The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the U.P Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, regarding the rights and powers of cooperative societies in relation to mortgage, sale of property, and service of notice under Section 80 C.P.C.

This Second Appeal, U/s 100 C. FG. , has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19. 9. 1983, passed by Ad ditional District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1978 arising out of Suit No. 214 of 1976.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this ap peal are that respondent Rajendra Prasad Goel filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Dehradun, for declaration that the property given at the schedule of the plaint was not liable to attachment and sale in the decree passed in suit No. 194/ 1950 by the Civil Judge Saharanpur and in Misc. Case No. 123/67 of the Court of Civil Judge, Roorkee (Saharanpur ). According to plaint case Jagat Gram Sanyukta Sahkari Samiti, Jagat Gram, Ashok Ashram, Dehradun has been a duly constituted and registered society, which is registered with the Registrar, Cooperative Societies Meerut in the year 1969 and the disputed property had been transferred under the control and management of the said Cooperative Society. The Cooperative Society had mortgaged the said property with the District Cooperative Bank, Dehradun by a registered mortgaged deed dated 14-12-1970 for the development of the said land and for agriculture on the basis of cooperative system\ On failing to repay the debts of the mortgage, the said so ciety vide its resolution No. 2 dated 13. 2. 1975 resolved to sell the property which was approved by the District Co operative Bank, Dehradun. The property was sold to the plaintiff/respondent /ide sale deed dated 25. 3. 75, which was registered on 28-4-1975, for the considera tion of a sum of Rs. 6,930/ -. The plain tiff was also delivered the possession of the property. The plaintiffs case further is that he developed the said property after making investment of a huge amount. On 3-4-1976 the plaintiff re ceived a notice from Sri N. K. Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Sri Shiv Chand Kumar, that the disputed land was at tached in execution No. 2 of 1975 in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Dehradun. The plaintiff moved an application un der Order 21 Rule 58 C. P. C. before the Additional District Judge, Dehradun, but the same was rejected for the reason that the application was moved after expiry of six months. The plaintiff/re spondent alleged that at the time of at tachment the disputed property was in his possession and he was recorded as Bhumidhar of the same, Shiv Chand Kumar was not the owner of the land nor he was in possession and he had no right to transfer the property in suit. The plaintiff has no concern with the decree passed in suit No. 194 of 1950, hence the property was not liable to attach ment. The defendants were served with notice U/s 80 C. P. C. but they did not agree to leave the property in suit, hence the suit was instituted.

3. The defendant Union of India contested the suit on the ground that there is no cooperative society as alleged in the plaint, and no property was en trusted in the management of such a society; that the land was not mortgaged to the Cooperative Bank; that the pro posal, if any, made to sell part of the property, was with malafide intention to defeat the realization of the decreetal amount against the mortgagor and as such the act of the mortgagor is unlaw ful; that there has been no sale of the property in favour of the plaintiff nor is the same lawful and is void and in or der to defaud the decree holder/creditor, i. e. Union of India, who is executing the decree against Sri Shiv Chand Kumar, the real owner of the land and against whom execution is pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Dehradun; that it is wrong to say that the plaintiff was in possession of the property or cultivat ing the same and the name of the plain tiff, if mutated has been done clandes tinely when the land was already under attachment and as suchs the same is unlawful; that Sri Shiv Chand Kumar and plaintiff were colluding to file a false objection against the execution proceed ings; that the order of attachment is cor rect and has rightly