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

Kailasam, J.—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 u/s 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 u/s 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 (died) Vs. Tiruvannamalai

Co-operative Society and Others, 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

Karuppasamy Goundar Vs. K.T. Krishnaswamy Goundar, . 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 Vs. Chittoor District Co-operative Deputy Registrar and Liquidator of Co-operative Societies and Others, .

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 u/s 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.

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.

Appeal allowed.