An appeal preferred by the plaintiffs of that suit was dismissed by the District Judge, Gulbarga, on 7-1-1953 and a Second Appeal to the High Court also came to be dismissed on 4-6-1959.
The further case of the plaintiffs is that defendant Nos. 1 to 15 have formed an Association in the name of the plaintiffs' Math naming it as 'Shri Mallikarjun Math Ranch Mandali', Asafgunj, Gulbarga. The Association was founded on 4-7-1971 and its Rules and Regulations were also framed. The Association was registered on 4-8-1971 in the office of the Registrar of Societies at Bangalore. Defendants-1 to 5 were the self-elected office bearers of the Association. The plaintiffs alleged that the formation of the Association in the name of the plaintiffs Math was itself illegal, in particular Clauses (e) and (f) of the Memorandum of Association providing for construction and repair of the existing Shri Mallikarjun Math and for arranging of daily performance of the pooja at the Math and celebration of Utsavas was clearly illegal. The defendants had no right, title or interest of any kind whatsoever to hold functions in the plaintiffs' Math. The Association had been formed only with the malafide intention of making another attempt to lay claim over the plaintiffs Math and its properties. Since the formation of the Association with such objects cast a cloud on the title of the plaintiffs they were compelled to file the instant suit. The plaintiffs claimed a declaration that the formation of the Association by the defendants in the name of the plaintiffs' Math and the Rules and Regulations framed and their registration were illegal and unauthorised so far as they related to the plaintiffs' Math and their right of daily worship Bhajan, Keertan, etc., conducted by them on annual festival days. The plaintiffs prayed for an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their Association and or its subscribers and any other person claiming through them or the Association from doing any acts referred to in para-4(e) and (f) of the Memorandum of Association.
3. Defendants-1 to 8, 10 to 12, 14 and 15 contested the suit. They contended that the Math known as 'Mallikarjun Math' was a religious foundation pertaining to the Lingayat community and it was not known as to who was its founder. The defendants and other followers of this Math were arranging Bhajan, Keertan and procession of Palanquin of the deity on Maha Shivratri day and on each Monday in the month of Shravan. The Math was not the property of any individual and the plaintiffs could not claim to be the owners of the Math. According to the plaintiffs, the Math and the buildings were expanded by reconstruction and renovation from time to time with the public funds. The status of the plaintiffs was analogous to that of Mahants entrusted with day to day management of the Math. The defendants further denied that the earlier suit was a representative suit and contended that they were not bound by any adverse decision passed in the former suit. In any event, the earlier suit was partly decreed, as a result of which the plaintiffs were permanently restrained from interfering with pooja, bhajan, keertan, etc., by the defendants in the said Math, The locus standi of the plaintiffs to question the formation of the Association was challenged. The defendants claimed right to form any Association and even if it was found that the plaintiffs alone had the right to perform pooja, bhajan, keertan etc., the formation of the Association did not affect their rights.
4. The learned Munsiff, Gulbarga, partly decreed the suit. He decreed the suit to the extent that he declared that the formation of the Association by the defendants in the name of the plaintiffs' Math with the object shown in paragraph 4(e) of the Memorandum of Association was null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs were at liberty to get it struck out from the Memorandum of Association by producing a copy of the decree before the Registrar of Societies. He however held that so far as Clause (f) was concerned, the defendants were within their rights and the plaintiffs could not seek a declaration that Clause (f) was null and void.
The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against that part of the decree, whereby Clause (f) was held not to be illegal. The contesting defendants preferred cross-objections challenging that part of the decree whereby the plaintiffs suit had been partly decreed and prayed for the dismissal of the suit in its entirety. The learned Additional District Judge, Gulbarga, allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs and dismissed the cross-objections of the contesting defendants holding that even Clause (f) of the Memorandum of Association was illegal since it was clearly in contravention of the right of the plaintiffs, who alone had the right to perform pooja and other functions in the said Math. As a result, the suit was decreed in its entirety.
5. This appeal has been preferred by the contesting defendants. Three submissions have been urged before me. It was firstly submitted that the learned Additional District Judge erred in law in holding that the earlier suit filed in the year 1951 was a representative suit so that the decree in that suit binds the contesting defendants. Secondly, it was contended that in any event the Court-below has erred in law in declaring Clause 4(e) and (f) of the Memorandum of Association as illegal. Lastly, it was contended that the Court-below has erred in law in holding that the decree passed in the earlier suit recognised the right of the plaintiffs to arrange and perform pooja festivals etc., and that the contesting defendants and members of the Lingayat community had only a right to participate in such pooja and festivals.
