LAWS(MPH)-1985-2-21

KUBERSINGH Vs. SEWA SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD

Decided On February 28, 1985
KUBERSINGH Appellant
V/S
SEWA SABAKARI SANSTBA LIMITED, MAHIDPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows ; Defendant No. 1 Sewa Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Mahidpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the society') is a Co-operative Society registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In execution of an award passed in favour of the Society against defendant No. 4 Kubersingh, certain parcels of land were attached. The plaintiff averred that title to the said land vested in the plaintiff and that the same could not be attached in execution of the award passed against defendant No. 4. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit for declaration of his title to the suit land. The suit was resisted by defendant No. 1 inter alia on the ground that as notice under Section 94 of the Act was not served or the society before filing the suit the suit was liable to be dismissed. The objection was upheld by the trial Court and the plaint was rejected. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

(3.) Shri Chaphekar, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that the Court below erred in holding that the provisions of Section 94 of the Act were attracted in the instant case. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Deccan or Chante Co-operative Bank Limited v. M/s. Dalichand Junraj Jain & others, [AIR 1969 SC 1320], it was contended that the suit instituted by the plaintiff was not in respect of any act touching the business of the Society and hence, the provision of Section 94 of the Act were not attracted. In reply, Shri Waghmare learned Counsel for the respondents, conteaded that the business of the Society embraced action taken for recovery of the loan and that if attachment affected in the recovery proceedings was being assailed by the plaintiff, compliance with the provisions of Section 94 of the Act was obligatory.