Maintainability of the suit filed by co-operative society.

K. M. Natarajan, J.

1. This revision is directed by the petitioner/second defendant in I.A.No. 959 of 1981 in O.S.No. 241 of 1981 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge, Chingelput, dismissing the said petition.

2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are briefly as follows:- The first respondent, namely, the Chingleput Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Chingleput represented byits secretary, filed the suit O.S.No .241 of 1981 against the petitioner herein and the first defendant C.K. Selvarangammal for a declaration of title of the plaintiff to the suit property and for directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession after demolishing the unauthorised construction put up by them. The case of the first respondent (plaintiff) is that the plaintiff-society has been formed for the benefit of the members in the trade of building, buying, selling, hiring, letting and developing lands in accordance, with the cooperative principles, to give loans for members for construction of dwelling houses and also to take construction of houses on behalf of members. The first defendant has been allotted plot No. B.57 as per Resolution of the society dated 19.2.1973. The conveyance deed for the plot has also to be executed by the plaintiff, as per By-laws of the Society, only after the house has been completed by the member to the satisfaction of the Board of Directors and paid the other charges. But, instead of completing the construction and obtaining the conveyance deed, the first defendant executed a sale deed to the second defendant under Document No. 293 of 1981 on 31.3.1981. The said sale deed is not valid and binding on the plaintiff. The first defendant had no manner of right, title or interest in the property to transfer the same. The second defendant is not a bona fide purchaser for value and she has no right to put up any construction. The acts of the defendants are in violation of the By-laws of the Society. Hence the suit was filed. The said suit was resisted by both the defendants and among other grounds, it is contended in the additional written statement filed by the second defendant that as per By-law 63, the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies is the competent authority to decide the dispute in question and the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and hence the suit is not maintainable. She also filed a petition, I.A.No. 959 of 1981, under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C. to try the issues regarding jurisdiction as well as the issue regarding bar of the suit under the provisions of the Act in view of the allegations stated in the additional written statement. The said application was resisted by the first respondent/plaintiff and it was contended that the civil court alone has got jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit is not barred by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, Act 53 of 1961. The Subordinate Judge upholding the contentions of the first respondent/plaintiff dismissed the petition after finding both the issues in favour of the plaintiff. Hence this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner mainly contended that as per By-law No. 63 of the plaintiff-society and under section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, Act 53 of 1961, in the case of dispute touching the business of the registered society between a member, past member or person claiming through a member and the society, reference in writing should be made by either party to the Registrar and the Registrar has to decide the dispute by himself or refer it to the arbitrator appointed by him. According to the learned counsel, the reasons given by the lower court for holding that the said provisions are not applicable are two-fold. The first is that the second defendant is a stranger and as such, no reference is possible under section 73 of the Act, or By-law 63. Further, the dispute in the case would not amount to touching the business of the society so as