Skip to content


The South Arcot District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. V. Thirupuliswami Naidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.A.O. No. 144 of 1969
Judge
Reported inAIR1974Mad113
ActsTamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 - Sections 91; Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 - Sections 47 and 48
AppellantThe South Arcot District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd.
RespondentV. Thirupuliswami Naidu
Cases ReferredRamabhakthula Ramayya v. Chittoor District Co
Excerpt:
.....act liii of 1961 nor in act vi of 1932 the jurisdiction of t he civil court is ousted to execute a civil decree. there is nothing in the act or in the rules which prevents the civil court from proceedings to execute the decree passed by it. both the civil court and the registrar may have concurrent jurisdiction to execute the decree. in the rules framed under act liii of 1961 provision is made for the registrar to call for the records from the civil court but even that would not result in excluding the jurisdiction of the civil court to execute a decree passed by the court unless provisions to that effect is made in the act. reading section 91 which provides that the registrar may execute a decree, it is an enabling provision which authorises the registrar also to execute the decree...........in act 53 of 1961 nor in act 6 of 1932 the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted to execute a civil decree. with regard to act 6 of 1932, this position was considered by a bench of this court in muhammad amin sahib v. thiruvannamali co-op society and held that there was nothing in the act or in the rules which prevents the decree passed by it. the bench also pointed out that both the civil court and the registrar may have concurrent jurisdiction to execute the decree. in the rules framed under the new act (act 53 of 1961) provision is made for the registrar to call for the records from the civil court but even that would not result in excluding the jurisdiction of the civil court to execute a decree passed by the court unless provision to that effect is made in the act. reading.....
Judgment:
1. The only question that arises in this appeal is whether the Civil Court can execute a decree obtained by a co-operative Society. Before the trial of the suit, the dispute was taken up to this Court by the respondent herein in a Writ Petition questioning the competency of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to adjudicate a dispute on the ground that he was not a member of the Co-operative Society. This Court allowed the Writ Petition holding that as the respondent was not a member of the Co-operative Society the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies had no jurisdiction to proceed with disposing of that dispute. Subsequently the Co-operative Society filed a suit which resulted in a decree. Subsequently the Co-operative Society filed an execution petition. The defence raised by the respondent is that the decree cannot be executed in a civil court but only before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 91 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (Act 53 of 1961) corresponding to Sec. 57-A of Act VI of 1932. Section 91 of the New Act provides that the Registrar or any person subordinate to him empowered by the Registrar in this behalf, may subject to the rules and without prejudice to any other mode of recovery provided by or under the Act recover the sums due under any of classes (a) to (f) enumerated in the section. Under rule 59 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963, when the decree-holder applies to the Registrar under Section 91 the Registrar may apply to the Civil Court which passed the decree or order for the transfer to him of the said decree. But neither in Act 53 of 1961 nor in Act 6 of 1932 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted to execute a civil decree. With regard to Act 6 of 1932, this position was considered by a Bench of this court in Muhammad Amin Sahib v. Thiruvannamali Co-op Society and held that there was nothing in the Act or in the rules which prevents the decree passed by it. The Bench also pointed out that both the Civil Court and the Registrar may have concurrent jurisdiction to execute the decree. In the rules framed under the new Act (Act 53 of 1961) provision is made for the Registrar to call for the records from the Civil Court but even that would not result in excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to execute a decree passed by the Court unless provision to that effect is made in the Act. Reading Section 91 which provides that the Registrar may execute a decree, it is an enabling provision which authorises the Registrar also to execute the decree. In Karuppaswamy v. Krishnaswamy Gounder, 1949-1 Mad LJ 199 = (AIR 1949 Mad 609). Satyanarayana Rao, J., held that the decree obtained by a Co-operative Society can be executed by the Registrar without an order of transfer of the decree from the Civil Court which passed the decree, but the power of the Civil Court to execute the decree was not considered in that decision. Reliance was placed by the learned Advocate for the respondent on the decision reported in Ramabhakthula Ramayya v. Chittoor District Co-operative Deputy Registrar and Liquidator of Co-operative Societies, 1945-2 Mad LJ 112 = (AIR 1945 Mad 370). In that decision the Court was dealing with a suit filed for setting aside the sale held by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted in such matters by the provisions of the Co-operative Societies act and the rules made thereunder and that the suit was therefore not maintainable. It may be noted that the dispute was in a case of a Co-operative Society though a liquidator was appointed under Section 47 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932. With regard to liquidation, Section 48 of Act 6 of 1932 clearly excludes jurisdiction of the civil Court. The Section runs as follows:

"Save in so far as is expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall take cognizance of any matter connected with the winding up or dissolution of a society under this Act, and when a liquidator has been appointed no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie or be proceeded with against the society except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose."

The case cited was one under liquidation and was clearly barred by Section 48. Further it was pointed out by the Bench that the rules provide machinery for the execution of orders and for the hearing and determination of objections to sales in execution and such rules would include provision for setting aside the sale and therefore the application before the Civil Court was not maintainable. The decision does not apply to the facts of the case before us.

2. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to execute the decree. The appeal is allowed with costs.

3. Appeal allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //