TRIMURTHY SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SAMITI Vs. BRAHMANAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant - Trimurthy Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti, Mahasamund, has preferred the above civil revisions against the orders passed by the Civil Court on its application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 64 and 84 of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the "Act") as the prayer for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the same was barred under Section 82(1)(c) of the Act, has been rejected and the suit has been held to be maintainable. All the civil revisions have the only question of law to be decided such as "whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the civil suit preferred by the non-applicants/Plaintiffs was maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 82 of the Act of 1960 ?"

(2.) Before adverting to the legal submissions of the parties it would be necessary to have a glimpse of the facts of each case. In Civil Revision No. 102/ 2001 the applicant allotted plot No. 46 and executed a sale deed dated 27-3-1984 in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3000.00. A notice was given to the Respondent/Plaintiff on 6-12-1994 stating that the above allotment has been cancelled by the Society in terms of Clause 11 of the sale deed. A further notice was given to the Respondent/Plaintiff on 4-8-1998 asking him to take back the deposited sum and as a result of which the suit was filed by the Plaintiff on 12-5-2000 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction.

(3.) In Civil Revision No. 248/2001 the applicant allotted plot No. 27 and executed a sale deed dated 1-4-1986 in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5,250.00. A notice was given to the Respondent/Plaintiff on 6-12-1994 stating that the above allotment has been cancelled by the Society in terms of Clause 11 of the sale deed. A further notice was given to the Respondent/Plaintiff on 4-8-1998 asking him to take back the deposited sum and as a result of which the suit was filed by the Plaintiff on 7-10-1998 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. Likewise in Civil Revision Nos. 253/2001, 249/2001 and 254/2001 plot No. involved is 25, 26 and 23 respectively and the date of filing of the suit is 6-11-1998, 6-11-1998 and 7-10-1998 respectively and except this all the facts and figures remain the same.