AFZAL HOSSAIN Vs. KAIGAREY CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Birbhum, reversing the decision of the Munsif, second court, Rampurhat. The Plaintiff is the Appellant before us. The suit was instituted for a declaration that certain award made by the Registrar was without jurisdiction.

(2.) The Plaintiff was a member of a Co-operative Society, being Kaigarey Co-operative Society. That society was formed under the Co-operative Societies Act. On Dec. 19, 1927 the Plaintiff executed a karbarndma (agreement enabling him to take loan on mortgage of his properties) in favour of the Society entitling him to take a loan up to a sum of Rs. 300 on mortgage of his properties. Pursuant to the said karbarnama he took a loan of Rs. 230. At that time the Co-operative Societies Act of 1912 was in force. Sec. 43 of that Act allowed rules to be framed for deciding disputes and by virtue of Rule 22 any dispute touching the business of a registered society between the members of the society could be referred in writing to the Registrar for arbitration. In the year 1933 the Society referred the dispute, that is, the claim against the Appellant to the Registrar under the said rules. On Dec. 30, 1934 an award was made by the Registrar for Rs. 477-10-9. Such an award under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act of 1912 was executable as a decree of the civil court. The Society, however, did not execute it within the period of limitation with the result that the said award became unforceable in law. Thereafter the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act of 1940 came into force. Sec. 126 of the new Act provides that:

(3.) In the new Act there are provisions which correspond to the provisions of Rule 22 of the old Act. Those are Sec. 86 and 87. Those sections are included in Ch. IX of the Act of 1940. Under Sec. 86 any dispute touching the business of a co-operative society and its members may be referred to the Registrar. Under Sec. 87 the Registrar, on receipt of, such a reference, shall decide the dispute himself or transfer it for disposal to any person authorised by the Provincial Government for that purpose or refer it for disposal to any or more arbitrators to be appointed by the Registrar. These provisions, as I have already said, correspond to the provisions of Rule 22 of the old Act. There is further provision in the new Act which is contained in Sec. 88 and which, was not in the old Act or in the rules made thereunder Sec. 88 provides that: