Holding

A society is not a juristic person and cannot be directly granted letters of administration; however, such grant may be made to a person authorized by the society.

Summary

The appellant, the heirs of the deceased Ratan Lal, challenged the Delhi High Court's order granting letters of administration to the Jain Society, a body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, under Section 236 of the Indian Succession Act. The Supreme Court examined whether a society qualifies as a juristic person eligible for such grant and interpreted the statutory language of Sections 223 and 236. It held that a society is not a juristic person and therefore cannot be directly granted letters of administration, but the grant may be made to a person authorized by the society in accordance with its bye‑laws or a resolution. The Court emphasized the literal, natural meaning of the statutes and rejected a broader, purposive reading. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, the High Court's judgment was modified, and the matter was remitted for the society to nominate an authorized individual to receive the letters of administration.

Issues considered

Whether a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 can be granted letters of administration under Section 236 of the Indian Succession Act.
Whether a society is a juristic person for the purposes of Sections 223 and 236 of the Indian Succession Act.
Whether letters of administration may be granted to a person authorized by the society.
Interpretation of the statutory language of Sections 223, 236 and related provisions.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 1956s. 2(7)
Indian Succession Act, 1925s. 218, s. 223, s. 236, s. 276
Societies Registration Act, 1860

Subjects

Indian Succession ActLetters of AdministrationSocietyJuristic PersonStatutory InterpretationProbateSocieties Registration ActCompany Law

Judgment

A ILLACHI -DEVI (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.
v.
JAIN SOCIETY, PROTECTION OF'ORPHANS INDIA AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2003

B [V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.]

Indian Succession Act ss.218, 223, 236-Whether society registered
under Societies Registration Act, 1860 can obtain letters ofadministration-
H<dd, no; soc;'ety is not a juristic person and cannot be granted letters of
C administration; Held further, letters of administration may however be
granted in favour of a person authorised by a society.

Indian Succession Act, s.236 and Companies Act, 1956 s.2(7)-
. Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, I 860 and company
under Companies Act, 1956-Distinction explained-Held, society is not
D a company; company enjoys identity distinct from its originai shareholders
·whereas society is undistinguishable from its own members.

Interpretation of Statutes-Indian Succession Act s.236-Exclusion
of qertain categories for grant of letters of administration-Whether a
E society rightly excluded-Held, yes; golden rule of interpretation requires
statute to be given literal and natural meaning.

RL, by a Will, bequeathed a part of his estate to an orphanage
run by JS a society registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860. On RL's death, JS submitted an application under s.276 of the
F Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('Act') before the Court for grant of
Letters of Administration. The app~llant and later her legal
representatives opposed the maintainability of the petition on the
ground that JS could not be granted relief under s.236 of the Act The
High Court negatived the objection and allowed the application of JS.
G Hence the appeal.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD 1.1. A probate or Letters of Administration with a copy
of the will annexed although may not be granted in favour of a society
H but may be granted in favour of a person authorised by a society either
62
ILLACHI DEVI v. JAIN SOCIETY, PROTECTION OF ORPHANS 63

in terms of the statute or a resolution adopted in this behalf by the A
society, as the case may be, so that such person may be answerable to
the Court. On grant of Letters of Administration the person so
nominated by the society shall carry out the wishes of testator for the
benefit of society. (83-A, B]

1.2. A society registered under .the Societies Registration Act is not B
a juristic person. The law for the purpose of grant of probate or Letters
; of Administration recognises only a juristic person and not mere
conglomeration of persons or a body which does not have any statutory
recognition as a juristic person. In litigation, the society rr~st be
represented through a person authorised in this behalf either in terms C
of its bye-laws or otherwise. (71-F, 82-H)

Mohashaya Krishna v. Mt. Maya Devi, AIR (35) 1948 Lahore 54;
Laxman Kumar v. Mohammed Moqbul Ali, (1974) CWR 1112; Benaras
Hindu University v. Gauri Dutt Joshi, AIR (1950) Aliahabad 196; Smith D
v. Anderson, (1880) 15 Ch. Div. 247 at 273; lnder Chand Nayyar v.
' ' Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, AIR (1977) Delhi 34, referred to.
)
•
K.L. Thomas v. R.L. Gadeock, AIR (1970) Patna 163, overruled.

2.1. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act E
would not qualify to be considered as a company for the purpose of
ss.223 and 236 of the Act.

2.2. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act as
contra-distinguished from a company registered under the Companies
Act cannot sue in its own name. Even assuming that registered societies F
'could sue in their own name, that would not be enough to satisfy the
requirement of having a complete and unassailable legal identity.
[74-E, 77-F)

Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi v. State G
of Delhi (New Delhi Administration), AIR (1962) SC 458, followed.

3.1 ..The prohibitions laid dpwn by ss. 223 and 236 of the Act leave
no scope for creative interpretation. The court cannot supply casus
omissus. [81-C, DJ
H
64 _SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray v. Mr. Justice B. Lentin, AIR (1988) SC
2267; Kanta Devi (Smt.) v~ Union ofIndia, 12003) 4 SCC 753 and Shrimati
Tarulata Shyam v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, 11977] 3
sec 305, referred to.
B · 3.2. All words employed in a statute must be given their full
.
meaning unless the same results in absurdity. [76-D]
. -

v.
Gurudevadatta VKSSS Maryadit State 'of Maharashtra, (2001) 4
SCC 534; Sutters v. Briggs, (1922) 1 Appeal cases and Dental Council
of India v. Hariprakash, (2001 J 8 SCC 61, referred to.
c
_3.3. The golden rule of interpretation ofa statute is that it has to,
be given its literal and natural meaning. The intention of the legislature
must be found out from the language employed in the statute itself. The
question is not what is supposed to have been intended but what has
D been said. [78-E, Fl

Dayal Singh v. Union of India, [2003] 2 SCC 593; Padma Sundara
Rao (Dead).:v. State ofT.N., [2002] 3 SCC 533; Harbhajan Singh v. Press
Council of India, [2002) 3 SCC 722 and Mis. Grasim Industries Ltd v.
Collector of Customs, Bombay, JT (2002) 3 SC 551, referred to.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8080 of
2003.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.8.2001 of the Delhi High
Court.in P.C. No. 82 of 1987.
F
l.K. Seth a_nd Ms. Madhu Sikri for the Appellants.

L. Nageswara Rao and Sudhir Nandrajog for the Respondents.

G . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V.N. KHARE, -CJ. : Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th
August 2001 of the High Court of Delhi, which raises a question, whether
H a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is entitled
ILLACHI DEVI v. JAIN SOCIETY, PROTECTION OF ORPHANS [KHARE, CJ.] 65
to obtain Letter of Administration under Section 236 of the Indian A
Succession Act (in short "the Act")?

The facts giving rise to this appeal are these :

One Ratan Lal e~ecuted a Will on JSJ0.1977 bequeathing a part of
0

his estate to Jain Bal Ashram which is run by the Jain Society (hereinafter B
refen-ed to as "the Society") formed for protection of orphans in India. The
Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. On 4th
March, 1978, Ratan Lal, the testator .died. On his demise, the Society
submitted an application before the Court for grant of Letter of
Administration inr pursuance of Will• executed by late .Ratan Lal, under C
Section 276 of the Act. The said petition was contested by the appellant
and on her death by her legal representatives, on the ground that the petition
filed by the Respondent-Society is not maintainable in view of Section 236
of the Act. The High Court being of the view that it is permissbile under
Section 236 of the Act to grant Letter of Administration in favour of the D
Society, rejected the objection of the appellant and, it is in this way, the
appellants are before us by means of a special leave petition.

Before we proceed on the merits and take up the question for answer
it would be expedient to set out the relevant provisions of the Act.
E
Section 218 of the Act provides that to whom letter of administration
be granted where the deceased is a Hindu, Mohammadan, Sikh, Jaina or
exempted persons. Section 218 of the Act runs as under :

"(I) If the deceased has died intestate and was a Hindu, F
Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted person,
administration of his estate may be granted to any person who,
according to the rules for the distribution of the. estate applicable
in the case of such deceased, would be entitled to the whole or
any part of such deceased's estate.
G
(2) When several such persons apply for such administration, it
shall be in the discretion of tt. ~ Court to grant it to any one or more
of them.

(3) When no such person applies, it may be granted to a creditor H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A of the deceased."

Section 223 of the Act provides that to whom probate cannot be
granted. Section 223 of the Act runs as under :

"223. Persons to whom probate cannot be granted- Probate
B cannot be granted to any person who is a minor or is of unsound
mind nor to any association of individuals unless it is a company
which satisfies the conditions prescribed by rules to be made by
notification in the Official Gazette, by the State Government, in
this behalf."
c
Section 236 provides that to whom letter of administration .cannot be
granted. The said Section runs as under :

"236. To whom administration may not be granted- Letters of
administration cannot be granted to any person who is a minor
D
or is of unsound mind, nor to any association of individuals unless
it is a company which satisfies the conditions prescribed by rules
to be made by notification in the Official Gazette, by the State
Government is this behalf."

