Judgment.-O.S. No. 579 of 1971 was preferred before the file of District Munsif, Madurai, for declaration and mandatory injunction and the plaintiff’s allegations are briefly as follows:

2. The suit properties originally belonged to F. Malaya Gounder, the 3rd defendant. The second defendant had obtained a decree against the 3rd defendant in O.S.No. 359 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai. The suit properties were attached in execution of his decree in E.P.No.85 of 1969 on 8th March, 1969 and were brought to sale on 23rd February, 1970. The plaintiff purchased them for Rs. 1,300 subject to the encumbrance and the sale was confirmed on 30th April, 1970. E.A. No. 564 of 1970 was filed for delivery of the properties and the same was effected on 6th June,1970 and the delivery was also recorded as on 8th June, 1970. That ever since the date he had been in possession and enjoyment of the properties is seen from the patta and cist receipts. While that being so, the first defendant obtained an award decree in A.R.C.No. 141 of 1968 before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and in execution of that award he came to purchase the property on 24th November, 1969 itself. When the plaintiff wanted to take delivery of the possession he was obstructed by the first defendant and his men and hence the suit.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement stating as follows. The property has been purchased by this society on 24th November, 1969 itself in execution of the award decree obtained against the 3rd defendant, and that therefore any subsequent sale in favour of the plaintiff, be it a Court sale, will not divest the title of the first defendant and as between the competing titles, the title of the society ought to be preferred it being earlier in point of time. It is a valid sale, by which the property had already been sold and therefore the plaintiff derived no title. The learned District Munsif of Madurai who tried the suit decreed in favour of the plaintiff holding that the Court sale ought to be preferred to that for the sale in execution of the award obtained under the Co-operative Societies Act. He also held that the bar under section 100 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, could not oust jurisdiction of the civil Court.

4. On appeal, in A.S. No. 332 of 1972, the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai reversed the finding and set aside the decree. Against, this, the present second appeal has come to be preferred.

5. Mr. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the finding of the lower appellate Court about the bar of jurisdiction under section 100 is incorrect in view of the later judgments of the Supreme Court and one such is in Sree Raja Kandregula Srinivasa Jagannadharao Panthulu Bahadur Garu (deed.) v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1where their Lordships of the Supreme Court set out the grounds on which the jurisdiction of the civil Court should be excluded. The first ground mentioned is:

“1. Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special Tribunal the civil Court’s jurisdicticn must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil Courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.”

Relying on the above principles, it is contended that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with, and therefore, the bar under section 100 of the Co-operative Societies Act cannot be invoked as against the appellant. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that his sale ought to be preferred since the sale by the Society, in favour of itself, is vitiated by fraud and illegality. Lastly, it is submitted that from the date of purchase, the plaintiff was alone in possession and enjoyment as seen from Exhibits A-15 to A-18 the pattas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document