Back
1995 Supreme(Mad) 402
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL HADI
P. SATHYANARAYANAN
Versus
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY, VALLOOR, THROUGH ITS SPECIAL OFFICER, HAVING OFFICE AT THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (HOUSING) TIRUNELVELL
S.A.1329 of 1993
Decided On : 05-04-1995
A registered cooperative society is bound to honor the obligations of an unregistered society which it has taken over.
Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - SALE AGREEMENT - UNREGISTERED SOCIETY - REGISTERED SOCIETY - RULES AND REGULATIONS - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1983, SECTION 90 - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, SECTION 19(B).
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs entered into sale agreements with an unregistered society for the purchase of house sites. Later, the society was registered as a cooperative society. The plaintiffs filed suits for specific performance of the sale agreements, but the courts below dismissed the suits, holding that the plaintiffs were not employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and, therefore, not eligible for allotment of house sites under the society's rules and regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance of the sale agreements, as the registered society had taken over all the assets and liabilities of the unregistered society and was bound to honor the obligations of the unregistered society. The court also held that the civil court had jurisdiction to try the dispute, as the dispute did not fall within the ambit of Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance of the sale agreements entered into with the unregistered society? 2. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to try the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act provides that specific performance of a contract may be enforced against any person claiming under the original party to the contract by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract. The registered society, as the successor to the unregistered society, was bound to specifically perform the sale agreements entered into by the unregistered society. 2. Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 does not apply to disputes between a member of a society and a person claiming through a member, past member, or deceased member, and the society or its board. The dispute in the present case fell within this category, and therefore, the civil court had jurisdiction to try the dispute.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below, and decreed the suits as prayed for.
ABDUL HADI, J.
( 1 ) THESE two Second Appeals are taken up together for disposal since the point involved in both the matters is same No doubt these appeals are filed by two different person, who are respectively the plaintiff in O. S. No 12 4 of 1988 and O. S No. 1223 of 1988 both on the file of the District Munsif, Valliyoor. The 1st defendant in both the suits is same. It is Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Cooperative house Construction Society Valliyoor and is the 1st respondent in these two Second Appeals.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff in each of the two suits the 1st defendant society is a registered society, which was registered pursuant to. G. O. No. 1193 dated 31-7-1986. Prior to coming into existence of the said registered society, the said society was an unregistered body. While the said society was such an unregistered body, the respective plaintiffs became its members in 1980 find in the same year, the said society offered to sell two different house sites, viz , Plot Nos 19 and 37 respectively, the former, to the plaintiff in O S No 1224 of 1988 and the latter in favour of the plaintiff in O S No 1223 of 19s8 and thereafter by letter dated 7-2-1982, the said Society informed the respective plaintiff that it has allotted in them the said plots, in the proposed housing colony and that the probable date of registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs would be intimated separately But, it did not so intimate. But. finally on 1-7-1987 by which time. the old unregistered society became a registered society which is the 1st defendant, it refused to register the sale deed on the footing that the abovesaid plaintiffs were not employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and as per the Rules and Regulations of the 1st defendant registered society and also as per g O. No. 11193, allotment of house sites belonging to the 1st defendant could be made only to employees of the Electricity Board. Hence the said suit were filed and since the 1st defendant has alleged, that the above referred to Plot No 39 was allotted by the 1st defendant Society in favour of the 2nd defendant in O. S No. 1221 of 1988 he was impleaded as 2nd defendant in the said suit Likewise since the 1st defendant alleged that the Plot No 37 was allotted by the 1st defendant-society in favour of the 2nd defendant in O S. No. 1223 of 1988, he was impleaded as 2nd defendant in the said suit The said 3rd defendant in each of the said suits is respectively the 2nd respondent in these Second Appeals.
( 3 ) BOTH the abovesaid suits were dismissed and the appeals therefrom by the plaintiff respectively in A. S. No. 118 of 1992 and A S No 119 of 1992 both on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli were also dismissed. The judgments both at the trial stage and at the first appeal stage were not common judgments and they were delivered separately. The respondents in both the appeals are represented by the same counsel.
( 4 ) IN the light of the arguments on either side, only two questions have to be gone into in these two Second Appeals The first, arises out of the finding of the court below accepting the case of the defendants that since the Rules and Regulations of the 1st defendant registered society and also the above referred to Government Order do not permit non employees as Tamil Nadu Electricity Board getting allotment of house sites from the 1st defendant society, the respective plaintiff cannot claim against the first defendant, t he above referred to specific performance of the sale agreements they entered into in 1980 with the erstwhile unregistered society. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the courts below erred in coming in the aforesaid conclusion despite section 19 (b) of the Specific Relief Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the judgments concurrently rendered by the courts below are correct.
( 5 ) THE second question arise