6. So far as the first submission is concerned, the learned Additional District Judge has found that D.W.1 admitted that earlier defendant No. 9 and other members of the Lingayat community had filed a suit against the plaintiffs claiming the suit property as public property, and that it was a representative suit and he was a witness in that suit. D.W.2 also admitted that the aforesaid Math was the private property of the plaintiffs. Further, the Judgment of this Court in R.S.A. 123/1956 Ex. P-1 mentions that the plaintiffs sued as representatives of the Lingayat community. The Court-below also considered the Judgment of the trial Court in that suit and came to the conclusion that the earlier suit was a representative suit. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not persuade me to hold that the finding recorded by the Court-below is erroneous particularly when the Judgment of this Court itself mentioned that the suit was a representative one. In my view therefore the Court-below correctly held that the earlier suit was a representative suit and in that suit it was held that the suit Math was the property of the plaintiffs and was not public property. The finding in the earlier suit is therefore binding upon the contesting defendants and they cannot be permitted to agitate the same question again. The learned Additional District Judge also considered the evidence on record and on the basis of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the Math property was the property of the plaintiffs and defendants could claim no rights to interfere with the management of the Math property by the plaintiffs. The first submission urged on behalf of the appellants must therefore be rejected.
7. The second submission urged on behalf of the appellants is that even if the Math belonged to the plaintiffs, the formation of the Association was not illegal. I may at this stage notice that the trial Court did not hold that the Association itself was an illegal body. But it only held that so far as the Clause 4(e) of the Memorandum of Association Was concerned, that was illegal and the plaintiffs could get the same struck out by making an application before the Registrar of Societies. The learned Additional District Judge in appeal has affirmed the finding of the trial Court in relation to Clause (e) and has further held that even Clause 4(f) of the Memorandum of Association was illegal since it was in contravention of the plaintiffs right and interest in the suit Math properties and in the performance of pooja and other functions in the suit Math by them. It has decreed the plaintiffs suit in its entirety, which has given rise to an apprehension in the mind of the appellants that the Association itself has been declared to be an unlawful Association. Clause 4(e) and (f) of the Memorandum of Association is as follows:
'(e) Construction and repairing of the existing 'Shri Mallikarjun Math' and other buildings forming part of the property of the said Math Punch Mandali.
(f) Making arrangement for the daily performance of pooja 'Shri Mallikarjun Math' and to provide for sevas celebrated in connection with the said Math.'
The case of the plaintiffs is that Shri Mallikarjun Math being the private property of the plaintiffs, the defendants or their Association can have no right either to construct or repair the Math or other buildings forming part of the property. Nor can the Association make arrangements for daily performance of pooja and provide for sevas celebrated in connection with the said Math. Their submission is that the Math being private property, the right of management vests in the plaintiffs and no one else can be permitted to do such things as are envisaged in Clause 4(e) and (f) of the Memorandum of Association in relation to the Math. While it is true that if it is held that the Math is private property of the plaintiffs, neither the defendants nor their Association can undertake the construction and repair of the Math nor can they undertake the responsibility of making arrangements for the performance of pooja etc., in the said Math. These rights exclusively belong to the plaintiffs. The question still remains whether Clause 4(e) and (f) of the Memorandum of Association are illegal and void. In my view, the question of declaring them as illegal or void does not arise in the instant case. In their written statement as well the defendants have stated that the mere formation of Association does not affect the rights of the plaintiffs. In my view, the submission urged on behalf of the appellants has force. While it is true that an Association which has as its object any illegal act or any act which is contrary to public policy, such an Association may be declared to be illegal. The mere fact, however, that in the Memorandum of Association, one of the objects is to construct and repair the Math or to make arrangements for the daily performance of pooja, etc., in the Math does not make the Association an illegal Association nor does it render the aforesaid clauses in the Memorandum of Association illegal and void. A Memorandum of Association defines the scope of activity of an Association, Society or Company. The Memorandum states the objects which the Society is to pursue. If a particular activity undertaken by the Society does not come within the scope of the Memorandum of Association, that activity may be challenged as being unauthorised. It is therefore necessary that the objects should be clearly defined in the Memorandum of Association so that the Society can do what is within or is incidental to the objects stated in its Memorandum. The Memorandum only authorises the Society to pursue a particular object and to do all that is necessary to achieve that object or something which is incidental to that object. This does not mean that other requirements of law, if any, can be disregarded by the society in achieving the objects mentioned in the Memorandum of Association, Legal requirements if any, must be complied with before the activity is undertaken. To illustrate, if a Society has as its objectives the setting up of factories to provide employment to a particular section of Society, it may in pursuit of its objectives take all necessary steps to set up factories. In doing so, if there are legal requirements such as, permission of a prescribed authority or taking out of licence for setting up a factory and commencing business therein, those requirements have to be fulfilled and it will not be enough to say that the Society is authorised by its Memorandum to carry on those activities. In a nut-shelf, though a Society may pursue the objects stated in the Memorandum of Association, it has to do so only in accordance with law and legal requirements if any, must be fulfilled before the activity is undertaken. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the objectives in Clause 4(e) and (f) of the Memorandum are illegal or opposed to public policy. The next question that arises is whether the Association without anything else can proceed to act in pursuance of those objectives. In my view, in view of the fact that the Math has been held to be private property, those objects cannot be pursued by the Society unless those who are the owners of the Math permit the Society to do so. That is because, the Association or the appellants herein have no right to interfere in the management of private property of the respondents unless the respondents agree to accept their help or permit them to carry on those activities in relation to the Math which is their private property. I therefore, hold that the objectives of Clause 4(e) and (f) of the Memorandum are not by themselves illegal or opposed to public policy, but those objectives can be pursued by the appellants or the Society only if the respondents, who are the owners of the Math permit them to do so. In the absence of Clause 4(e) and (f) in the Memorandum of Association, the Association could not pursue those objects even if the respondents have no objection to their doing so. I therefore 'hold that Clause 4(e) and (f) of the Memorandum of Association cannot be declared to be illegal and void, but the appellants or the Society have no legal right to pursue those objectives except with the permission or consent of the respondents.
