S S NARAYANASWAMI AIYAR Vs. ALAMELU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff appeals against the decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing his suit for a declaration that he is absolutely entitled to a certain fund over which the first respondent levied attachment in execution of a money decree obtained against the assets of the second respondent's father. The amount in question is about Rs. 1,437 which stood to the credit of Ramakrishna. Ayyar, the .second respondent's father, in the hands of a society known as the Bombay Postal Co-operative Society Limited. The deceased Ramakrishna Iyer was a member of this society. He borrowed certain monies and transferred by way of security two postal life insurance policies. After adjusting the amounts due to the Bombay Co-operative Society there was a sum of Rs. 1,437-11-0 to the credit of Ramakrishna Iyer. The husband of the first respondent obtained a decree against Ramakrishna Iyer in 1932 and levied attachment of the amount in question after the death of Ramakrishna Ayyar which took place on the 20th September, 1938. The attachment was in the year next after Ramakrishna Iyer's death. The plaintiff is the nominee of the deceased Ramakrishna Iyer in the Bombay Postal Co-operative Society,

(2.) The Society is governed by the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1925). Under that Act a society which has as its object the promotion of the economic interests of its members in accordance with co-operative principles of a society established with the object of facilitating the operations of such a society may be registered under the Act. The liability of the members of a society is limited in some cases and unlimited in other cases. Section 6 deals with a case where the liability of the members of a society is limited by shares. Every member who becomes a shareholder is entitled to certain rights and privileges and is under certain obligations which are laid down in the Act. Under Section 27 of the Bombay Act, bye- laws are made and one of the bye-laws says that a member may nominate any one he desires as the person to whom in the event of his death he wishes the sums due to him to be paid by the Society. It would appear that there was a similar rule made under Section 22 of Act II of 1912 which governed the society before the Bombay Act was passed. The plaintiff was nominated by Ramakrishna Iyer the deceased. Ramakrishna Iyer became indebted to the first respondent's husband and the latter obtained a decree against Ramakrishna Iyer in 1932. He levied attachment over this sum of Rs. 1,437-11-0 in 1939. The plaintiff intervened with a claim petition objecting to the attachment, but the claim petition was dismissed. That has led to the present suit. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suit and hence this second appeal,

(3.) The point for determination is whether the amount in question was liable to be proceeded against in execution of the money decree against Ramakrishna Iyer. Ramakrishna Iyer was a shareholder of the Bombay Postal Co-operative Society. He transferred to the Society evidently by way of security an asset of his which consisted of certain life insurance policies. This he did when he borrowed some money from the society. After satisfying the amounts due to the Society there was this sum of Rs. 1,437-11-0 due to the shareholder Ramakrishna Iyer. Ex. P-44 shows that the society does not claim any right over this fund. In that document the society stated that the sum would be paid as per Section 27(2) of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act of 1925 to S.S. Narayanaswami Iyer, the nominee of the deceased, unless orders to the contrary were obtained from a competent Court of law. The first respondent has levied attachment and the question is whether it is a legal order.