1955 (9) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... members of the same family known as "Pattada" family at Betoli village in Coorg. A few years prior to the institution of the suit, the members of this family, 73 in number, started for the benefit of the family some funds known as "Grain Fund, Death Fund, Palettimakki Fund, Education Fund and Miscellaneous Fund" and these were being managed by the members of this family. For some reason or other, the plaintiffs did not desire to continue as members of the said funds as at present constituted and managed. Thereupon they notified their said intention to the defendant and asked him to go through the accounts and cause payment of their share in the said funds. The defendant did not comply with their request and consequently the plaintiffs f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d issue he held that the suit was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of that court. The present revision petition is filed against the finding of the learned Munsiff on the former part of the first issue holding that the matters involved in the suit could be agitated in that court. It is unnecessary for the purpose of disposing of this petition to go into the question whether the finding of the learned Munsiff that the plaintiffs could also file an application for winding up at their option is correct or not. The main point that arises for consideration is whether the court below was competent to deal with the matters involved in the suit or, in other words, whether the suit was maintainable. It appears to me that the finding of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... allowed to question the jurisdiction of the court below to deal with the matters involved in this suit. I am of opinion that this contention is ill-founded. In paragraph 6 of the statement filed on 28th January, 1953, the defendant has taken a stand that the suit is not maintainable. This is further clarified in paragraph 2 of the memorandum of particulars furnished by the defendant on 16th February, 1953. Therein he has given reasons why the suit is not maintainable, they being that the association of the plaintiffs and defendant falls within the definition of an unregistered company as denned in the Companies Act and that all the relevant provisions of the said Act are attracted. I think that the averments made in the written state....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rade or business. Admittedly the plaintiffs and defendant are members of a divided Hindu family. To attract the provisions of section 4(2) of the Act, three ingredients are to be present, and they are (1) an association of more than twenty persons, (2) which carries on business and (3) that business should be for the acquisition of gain. It appears to me that all these ingredients exist in the case on hand. It is admitted that this is an association formed by voluntary act of parties consisting of 73 members and that it is unregistered. It was contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the association is not carrying on any business and that it has not for its object the acquisition of gain. I do not see any force or substa....