The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the title of the appellant in the property, and the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act cannot be used against a third party who is a stranger to the attachment proceedings.

1. Theplaintiff, who lost in both the Courts below is the appellant.

2. Thecase in brief is as follows:-The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction relating to the suit property. The plaintiff purchased house bearing door No.3-1-20 under a registered sale deed dated 23.6.1972 for Rs 1000 executed by Pankajam Ammal for herself and on behalf of minor son. He again purchased house No.24 under a registered sale deed dated 16.4.1975 for Rs.1500 from one Asalu Iyengar and Thiruvenkata Iyengar. The two properties were purchased out of his own earnings and both the properties were adjacent to one another. During 1976, the plaintiff demolished the two houses and constructed a single house bearing door No. 23, ward No 12 and assessment was also made in his name. The plaintiff came to know on 30.12.1977 the defendants 1 and 2 are trying to attach the schedule mentioned property in pursuance of an Arbitration Award obtained by the 2nd defendant against the 3rd defendant, who is the son of the plaintiff in connection with the alleged misappropriation of some amount in the Bank. The absolute property of the plaintiff cannot be attached for the alleged dues of his son. Hence, the suit. Defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit by denying the averments in the plaint. They also denied the absolute right of the plaintiff relating to the suit property. The third defendant was employed as a Clerk in the Deposit Section of the 2nd defendant bank and he and other employees of the bank misappropriated Rs 7,63,100. Disciplinary proceedings were intiated against them for recovering the misappropriated amount. During the pendency of the proceedings, the 3rd defendant attempted to sell the property an d therefore, attachment before judgment was made on 31.7.1997. The plaintiff also filed objection petition under Rule 135 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) before the 1st defendent on 7.1.1998 and it is still pending. Suppressing the same, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit. The suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court in view of the bar under Section 156 of the Act. There was no notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code. Th e plaintiff and his son, the 3rd defendant are living in the same property as joint family members. The plaintiff has taken the sale deed in his capacity as head of the family and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The trial court framed 7 issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, he was examined as P.W.1 and ExsA.1 to A-10 were marked and on the side of the defendants, no witness was examined and no document was marked. The trial Court dismissed the suit and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff preferred A.S.56 of 1999 on the file of Principal District Court, Tuticorin and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff has come forward with the present second appeal.

3. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law in the memorandum of grounds of appeal:

(1) Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is completely ousted under the said Act?

(2) Whether the Civil Court cannot interfere in the proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act especially when the same are clearly illegal and unjust and when basic and mandatory rules of fairplay, equity and justice are given a go-by?

(3) Whether the finding of the Courts below that the suit is premature is legally sustainable?

(4) Whether respondents 1 and 2 can proceed against the appellant, a stranger under the provisions of the cooperative societies Act when the appellant has not offered his property as security to the 2nd respondent for the alleged acts and omissions of the 3rd respondent?

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The third defendant was empl