BHAGABAT CHARAN JENA Vs. RAM NARAYAN MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is pltf's appeal in a suit for a declaration that the award passed by the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, is not binding: against them & for the consequential relief of restraining the society from executing the award against them.

(2.) THE pltfs. 2 and 3 are brothers and the pltfs. 1 and 4 to 1 are cousins of one Kali Charan Jena. In this appeal it is not controverted that they were members of a joint Hindu Mitakshara family with Kali Charan (deft. 2) at all material times. Kali Charan is a member of Routmandarini Co -operative Society of which deft. 1 (resp. 1) is the Secretary. Kali Charan, as a member, took a loan of Kb. 6C0 on 3 -9 29 for the purpose of paying off Certain debts incurred for purchase of lands -a purpose recognised under the bye laws. In the Loan Register, he got certain persona as suraties, who undertook, the liability in case Kali Charan did not pay the loan to the Society. Ultimately, Kali Charan. not having been able to pay, there was a reference by the Society to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Schedule 8, Bihar & Orisaa Go -operative Societies Act. The reference is not before us &, therefore, we have only to infer from the Registrar's award as to what the scope of the reference was. In the earlier part of the award, there is a recital as to what was referred to him; bat it does not make clear that the question of membership or otherwise of the present pltfs. was at all before him. On the contrary, he opens his award with the words

(3.) MR . Mohapatra relies vary much upon the construction of this observation, particularly he lays emphasis on the words 'loan incurred by delt. 1 as karta of the joint family.' From this, he argues that the award purported to decide that defts. 5 to 11 before the Registrar were members of the Society through deft. 1 as karta of family. I cannot accede to this contention. On the contrary, the observation seems to mean something far from it What he means to say is that in incurring the loan he acted as Karta of the family because the loan was for the benefit thereof. This is quite different from saying that he was all the while a member of the Society on behalf of the family. In the latter case, all his actions should, generally & ordinarily; be binding on the family as members of the Society. In some particular circumstances, a cause of exoneration may be pleaded by the other members of the family but that does not make him the less a member on behalf of the family. The decision that persons other than members or past members or their legal representatives or their surities are liable for the loan incurred by a member is a question which is not within the jurisdiction of the (Registrar of Co. operative Societies. In order to demonstrate this, we have to look to the statutory provisions bearing upon the question. To start with, a 'member', as defined in Schedule (f), Bihar & Orissa Co -operative Societies Act, 1935, includes