The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, which determined the jurisdiction of the civil Court in adjudicating disputes involving Co-operative Societies.

These second appeals are focussed by the original first defendant in the respective suits, animadverting upon the judgements and decrees dated 24. 1991 and 21. 1991 passed in A.S.Nos.380 and 381 of 1988 by the II Additional Judge, (VI Addl.Judge in-charge), City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgements of the trial Court, namely, the XIV Asst.Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.Nos.1276 and 1274 of 1983, which were the suits filed for declaration and permanent injunction. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these second appeals, could be portrayed thus in view of the fact that both the Courts below elaborately detailed and delineated the relevant facts in their respective judgements.

(a) Vadivelu Mudaliar-the original plaintiff filed the two suits, namely, O.S.Nos.1276 and 1274 of 1983 so as to get declared the two sale deeds dated 12. 1982, registered as Document Nos.1915 and 1916 of 1982, executed by defendants 2 to 5, on the direction of the 8th defendant, in favour of A.Sarangan and A.Annadurai and to grant permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from putting up any construction on the suit land described in the schedule given to the plaint and from causing any obstruction, hindrance or interruption on the suit land for free passage and usage as a public street and reading room as demarcated and set apart in the Sanctioned Layout LPH 15/62.

(b) The defendants entered appearance and filed their written statements, raising the law point that the civil Court had got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the Co-operative Societies Act 1961(Act 53 of 1996) (hereinafter referred to as the Act in short), apart from raising various other points. The lower Court decreed both the suits. Being aggrieved by the same, the appeals were filed by the first defendants in the respective suits for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court, confirming the judgements and decrees of the lower Court. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgements of both the Courts below, these second appeals are focussed on various grounds.

3. At the time of admitting the second appeal, namely, S.A.No.1765 of 1998, my learned predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the lower appellate Court was right in deciding that the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and to go into the affairs of the co-operative Society in view of Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act?

2. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in deciding that the suit is maintainable, whereas Section 91 C.P.C.is not complied with?

3. Whether the plaintiff who has nothing to do with the co-operative Society has locusstandi to question the affairs of the co-operative Society?"

4. In S.A.No.1279 of 1998, my learned predecessor, apart from having framed the above substantial questions of law as framed in S.A.No.1765 of 1998, additionally framed the following substantial question of law also:

"Whether a Co-operative Society has a right to change the character of the plots earmarked for some common purpose when the said common purposes ceased to exist and pass resolutions to deal with them differently?"

5. At the hearing Mr.Sarangan-the appellant in S.A.1765 of 1998 appeared and argued the matter and Mrs.Bhavani Subbarayan, the learned Special Government Pleader appeared and argued the matters on behalf of respondents 7 and 8 in S.A.No.1279 of 1998 and respondents 5 & 6 in S.A.No.1765g of 1998. Whereas, others remained absent, despite printing their names in the cause list.

6. Substantial question of Law (i) in both the appeals:

A plain poring over and perusal of the relevant records would unambiguously and unequivocally, unassailably and indubitably highlight and sp