E Section 236, as originally enacted, prohibited grant of letters of
administration to any person who was a minor or of unsound mind.
By amending Act of 1983, the following provision was inserted in Section
236:

F " ..... nor to any association of individuals unsess it is a company
which satisfies the conditions prescribed by rules to be made by
notification in the Official Gazette, ..... "

A perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 218 shows that it grants to
th.e Court ample discretion in the matter of grant of Letter Administration
G where a testator dies intestate. The object behind granting discretion to the
Court is that where a person dies intestate, the person in whose favour the
Letter of Administration is granted, is required to carry out certain
functions and duties being responsible to the Court, whereas Section 223
and 236, on the other hand, provide for disqualification. The Letter of
H Administration or probate can only be granted to those who are named in
ILLACH! DEVI v. JAIN SOCIETY, PROTECTION OF ORPHANS [KHARE, CJ.] 67
those Sections; the object being that the duties and functions of an executor A
in whose favour Letter of Administration is granted, is required to carry
out the direction(s) contained in the Will faithfully, diligently and effectively.
The executor can be discharged only as and when such directions givep
in the Will, are complied with or the desire of testator, as reflected in the
Will, is fulfilled. The legislature, in its wisdom, has chosen to disqualify B
not only a minor or a person of unsound mind, but also an association of
indiviudals, for carrying out the wishes and directions of the testator. The
only exception which has been made in the matter of grant of probate or
Letter of Administration is a company, which satisfies the conditions
prescribed in the Rules and not otherwise.
c
The Governor-General in Council made Rules which were published
in the Gazette of India on 17th January, 1933, Part-I, Page 40, which run
as follows :

"(l) Jn these rules - D

(a) 'Share capital' includes stock; and

(b) 'Trust business' means the business of acting as trustee
under wills and settlements and as executor and . E
administrator.

(2) The conditions to be satisfied by a company in order to
render it eligible for the grant of probate or letters of
administration under the Indian Succession Act, I 925 shall F
; , be the following, namely :

(1) The Company shall be either -

(a) a company formed and registered under the Indian
Companies Act 1913, or under the Indian Companies G
Act 1866, or under any Act or Acts repealed thereby,
or under the Indian Companies Act 1882; or

(b) a company constituted under the law of the United
..' Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or any H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A part thereof, and having a place of business in British
India.

(2) The company shall be a company empowered by its
constitution to undertake trust business.

B (3) The company shall have a share capital for the time being
subscribed of not less than -

(a) Rs. 10 lakhs in the case ofa company of the description
specified in sub-clause (a) of clause (1), and
c
(b) Pound 100,000 in the case of a company of the
description specified in sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of
which at least one-half shall have been paid up in cash.

D Provided that the Governor-General in Council m,~Y exempt any
company from the operation of this clause."
f

A society is an association of persons. It may or may not be registered
under the Societies Registration Act. Since the aforementioned provisions
were inserted in Sections 223 and 236 of the Act, the Courts have held that
E no Administration can be granted in favour ofa society, although a Society
could be a beneficiary under a Will executed by testator.

The object and purpose of the said provisions is to enable the Court
to give full effect to be given to the Will of the Testator,_ such that the
F administrator would avoid the occurrence of any personal considerations
in the matter of administration and would perfonn his various duties and
functions with all efficiency, integrity and honesty. The nature of this
tremendous responsibility may be seen from the fact that administrator is
entrusted to act in a fiduciary capacity, and not liable to be discharged until
G the testament is fulfilled in its entirety.

It was the interests of the testator that the legislature had in mind when
it enacted the disqualifying provisions contained in Section 223 and 236
of the Act. Undoubtedly, a minor or a person of unsound mind would not
be in a position to discharge efficaciously the duties required of an
H administrator of the estate. A society is an association of persons and it
ILLACHI DEVI v. JAIN SOCIETY, PROTECTION OF ORPHANS [KHARE, CJ.] 69

may be registered under the Societies Registration Act or unregistered. A
Such bodies (association of persons too) would suffer from certain
disabilities as there would then possibly be competing and conflicting
voices with no single line of command for carrying out the wishes of the
testator.

In Mohashaya Krishna v. Mt. Maya Devi and Others, AIR 35 (1948)
B
Lahore 54 it has been categorically held that the Arya Pritinidhi Sabha,
Punjab being not a company wihin the meaning of Sections 223 and 236
of the said Act was not entitled to grant of Administration, holding :

"A society registered under the provisions of Act 21 of 1860 does C
not cease to be an association of individuals by reason of such
registration. Registration under the aforesaid Act only confers on
it certain privileges which are not enjoyed by other associations
of individuals. For example, such a society may sue or be sued
in the name of the president, chairman or principal secretary or D
trustees as may be determined by the rules and regulations of the
society."

