RAMABHAKTHULA RAMAYYA Vs. CHITTOOR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND LIQUIDATOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was a member of the Valavali Agraharam Co-operative Society, which is now in liquidation. He was indebted to the Society and the liquidator passed an order against him under Section 47 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932. This entitled the liquidator to proceed in execution in accordance with the rules framed under the Act. The liquidator applied to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies to execute the order requiring payment by bringing to sale properties belonging to the appellant. After the properties had been sold the appellant filed an application before the Deputy Registrar for an order setting aside the sale on the ground that there" had been material irregularity and fraud in connection with the proclamation and conduct of the sale. This application was rejected. The appellant then appealed to the Registrar, who confirmed the order of the Deputy Registrar dismissing the plaintiff's objections to the sale. Thereupon the appellant filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor for a decree declaring that the sale was fraudulent and that all the proceedings in execution were vitiated by material irregularities. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit did not lie as the Co-operative Societies Act and the rules framed thereunder had the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The appeal is against the decree dismissing the suit.

(2.) The rules framed under the Act provide the procedure to be adopted in matters of execution of orders passed under the Act. They embody broadly the provisions of Order 21, rules 89, 90, 92, 93 and 94 of the Civil P. C., but Sub-rule (3) of Rule 92, which says that no suit to set aside an order made under the rule shall be brought by a person against whom the order is made, finds no counterpart in the rules framed under the Act. The rules certainly provide ample machinery for the execution of orders and for the hearing and determination of objections to sales in execution.

(3.) In deciding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted the learned Subordinate Judge relied on the judgment of Wadsworth, J., in Subbayya V/s. Thippa Reddi , where the facts were very similar to the facts in the present case except that no application for an order setting aside the order in execution was filed. The learned Judge held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was ousted by reason of the fact that special machinery had been provided by statute for the execution of such orders. This judgment was approved of by the Full Bench of this Court which decided Secretary of State for India V/s. Jagannadham (1941) a M.L.J. 47 : I.L.R. (1941) Mad. 850 (F.B.).