S SANDEEP Vs. N SRINIVASA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 05-07-2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in R.A. No. 7/2001 wherein the Judgment and Decree dated 21-07-2000 in O.S. No. 485/1994 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, rejecting plaint of the appellants herein, was confirmed.

(2.) The essential facts leading to this appeal are that the appellants 1 to 3 are respectively the son, daughter and wife of the 1st respondent herein, who was the 1st defendant in the original suit wherein the plaintiffs have challenged the award secured by the 2nd defendant (who is the 2nd respondent herein) in dispute No. DRB. 988/92-93 against the 1st defendant and also for the relief that the 2nd defendant should not seek sale of 3/4th share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property for satisfying the aforesaid award passed in favour of the plaintiffs. In the said proceeding the 1st defendant did not contest the suit. It is only the 2nd defendant who entered appearance and filed written statement stating that the 1st defendant borrowed money from the 2nd defendant on the security of the suit schedule properties and for recovery of the same proceedings were initiated before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies in dispute No. DRB. 988/92-93 which came to be allowed, by an award against which the 1st defendant filed appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal No. 449/1994 wherein at the time of filing of the appeal the award amount that was due from the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant was Rs. 11,89,114.65 and in the said proceeding before the Tribunal an interim order was passed staying the auction of item No. 1 of the suit schedule property subject to the 1st defendant depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- with the 2nd defendant bank within four weeks from the date of the said order of stay i.e., 28-07-1994, which was not complied with by the 1st defendant, Thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S. No. 485/1994 stating that the plaintiffs and 1st defendant together constitute a coparcenary joint family, the suit schedule properties are coparcenary properties as such, each one of them have 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties and the 2nd defendant bank cannot execute the award so far as it pertains to 3/4th share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties.

(3.) The 2nd defendant denied the fact that the suit schedule properties are co-parcenary properties and the existence of joint family status among them. It took up a specific contention that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 118 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, which bar the jurisdiction of Civil Court so far as it pertains to the dispute referred to in Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.