In Laxman Kumar v. Mohammed Moqbul Ali, (1974) 2 CWR 11 i2
it has been held that a mosque committee, being an association of
individuals is not entitled to probate or Letters of Administration. E
Allahabad High Court in Benaras Hindu University v. Gauri Dutt
Joshi, AIR (1950) Allahabad 196 had, however, struck a discordant
note. The Court proceeded on the premise that as Benaras Hindu
University would fall within the definition of"person" as contained in the p
General Clauses Act a Letter of Administration can be granted in its favour
holding:

"There can be no doubt that the Benaras Hindu University is,
G-
therefore, a corporation. It is a collection of individuals united into
one body under a special denomination, having perpetual succession
under an artificial form, and vested by the policy of the law with
the capacity of acting in several respects as an individual. In law
the individual corporators, or members, of which it is composed
are something wholly different from the corporation itself. It is
a legal persona distinct and separate from the individual members H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A of the corporation. It can hold prop:;·:iy, enter into obligations, can
sue and be sued, and has the rights and obligations conferred on
it by statute. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Hindu University
is· merely an association of individuals. An association in the
United States is a body of persons organized, for the prosection
of some purpose, without a charter, but having the general form
B
and mode of procedure of a corporation, but is not, in fact, a
corporation. The word "association" implies the result of an
agreement giving rise to rights and obligations one against the
other."

C The Bench referred to an English decision in Smith v. Anderson,
(1880) 15 Ch. Div. 247 at p. 273 to hold that Benaras Hindu University
is not an association of individuals in the sense defined therein.

A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court followed the said
D decision in Inder Chand Nayyar v. Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha,
AIR (I 977) Delhi 34 in the following terms :

"I have considered the matter and am in agreement with the view
of the High Court of Allahabad in Ganga Sahai 's case AIR (1950)
All 480. This was a case of Arya Prati Nidhi Sabha and it was
E held that letters of administration could be granted to such a body
which was registered under the Societies Registration Act. With
greatest respect, I am not able to agree with the view taken by the
High Court of Lahore in Mahashaya Krishna's case AIR (1948)
Lah 54. As a last resort it will still be open to the contesting
F respondent to obtain letters of administration under Section 232
of the Act in the name of its President through whom the society
is entitled to sue and this will meet the technical objection raised
by the appellant. I, therefore, repeal the contention of the appellant."

G The High Court in its impugned judgment proceeded on the basis that
although society is not a corporation but it is also not a mere association
of individuals.

The High Court has sustained its judgment on the ground that
Sections 223 and 236 of the Act disqualify only those persons who suffer
H from legal incapacity of suing or being sued. According to the High Court,
ILLACHI DEVI v. JAIN SOCIETY, PROTECTION OF ORPHANS [KHARE, CJ.] 71

since the Society can sue as well as be sued in representative capacity, it A
can be entrusted with the responsibility of carrying out the wishes of the
testator. The High Court was of the further view that the purpose of a Will
in favour of a voluntary organization or association, may be frustrated
unless it is held that grant of Letter of Administration to the Society through
a person nominated by it would be valid. We find ourselves unable to B
countenance the aforesaid view of the High Court. The mere fact of
registration of a Society under the Societies Registration Act will not make
the said Society distinct from association of persons. Sections 223 and 236
of the Act in very categorical term provide that association of persons; be
it a society, a partnership or other forms of associations, Letter of
(;
Administration can be granted only to a company fulfilling the conditions
laid down under the Rules. The Rules have been framed by the Governor-
General in Council, which, after the enforcement of Constitution of India,
would be a law within the meaning of Article 372 of the Constitution of
India. Sections 223 and 236 of the Act would be interpreted in the light
of the Rules framed in terms thereof. A society registered under the D
Societies Registration Act is not a 'company' within the meaning of
'company', as provided in the Act and the Rules. In terms of Section 223
and 236, a 'company' must be a 'company' registered under the Companies
Act. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that neither the provisions
of the Act nor the Rules framed thereunder contemplate that the Societies E
registered under the Societies Registration Act would qualify to be
considered as a company for the purpose of Sections 223 and 236.

A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not a
body-corporate as is the case in respect of a company registered under the F
Companies Act. In the view of the matter, a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act is not a juristic person. The law for the purpose
of grant of a probate or Letter of Administration recognises only a juristic
person and not 'mere conglomeration of persons or a body which does not
have any statutory recognition as a juristic person.
G
It is well known that there exists certain salient differences between
a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, on the one hand,
and a company corporate, on the other, principal amongst which is that a
company is a juristic person by virtue of being a body corporate, whereas
the society, even when it is registered, is not possessed of these characteristics. H .
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Moreover, a society whether registered or :mregistered, may not be
prosecuted in criminal court, nor is it capable of ownership of any property
or of suing or being sued in its owwname.
,
Although admittedly, a registered.~ociety is endowed with an existence
separate from that of its members for certain purposes, that is not to say
B that it is a legal person for the purposes of Sections 223 and. 236 of the
Act. Whereas a company can be regarded as having a complete legal
personality, the same is not possible for a society, whose existence is
closely connected, and even contingent, upon the persons·who originally
formed it. Inasmuch as a company enjoys an identity distinct from its
C original shareholders, whereas the society is undistinguishable, in some
aspects, from its own members, that would qualify as a material distinction,
which prevents societies from obtaining letters of administration.

