Disputes involving recovery of possession of property forfeited by a co-operative society do not fall within the ambit of Section 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, and the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes.

M. G. MUKHERJI, C. J.

( 1 ) D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 78/95 preferred by the liquidator, Shri Bhopal Co-operative Society, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur arises out of the judgment of reversal dated September 20,1994 passed by a learned single Judge of our Court in S. B. Civil First Appeal No. 5/79 which was filed against the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Udaipur dated 22. 8. 1978 in Civil Suit No. 31/70.

( 2 ) D. B. CIVIL Special Appeal No. 82/95 filed by the Liquidator, Shri Bhopal co-operative Society Ltd. Pratap Nagar, Udaipur impugns a judgment dated 28. 9. 1995 passed by the self-same learned single Judge in S. B. Civil First Apeal No. 1/79 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District judge, Udaipur dated 21. 8. 1978 in Civil Suit No. 29/70.

( 3 ) D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 3/69 has been filed by the Liquidator, Shri bhopal Co-operative Society Ltd. Pratap Nagar, Jaipur impugning a judgment dated 20. 9. 1994 passed by the self-same learned single Judge in S. B. Civil First Appeal No. 4/79 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District judge, Udaipur dated 23. 8. 1978 in Civil Suit No. 18/72.

( 4 ) IN D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 78/95, the facts inter alia were to the effect that the plaintiff Liquidator filed the suit for possession of the property and for damages at the rate of Rs. 250/- p. m. from 24. 9. 1969 upto delivery of possession for illegal use and occupation of the defendant-respondent. The original defendant respondent having died, his heirs and legal representative have been substituted in his place and stead. The suit was filed on the allegation that the plaintiffs is a registered Society and house No. 36 had been allocated to the defendant Bhagwan son of Lila Ram Hingorani and house No. 37 to Brahma, the other son of Lila Ram hingorani. The expenses of the construction were jointly incurred by the defendants no. 1 and 2 and the plaintiff Society. As per the terms of the agreement entered between the parties, it was admitted by the defendants that the amount of Rs. 9455. 54 was due to the Society. The defendants agreed to pay this amount within a period of ten years in the monthly instalments of Rs. 78. 80. The Society received the rent of the house and the instalments were being adjusted against the rent. The tenants vacated the premises on 23. 10. 1993 and, thereafter, there was no rent and the defendants were required to pay the instalments which they have not paid. Thereafter, by giving a notice, the house was forfeited as per the terms of the agreement. The house was in possession of the Society. The defendants No. 3 and 4 Harbux and Ram Chandra broke open the locks and trespassed into the house on 24. 9. 1969 and they denied the ownership of the house. Thereafter, the Liquidator filed the present suit. The defendants filed the written statement to the effect that the construction of the house was never made by the plaintiff-society and the house was not allotted to them by the society. The house was allotted by a different Society Shri Bhopal Co-operative society Ltd. , Udaipur. The registration of the Society was void. The liquidation proceedings were illegal. The Society had no right to file the suit in the civil Court. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-Liquidator against which S. B. Civil First Appeal No. 5/79 was preferred.

( 5 ) IN D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 82/95, the facts were to the effect that the plaintiff-Society through the Liquidator filed the suit for delivery of the suit property and for damages at the rate of Rs. 200/- p. m. starting from 15. 12. 1969 for illegal use and occupation by the defendant-Harbux. The suit was filed on the allegation that the plots No. 149 and 150 were allotted to the defendant-respondent by the Society. The residential houses were constructed on these plots. The amount of Rs. 13,428. 84 was spent by the Society in raising the construction an