The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, which led to the bar on the suit under Section 118 and Section 125 of the act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27-7-1983 passed by the xii additional city civil judge, civil station, Bangalore in o. S. No. 8665/1980. The appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF filed the said suit against the defendants praying for a decree to declare that the resoultion of the board of directors of defendant-1 society dated 7-2-1980 cancelling the allotment of the site to the plaintiff as illegal and further to declare that the allotment of the schedule site in favour of the 2nd defendant as illegal void and inoperative and also to pass a decree for specific performance of the allotment of the schedule site in favour of plantiff directing defendant-1 to execute the sale deed in respect of the schedule site in favour of the plaintiff and for other reliefs referred to there on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the 1st defendant by its written statement. It appears that defendant-2 has not filed any written statement defendant-1 resisted the suit of the plaintiff on various grounds, among other things, defendant-1 took up a contention that the suit is hit by the mischief of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1950 r/w Section 118 of the said act as also under the Provisions of Section 125 of the Karnataka co-operative societies act (for short the act ).

( 3 ) THE lower court on the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties raised the following issues : (1) is the plantiff entitled for a declaration that the resolution of the board of directors of the first defendant society dated 7-2-1980 cancelling the ailotment of the site in his favour as illegal ? (2) if so, is the plaintiff further entitled for a declaration of the allotment of the schedule site in his favour the 2nd defendant as illegal, void and inoperative ? (3) is the plaintiff entitled for specific performance of the allotment of the schedule site in his favour and for consequential relief? (4) is the suit not maintainable as contended by the first defendant and the suit dispute would fall within the meaning of section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act ? (4-a) whether suit is not maintainable for want of statutory notice under Section 125 of Co-Operative Societies Act ? before the lower court plaintiff examined himself. Documents at ex. P. 1 to p. 19 were marked for the plaintiff. On behalf of defendants, three witnesses are examined. Ex. D. 1 to d. 8 are marked for the defendants.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the evidence on record and for the reasons reflected in its judgment, the lower court answered issue nos. 1 to 4 in the negative and issue No. 5 was answered in the affirmative. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed, by the judgment of the lower court dated 27-7-1983. It is this judgment of the learned city civil judge which is challenged in this appeal.

( 5 ) I have heard the arguments of Sri gangireddy learned counsel, for the appellant and Sri mohamed nasiruddin, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 6 ) SRI gangireddy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings given by the lower court and which have gone against the plaintiff, are incorrect. In particular, the learned counsel submitted that the evidence on record clearly warranted an inference that the site in question was actually allotted to the plaintiff in this connection, the learned counsel invited the attention of this court to the intimation of allotment as evidenced by ex. P. 5 dated 15-7-1978. The learned counsel also submitted to the court that the plaintiff had deposited Rs. 160/- as an advance and he had already deposited an amount of Rs. 4,000/-with reference to the site which was allotted to him earlier, that is to say, site No. 612 and in lieu of which the plaintiff has prayed for the allotment of the disputed site that is to say, site No. 478. The learned counsel relying on the