8. This brings me to the last question as to whether the lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the appellants have no right to make arrangements for the daily performance of pooja and to provide for sevas celebrated in connection with the said Math. The learned Munsiff was of the view that in view of the earlier Judgment and decree, the appellants had such right. The learned Additional District Judge however has held to the contrary. At this stage it may be useful to refer to the decree passed in the earlier suit, a translated copy of which is on record. The decree was passed in the following terms:
'It is ordered that, the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that, they are owners of the Math situated at Asifgunj, Gulbarga, is dismissed. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of the matter, that, the defendants should not interfere with, or create any obstruction of any sort in going to and coming out, of the Math for puja path, bhajan, keertan, Brahma Bhoja procession of Palaki and in performing religious rites and in puja path, so the suit of the plaintiff is decreed.'
9. It will be noticed that in O.S. No. 37/1 of 1951-52 the decree passed was to the effect that the defendants in that suit were found to be the owners of the Math and consequently the declaration prayed for by the plaintiffs that they were the owners of the Math was refused. At the same time, it was ordered that the defendants should not interfere with or create any obstruction of any sort against the members of the community in going to and coming out of the Math for pooja path, Bhajan, Kirtan, Brahma Bhoja and procession of palaki and in performing religious rites and pooja path. In my view, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly held that the decree passed in the earlier suit which is binding upon the parties merely gave a right to the members of the Lingayat community to go to the Math and to take part in the pooja and other ceremonies performed in the Math. Since the Math was held to be private property, the right to arrange for the performance of pooja path and other ceremonies on festival days was that of the owners because it was the right of the owners to manage the affairs of the Math. The right of management included the right to arrange for pooja path and other ceremonies, rituals, etc., on festival days and other days. It was for the owners to decide how the pooja path was to be performed, what expenses were to be incurred and how other arrangements were to be made for performing the pooja path and other ceremonies on festival days or on special occasions. If and when such pooja path and festivals were arranged, members of the community were entitled as of right to go to the Math and take part in pooja path etc. This did not mean that they could take upon themselves the responsibility of arranging for pooja etc. The arrangement of pooja path was essentially a function of management and management vested in the hands of the owners of the Math. It therefore follows that it was for the owners of the Math to arrange for the performance of the pooja path in the Math and to make other necessary arrangements on important occasions and festivals, and when such pooja path or festivals were arranged by them, members of the community were free to associate themselves with such pooja path and the owners of the Math could not prevent them from joining the pooja path etc. I have no doubt that the learned Additional District Judge has correctly interpreted the decree and I also hold agreeing with him, that the right of the Lingayat community recognised in the earlier decree is only to this extent that the respondents shall not prevent the members of the community from taking part in the pooja path etc., whenever arranged by the respondents. Learned Counsel for the respondents stated that the respondents have never prevented the members of the community from going to the Math and taking part in the pooja path arranged by them. Their objection is only to the appellants themselves arranging for the pooja path etc., which is essentially a function of management of the Math vested in the respondents.
10. This appeal is therefore partly allowed and the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge is modified to the extent that that part of the decree whereby Clauses 4(e) and (f) of the Memorandum of Association have been declared as illegal and void is set aside. But it is also declared that the appellants or the Society can pursue those objects only if the respondents agree to their doing so or permit them to do so. The Judgment and decree of the Court below in other respects is affirmed. There will be no order as to costs.