The Patna High Court in K.C. Thomas v. R.L. Gadeock and Another,
AIR (1970) Patna 163 held that a society registered under the Act enjoys
D the status oflegal entity apart from the members constitution and is capable
of suing of being sued. The said decision is not correct.

Sections 5 & 6 of the said Act read thus :

"5. Property of Society hQ~ vested - The property, moveable and
E immoveable, belonging to a Society registered under this Act, if
not vested in trustees, shall be deemed to be vested for the time
being in the governing body of such Society, and in all proceedings,
civil and criminal, may be described as the property of the
governing body of such Society by their proper title.
F
6. Suits by and against societies - Every society .registered under
this Act may sue or be sued in the name of the president,
chairman, or principal secretary, or trustees, as shall be determined
by the rules and regulations of the society, and, in default of such
determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed
G by the governing body for the occasion :

Provided that it shall be competent for any person having a claim
or demand against the society, to sue the president or chairman,
or principal secretary or the trustees thereof, if on application to
H the governing body some other officer or person be not nominated
ILLACHI DEVI v. JAIN SOCIETY. PROTECTION OF ORPHANS [KHARE, CJ.) 73
to be the defendant." A
Vesting of property, therefore, does not take place in the Society.
Similarly, the society cannot sue or be sued. It must sue or be sued through
a person nominated in that behalf

By way of an example Rule Section 7 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) B
Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 is reproduced hereinbelow :
;
"Suits by and against Society - Any such registered Society may
sue or be sued in the name of the chairman or secretary or trustees,
as shall be determined by the rules of the Society, and ifthere are' C
no rules in this behalf, in the name of such person as shall be
nominated by the managing committee for this purpose :

Provided that when a suit is instituted against such Society,
the plaintiff shall apply to the managing committee of the Society 'D
to nominate any person to be made the defendant, and if the
managing committee fails to nominate any person within a month
or if, in the circumstances, the matter cannot be deferred so long,
the plaintiff may sue the Society's chairman or secretary or
trustees."
E
Section 15 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960
provides :

"Suits by and against Society - Every Society registered under this
Act may sue or be sued in the name of the president, chairman, or principal f
secretary or the trustees as shall be determined by the rules and regulations
of the Society, and, in default of such determination, in the name of such
person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion :

Provided that, it shall be competent for any person having a claim G
or demand against the Society, to sue the president or chairman, or
principal secretary or the trustees thereof, if on application to the governing
body, some officer or person be bot nominated to be the defendant."

Section 19 of the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961
provides : H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A "Suits and proceedings by and against a Society. - (I) Every
Society may sue or may be sued in the name of the President, the
Secretary, or any office-bearer authorised by the governing body
in this behalf.

(2) No suit or proceeding shall abate by reason of any
B
vacancy or charge in the holder of the office of the President, the
Secretary or any office-bearer authorised under sub-section (1 ).

(3) Every decree or order against a Society in any suit or
proceeding shall be executable against the property of the Society
c and not agaipst the person or the property of the President, the
Secretary or any office bearer.

(4) Nothing in sub-se~tion (3) shall exempt the President the
Secretary or office-bearer of a Society from any criminal liability
D under this Act or entitle him to claim any contribution from the
property of the Society in respect of any fine paid by him on
conviction by a Criminal Court."

Similar is the position in the rules framed by some other States.

E A bare perusal thereof wou-ld show that a society registered under the
Societies Registration Act as contra-distinguished from a company registered
under the Company Act cannot sue in its own name. It is to be sued in
the name of the president, chainnan, or principal secretary or trustees as
shall be detennined by the rules and regulations of the society or in the
F name of such person as shall be appointed by the Government Body for
the occasion in default of such determination. It is, therefore, not correct
to contend that it is capable of suing or being sued in its own name.

In Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi v.
G State of Delhi (Now Delhi Administration and Another, AIR (1962) SC
458, this Court clearly held that a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act is not a corporation holding:

"There is authority of long standing for saying that the essence
of a corporation consists in (I) lawful authority of incorporation,
H (2) the persons to be incorporated, (3) a name by which the
ILLACHI DEVI v. JAIN SOCIETY, PROTECTION OF ORPHANS [KHARE. CJ.] 75
persons are incorporated, (4) a place, and (5) words sufficient in A
law to show incorporation. No particular words are necessary for
the creation of a corporation; any expression showing an intention,
to incorporate will be sufficient."

