Registrar under Madras Co-operative Societies Act it a Civil Court.

This Second Appeal raises an interesting question as to whether the Registrar functioning under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act is a Civil Court within the meaning of that expression in section 25 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act (XI of 1936). The facts are not in dispute. The first plaintiff is the father and plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the third defendant are his sons and they are the members of a joint undivided Hindu family. The first plaintiff became indebted to the Co-operative Society of Kalavagunta and on the application of the society an award was passed against the first plaintiff by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vijayawada, Award No. 1011 of 1933. In execution of the said award the suit properties were attached in E.P. No. 503 of 1940-41 on his file and the sale was fixed for 29th April, 1942. On 27th of April, 1942, the first plaintiff filed a petition under section 4 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, D.C.B. No. 6 of 1942 on the file of the Debt Conciliation Board, Bandar, fpr settlement of his debts and among the debts included in the petition was the debt due to the Co-operative Society under Award No. 1011 of 1933. No notice, however, of the presentation of this petition was given either to the Registrar or to the sales officer. On 29th . April, 1942, the sale was actually held and the properties were purchased by the appellant for a sum of Rs. 60. On 16th May, 1942, the Debt Conciliation Board dismissed the Application D.C.B. No. 6 of 1942 on the ground that as a result of the sale which had taken place on 29th April, 1942, what was left of the properties of the petitioner was only a land of the extent of two cents and that, therefore, a settlement was impracticable. The first plaintiff moved the department for setting aside the sale.but without success. Vide the order of the Joint Registrar dated 26th March, 1943, Exhibit P-8. Thereupon the present action was instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Gudivada for setting aside the sale on the ground that it was in contravention of section 25 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act and therefore void and for recovery of possession of the properties from the auction-purchaser who was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit. The District Munsif held that the sale was in violation of section 25 of the Act and decreed the suit and this decision was affirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge, Masuli-patnam. The auction-purchaser has preferred this second appeal.

The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the sale held on 29th April, 1942, was within the prohibition enacted in section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act. In view of the long course of decisions ending with Ratnasabapathi Iyer v. Subramania Pillai1, it has not been argued in this Court that even if the proceedings in E.P. No. 503 of 1940-41 fell within the purview of section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act, the sale should be upheld for the reason that no notice of the presentation of D.C.B. No. 6 of 1942 was given to the Registrar or to the Sales Officer. The argument that has been pressed on behalf of the appellant is that the sale proceedings conducted by the Department under the provisions of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act are not proceedings in a Civil Court and that, therefore, unaffected by section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act. The substantial question for determination is whether the proceedings in E.P. No. 503 of 1940-41 were proceedings before a Civil Court within the meaning of that expression in section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act.

Mr. Ch. Ramakrishna Rao, the learned Advocate for the appellant, in an able argument contended that the Registrar and the Arbitrators acting under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act are performing functions more or less of a ministerial character, that ‘even if those functions are judicial, the authorities are not acting as Courts and in any event they are not acting as Civil Cour