The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of S.69(1)(f) and S.100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and the applicability of these provisions in disputes between the Society and a person other than a member of the Society.

1. This appeal has come up before a Full Bench on reference by a Division Bench for decision on the question whether a suit for specific performance of an agreement to grant a lease of a shop building by the defendant (the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank) to the plaintiff is barred under S.69(1) (f) and S.100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Act 21 of 1969), hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. The defendant is a society registered under the Act. The plaintiff is not a member of the Society. He had been carrying on trade in a room on the ground floor of a building belonging to the defendant-Society on a monthly rent of Rs. 12.50. The defendant-Society with a view to reconstruct the building requested the plaintiff to surrender possession of the shop-room in his occupation. It was agreed between the parties that after the reconstruction the plaintiff will be put in possession of a shop-room on the ground floor of the reconstructed building having more or less an equal area as was in his occupation. The plaintiff surrendered possession of the shop room, but on reconstruction of the building, the defendant-society declined to put the plaintiff in possession of a shop room for his trade even though other tenants who had also vacated on the request of the plaintiff were allotted rooms in the reconstructed building. As per the agreement the rent payable in respect of the shop-room in the reconstructed building is to be fixed afresh. The plaintiff claimed damages of Rs. 25,000/-in case it is found that the agreement between the parties cannot be specifically enforced.

3. The defendant-society contended that the contract between the parties has become frustrated as the building could not be reconstructed within the stipulated time. The plaintiff's shop was on the western side of the demolished building adjoining a public road and as per the Kerala Municipal Buildings Rules the defendant had to leave a margin of three metres between the road and the building The space occupied by the plaintiff in the building let out had to be kept as vacant land and hence the contract between the parties has become impossible of performance. The defendant denied liability for damages, and raised a further contention that the suit is barred under S.69(1) (f) and S.100 of the Act.

4. The court below on the basis of Exts.A1 and A2 letters issued by the defendant to the plaintiff found that the plaintiff has proved the agreement set up in the plaint. The defendant's plea that the contract has become impossible of performance and it is frustrated was found against. On Issue (4) it was found that "the plaintiff should have been provided with accommodation on the western side of the building on the ground floor and facing the road on the west". The claim for damages was negatived as not proved. The suit was however dismissed on the ground that it is barred under S.69(1) (f) and S.100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

5. The relevant portion of S.69(1) of the Act is extracted below: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises:

xxx xxx xxx xxx

(f) between the Society and a person other than a member of the Society who has been granted a loan by the Society or with whom the Society has or had business transaction or any person claiming through such person

xxx xxx xxx xxx

such dispute seal be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute."

S. 2 clause (i) defines 'dispute' to mean:

"any matter touching the business, constitution, establishment or management of a Society capable of being subject of litigation and includes a claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a Society whether such claim be admitted or not'

As per S.100 no civil or revenue court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter for which provision is made in the Act. The plaintiff is not a member of the Socie