This Court in the aforementioned case noticed the provisions of the B
Societies Registration Act and rejected the contention that a society would
be a corporation and, thus, a body-corporate in the following terms :

"We have therefore, come to the conclusion that the provisions
aforesaid do not establish the main essential characteristic of a
corporation aggregate, namely, that of an intention to incorporate c
the society. We may further observe that the scheme and provisions
of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 are very similar to those
of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 and 60 Viet. c. 25), a~
amended in certain respects by subsequent enactments. It i~
appropriate to quote here what Dennis Lloyd has said in his 'Law D
relating to Unincorporated Associations' (1938 edn.) at page 59
in respect of the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896
as modified by subsequent enactments. He has said :

"The modem legislation still maintains the policy of the E
older Acts in withholding corporate status from friendly
societies. Registration does not result in incorporation, but
merely entitles the society so registered to enjoy the privileges
conferred by the Act. These privileges are of considerable
importance and certain of them go a long way towards
'} giving registered societies .... a status in many respects F
1

analogous to a corporation strictly so-called, but withont
being technically incorporated. Thus something in the nature
of perpetual succession is conceded by the provision that the
society's property is to vest in the trustees for the time being
of the society for the use and benefit of the society and its G
members and of all persons claiming through the members
according to the society's rules, and further (and this is the
most noteworthy provision) that the property shall pass to
succeeding trustees without assignment or transfer. In the
same way, though the society, being unincorporated, is H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003"] SUPP.4 S.C.R.

A unable to sue and be sued in its own na111e, it is given the
statutory privilege of suing and bemg sued in the name of
its trustees."

We think tl)at these observations made with regard to ~imilar
provisions of the Friendly Societies Act, correctly and succinctly
B
summarise the legal position in respect of the several provisions
of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Those provisions
undoubtedly give certain privileges to a society registered under
\
that Act and the privileges are of considerable importance and
some of those privileges are analogous to the privileges enjoyed
c by a corporation, but there is really no incorporation in the sense
in whic~. that word is legally understood."

It is a well-known principle of construction of statutes that all words
employed therein must be given 'their full meaning unless the same results
D in absurdity. In Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra,
. (2001] 4 sec 534, it has been held ;

"Further we wish to clarify that it is a cardinal principle of
interpretation of statute that the words of a statute must be
E understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed
according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction
leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context
or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden
rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their
ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when
F the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then
the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective
of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best
declare the intention of the law-giver."

G In Sutters v. Briggs, (1992) 1 Appeal Cases l, the Privy Council
held:

"There is indeed no reason for limiting the natural and ordinary
meaning of the words used. The term "hol~ers or indorsees"
means any holder and any indorsee, whether the holder be the
H
!LLACHI DEVI v. JAIN SOCIETY. PROTECTION OF ORPHANS [KHARE, CJ.] 77
original payee or a mere agent for him, and the rights of the drawer A
must be construed accordingly. The circumstance that the law
apart from the section in question was repealed in I 845, without
any repeal of the section itself, may lead to anomalies, but cannot
have weight in construing the section."

In Dental Council of India and Another v. Hariprakash and Others. B
[2001] 8 sec 61, it was held :

"The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from
the language used in the statute, thus paying attention to what has
been said as also to what has not been said. When the words used C
are not ambiguous, literal meaning h~s to be applied, which is the
golden rule of interpretation."

We are further constrained to state that reliance upon the law of
England is misplaced, since in that country, a probate may lawfully be D
granted to a company or to an association of persons, without the
imposition of any condition. The application of British law, to Sections 223
and 236 of the Act, is therefore uncalled for. While it is true that a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act does not suffer technically
from all of the legal disabilities as the other prohibited classes of persons,
as stipulated by Sections 223 and 226 of the Act, such as minors and E
persons of unsound mind but that by itself would not lead one to the
conclusion that such a society would be a juristic person. Even assuming
that registered societies could. sue in their own name, that- would not be
enough to satisfy the requirement of having a complete and unassailable
legal identity. By way of illustration, a Hindu Undivided Family, a F
partnership firm, or even a sole proprietary concern can sue or be sued
in its own name, by virtue of the provisions contained in the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. Nonetheless, that of its own accord, would not
sufficiently establish that such entities have cured themselves of all the
legal disabilities which bring them within the express prohibitions imposed G
by other satutes.

Section 2(7) of the Companies Act states :

"2(7) "body corporate" or "corporation" includes a company
.) t incorporated outside India but does not include - H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A (a) a corporation sole;

(b) a cooperative society registered under any law relating to
cooperative societies; and

(c) any other both corporate (not being a company as defined
B
in this Act) which the Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf."

We have delineated above the requisite fiduciary character of an
C administrator of the estate of the deceased, who must be accountable not
only to the directions of the testator, as expressed in the testament, but also
to the interests of the beneficiaries and the Court. The legislature has, in
its wisdom, chosen to exclude unincorporated associations of persons from
the purview of eligible grantees of letters of administration; it is not, then,
for the Court to legislate judicially by turning the plain meanings of the
D povisions on their head. Interpretation must remain interpretation, and not
descend into interpolation.

