Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shersingh s/o Hirasingh Fauji, filed two second appeals against the judgment of the District Judge-2, Nanded, dated 03.10.2009, dismissing his appeals RJE No.38/2007 and 68/2007. The dispute pertained to a society named 'Sachkhanda Huzuri Khalsa Diwan, Nanded' (Diwan), registered under the Hyderabad Registration of Societies Act, 1350 Fasli, with religious and charitable objects among the Sikh community. The Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1956, established a board for administration of the Gurudwara, and four members of the Diwan were to be nominated to that board. The appellant claimed to be a member of the Diwan and alleged that he was illegally expelled from membership. He filed a suit for declaration that his expulsion was illegal and for consequential reliefs. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellant then filed second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court examined the concurrent findings of fact, noting that the appellant failed to prove his membership in the Diwan through any documentary evidence or reliable testimony. The court also found that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the appellant had knowledge of his alleged expulsion in 1995 but filed the suit in 2001. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and dismissed both appeals.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence - Held that the appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law (Paras 1-10). B) Limitation - Suit for Declaration - Article 59 Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit challenging expulsion from membership must be filed within three years from the date of knowledge - Held that the suit was barred by limitation as the appellant had knowledge of expulsion in 1995 but filed suit in 2001 (Paras 5-8). C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Membership in Society - The onus lies on the claimant to prove membership through documentary evidence or reliable testimony - Held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant proved his membership in the society and whether the suit was within limitation.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Membership in society
- Limitation
- Article 59 Limitation Act
- 1963
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- No substantial question of law
