HANUMAPPA VENKAPPA DYAVANUR Vs. HANUMANTA GOWDA NINGANAGOWDA BHANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contesting parties in these two petitions are the same and the points for consideration are also the same. Hence they are clubbed together. There is in Dundur, a village of Gadag taluk of Dharwar district, a cooperative society called the Dundur Gramaseva Sahakari Sangha Unlimited. In September 1968 the annual elections are said to have been held to the managing committee of the society. The petitioner H.V.Dyavanur states that there were only nine valid nominations of himself and eight others for the nine vacancies to be filled, and that all the nine of them were declared elected without contest and the results announced at the annual general meeting held on September 28, 1968. He further states that at a subsequent meeting of the committee he was elected chairman.

(2.) The respondents, however, have a different version altogether. They complain that their nominations could not be presented because the office of the society was locked at the relevant period, and that therefore they sent the same by registered post so as to reach within the time fixed for the receipt of nominations. They further state that even on the date fixed for scrutiny, the office of the society was locked and remained locked till 5 P.M. Subsequently, according to them, they themselves along with other members totalling about 52 held a meeting at which respondents 1 to 8 and another person by name B.F.Hugar were elected as members of the Managing Committee.

(3.) Subsequently the first respondent made an application to the Munsiff-Magistrate at Gadag under S.31(2) of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 for securing possession of the records. The Magistrate issued an ex parte warrant. The petitioner appeared and filed objections contending that he and eight others constituted the committee, and not the first respondent and others as claimed by the respondents. The Magistrate made a reference to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gadag who sent a reply, which the Magistrate calls a report, stating that the first respondent is the Chairman of the legally constituted new commitee of the society. He therefore ordered the seizure of the society's records from the possession of the petitioner and others and delivery thereof to the first respondent. Against the said order made by the Magistrate on October 10. 1968 the petitioner presented the first of two writ petitions W.P.3755 of 1968. It was admitted on 29th October 1968 and stay of execution of the Magistrate's order was also granted. Thereafter the respondents appeared and made an application for vacating the stay on the ground that the warrant had already been executed before the interim order of stay was made. The stay was therefore vacated on 10th Dec. 1968.