It is well settled principles of law that a plain meaning must be
attributed to the Statute. Also, a statute must be construed according to the
E intention of the legislature. The golden rule of interpretation of a statute
is that it has to be given its literal and natural meaning. The intention of
the legislature must be found out from the language employed in the statute
itself. The question is not what is supposed to have been intended but what
has been said. (See Dayal Singh v. Union of India, [2003] 2 SCC 593.

F In Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and Others v. State of T.N. and
Others, [20:>2] 3 SCC 533, it was held :

"The rival pleas regarding rewriting of statute and casus omissus
need careful consideration. It is well-settled pinciple in law that
G the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which
is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature.
The Iangauge e.nployed in a statute is the determinative factor of
legislative intent. The first and primary rule of construction is that
the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used
H by the legislature itself. The question is not what may be supposed
ILLACl-U DEVI'" JAIN SOCIETY. PROTECTION OF ORPHANS [KHARE, CJ.] 79

and has been intended but what has been said. "Statutes should A
be construed, not as theorems of Euclid", Judge Learned Hand
side, "but words must be construed with some imagination of the
purposes which lie behind them". (Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v.
Yensavage, (218 FR 547) The view was reiterated in Union of
India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, AIR B
(1990) sc 981 : [1990] 1 sec 277."

This Court again in Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India and
Others, [2002] 3 SCC 722 stated the law thus :

"Clearly, the language of sub-section (7) of Section 6 abovesaid, C
is plain and simple. There are two manners of reading the
provision. Read positively, it confers a right on a retiring member 1

to seek renomination. Read in a negative manner, the provision
speaks of a retiring member not being eligible for renomination
for more than one term. The spell of ineligibility is cast on D
"renomination" of a member who is "retiring".The event
determinative of eligibility or ineligibility is "renomination'', and
the person, by reference to whom it is to be read, is "a retiring
member".· "Retiring member" is to be read in contradistinction ,
with a member/person retired sometime in the past, and so, would E
be called a retired or former member. "Re" means again, and is
freely used as a prefix. It gives colour of"again" to the verb with
which it is placed. "Renomination" is an act or process of being
\ nominated again. Any person who had held office of member
sometime in the past, ifbeing nominated now, cannot be described
as being "again nominated". It is only a member just retiring who ,F
can be called "being again nominated" or "re-nominated". No
other meaning can be assigned except by doing violence to the
language employed. The legislature does not waste its words.
Ordinary, grammatical and full meaning is to be assigned to the
words used while interpreting a provision to honour the rule - G
legislature chooses appropriate words to express what it intends,
and therefore, must be attributed with such intention as is 1

conveyed by the words employed so long as this does not result
in absurdity or anomaly or unless material - intrinsic or external
- is available to permit a departure from the rule. H
,_

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Cross in Statutory Interpretation (3rd Edn., 1995) states :

"The governing idea here is that if a statutory provision is
intelligible in the context of ordinary language, it ought, without
more, to be interpreted in accordance with the meaning an
ordinary speaker of the language would ascribe to it as its obvious
B
meaning, unless there is sufficient reason for a different
interpretation .... Thus, an 'ordinary meaning' or 'grammatical
meaning' does not i!llply that the Judge attributes a meaning to
the words of a statute independently of their context or of the
purpose of the statute, but rather that he adopts a meaning which
c is appropriate in relation to the immediately obvious and
unresearched context and purpose in and for which they are used.
By enabling citizens (and their advisers) to rely on ordinary
meanings, unless notice is given to the contrary, the legislature
contributes to legal certainty and predictability for citizens and to
D greater transparency in its own decisions, both of which are
important values in a democratic society."

Yet again in Mis. Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs
Bombay, JT (2002) 3 SC 551, it is stated :
E
"No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be
redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should
not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention
to other words. No provision in the statute and no word in any
section can be construed in isolation. Every provision and every
F word must be looked at generally and in the context in which it
is used. It is said that every statute is an edict of the legislature.
The elementary principle of interpreting any word while considering
a statute is to gather the means or sententia legis of the legislature.
Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is
G no ambiguity and the intention of 'the legislature is clearly
conveyecl, there is no scope for the. court to take upon itself the
task of amending or altering the statutory provisions."

It is equally well settled that when the Legislature has employed a
H plain and unambiguous language, the Court is not concerned with the
ILLACHI DEVI v. JAIN SOCIETY. PROTECTION OF ORPHANS [KHARE. CJ.] 81
consequences arising therefrom. Recourse to interpretation of statutes may A
be resorted only when the meaning of the statute is obscure. The Court is
not concerned with the reason as to why the Legislature thought it fit to
lay emphasis on one category of suitors than the others. A statute must be
read in its entirety for the purpose of finding out the purport and object
thereof. The Court, in the event of its C?ming to the conclusion that a Iiteral B
meaning is possible to be rendered, would not embark upon the exercise
of judicial interpretation thereof and nothing is to be added or taken from
statute unless it is held that the same would lead to an absurdity or manifest
injustice. It is well-established that a disabling legislation must be
characterized by clarity and precision. In the present instance, the prohibitions
laid down by Sections 223 and 236 of the Act are categorical and C ·
comprehensive~ and leave no scope for creative interpretation.

