MUKUNDAN Vs. CANNANORE CO OP HOUSE CONSTN SOC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who has been non suited by the lower appellate court on the ground that the suit is barred by S.100 read with S.69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act, for short), is the appellant He was the allottee of plot No.11 in a cooperative housing colony at Pallikkunnu, which was being developed at the instance of the respondent Cannanore Cooperative House Construction Society Ltd. The said Society is a cooperative society registered under the Act The Society had issued a circular Ext. Al dated 19-5-1978 to its members offering them house sites often cents each at a price of Rs.8,500/-, to be deposited on allotment of the plot as cost of the land. The plaintiff deposited Rs.8,500/- on the allotment of plot No.11 to him. It was discovered subsequently that the extent of the plot allotted was not 10 cents as represented in Ext. A1, but something less, namely 8.23 cents, according to the plaintiff. Plaintiff protested to the society about the deficit allotment which did not meet with any response and ultimately the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree directing either allotment of 1.77 cents more of land or to pay him the value thereof at Rs.850/- per cent. The defence of the society was inter alia that the plaintiff was actually allotted nine cents of land, that there was no undertaking to allot ten cents of land to the plaintiff or others, and that the deficiency of one cent arose only because sixteen cents out of the 1.60 acres of land purchased were taken over by the Panchayat for public purposes with the result only nine cents each could be allotted to the sixteen allottees. It was thus that the plaintiff happened to be allotted nine cents. There was also a plea that the suit was barred as the dispute was one touching the business of the society.

(2.) The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had been allotted nine cents of land as against ten cents agreed upon and accordingly decreed the suit for the value of one cent, without practically any discussion on the question of jurisdiction. On the Society's appeal, the appellate court agreed with the findings of the Trial Court regarding the extent of land allotted to the plaintiff namely nine cents, as also that the plaintiff was entitled to get ten cents of land as offered in the circular Ext.Al. The appeal was however allowed and the suit dismissed on the ground that it was barred by S.100 read with S.69 of the Act, since the dispute was one touching the business of the society.

(3.) The solitary question that arises for consideration in this second appeal is whether the suit is barred under S.100 read with S.69 of the Act.