HEERALAL Vs. VISHWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE second appeals arise out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2234 -8 -0 filed by the plaintiff Vishwanath against the State of Madhya Bharat on the allegations that the Tehsildar Barnagar had acquired certain quantity of Juar belonging to the plaintiff and entered in the stock register in his name; . that however when the question of payment of its price arose the Tehsildar by his order dated 12 -6 -1947 refused to pay on the ground that there was dispute pertaining to that Juar between the plaintiff and the District Co -operative Bank Barnagar; that according to the said Bank the Juar belonged to one Hiralal Dangi who had pledged it with the Bank; that the Juar acquired by the Tehsildar belonged to the plaintiff when it was in his possession. On these allegations the plaintiff claimed the price Rs. 1800 plus interest Rs. 434 -8 -0. The suit was initially filed against the State of Madhya Bharat alone on 14 -7 -1951. The State Government inter alia contended that the District Co -operative Bank, Barnagar and Hiralal were necessary parties to the suit. The trial Court considered this question and held by its order dated 11 -7 -1956 that the District Co -operative Bank, Barnagar was a proper party to the suit. It accordingly directed the said Bank to be impleaded. In compliance with this order the plaintiff impleaded the Bank and sought appropriate amendment of his plaint. This was allowed and amended plaint was filed impleading the Bank and Hiralal also as parties on 18 -7 -1956.

(2.) IN answer to the notice to the Bank it appeared and contended inter alia that in the absence of a notice under section 77 of the Madhya Bharat Co operative Societies Act or corresponding provision of the Gwalior Cooperative Societies Act, the suit was incompetent.

(3.) THE plaintiff preferred appeal. The appellate Court in para 6 of the judgment makes reference to the trial Court's order dated 11 -7 -1956. Whereby that Court had held that the District Co -operative Bank was a proper party. It however went beyond that finding and proceeded to hold that the said Bank was a necessary party. It further held that in the absence of averment as to notice to the Bank as required under section 77 of the Act the plaint was liable to be rejected as being bad. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.