The Court, it is trite, cannot supply casus omissus. Reference in this
regard may be made on Dr. Baliram Waman Hirav v. Mr. Justice B. Lentin
and Others, AIR (1988) SC 2267, wherein it was observed : D

"Law must be definite, and certain. If any of the features of the
law can usefully be regarded as normative, it is such basic
postulates as the requirement of consistency in judicial decision-
making. It is this requirement of consistency that gives to the law E
much of its rigour. At the same time, there is need for flexibility.
Professor H.L.A. Hart regarded as one of the leading thinkers of
our time observes in his influential book "The Concept of Law",
depicting the difficult task of a Judge to strike a balance between
certainty and flexibility : ·F

Where there is obscurity in the language ofa statute, it results
in confusion and disorder. No doubt the Courts so frame their
judgments as to give the impression that their decisions are the '
necessary consequence of predetennined rules. In very simple
cases it may be so; but in the vast majority of cases that trouble G
the Courts, neither statute nor procedents in which the rules are
legitimately contained allow of only one result. In most important ·
cases there is always a choice. The judge has to choose between
alternative meanings to be given to the words of a statute ·or

• between rival interpretations of what a precedent amounts to. It H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A is only the tradition that judges 'find' and do not 'make' law that ••
conceals this, and presents. their decision as .if they were deductions
smoothly made from clear pre-existing rules without intrusion of
the judge's choice"

(See also Kanta Devi (Smt.) v. Union of India and Another, [2003]
B
4 sec 753).

In Shrimati Tarulata Shvam and Others v. Commissioner of Income-
tax, West Bengal, [1977] 2 sec 305, it was held that if there be a COSltS
omissus, the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial
c interpretation.

Keeping in view the legislative policy we are of the opinion that the
High Court was not correct in its view that an Administration can be
granted in favour of a society registered under Act 21 of 1860.
D
The apprehension of the High Court that in a case of this nature, in .1
the event, a Letter of Administration is not granted in favour of the
beneficiary society, the purport of the 'Will' will be frustrated is not wholly
correct and for grant of Letter of Administration what is necessary is that
E the person duly authorised by the Society in accordance with the law may
file such an application.

Furthermore, the validity of the Sections 223 an 236 of the Act is not
in question. So long the said provisions are not declared unconstitutional,
the same must be allowed to hold their feild.
F
We may state that, as noticed hereinbefore, in terms of rules framed
by States under the Societies Registration Act, a society may sue or may
be sued through its President or Secretary or in absence of any specific
provisions in that behalf, any person authorised by the Society.
G
Grant of probate in favour of society registered under the Societies
Registration Act is refused, as discussed hereinbefore, inter alia on the
ground it is not a juristic person. It, in a litigation, must be represented )
through a person authorised in this behalf either in terms of its bye-laws \
H or otherwise.
•
ILLACHI DEVI v. JAIN SOCIETY. PROTECTION OF ORPHANS [KHARE. CJ] 83
We, however, intend to lay emphasis on the fact that a will or gift A
in favour of a society is not totally unenforceable in law. A probate or
Letter of Administration with a copy of the will annexed although may not
be granted in favour of a society but may be granted in favour of a person
authorised by a society either in terms of the statute or a resolution adopted
in this behalf by the society, as the case may be, so that such person may B
be answerable to the Court. On grant of Letter of Administration the person
so nominated by the society shall carry out the wishes of testator for the
benefit of society.

Before parting, however, we may add that growing needs of the
country in this field of law appears to have not received sufficient attention C
of the Parliament. Existing law is required to be suitable amended to meet
the requirement of changing scenario.

A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act in the
changed scenario play an important role in society. They discharge various D
functions which are beneficial to the society. They run educational and
other institutions. They sometimes work in public interest and act in aid
of State functions. They have their own accountability. They sometimes
incur liabilities. Public Interest Litigations filed by Societies are galore.

For reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment E
under challenge stand modified. The matter is sent back to the High Court
with liberty to respondent to amend the petition for grant of Letter of
Administration. It would be open to the respondent-society to nominate any
of its office-bearer to whom Letter of Administration is granted. Such
nominated person may move application for substitution for his name for F
grant of Letter of Administration. If such amendment application is made,
the High Court shall permit this amendment and grant Letter of
Administration in favour of person nominated by the society for carrying
of the wishes of the testator which is for the benefit of the society.

S.M. Appeal partly allowed.
G