( 1. ) THIS first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the decree of the Additional District Judge, Balaghat, dismissing the suit.

( 2. ) ON 31-7-1950, the Honorary Secretary of the defendant Co-operative Society made a reference to the Registrar that the plaintiff as a Treasurer of the Society had not accounted for the moneys received by him as such. The plaintiff had admittedly a sum of Rs. 3415-10-8 with him on behalf of the Society, but the dispute arose regarding an item of Rs. 7397-8-0 received by him on the encashment of a hundi which was appropriated by him towards, dues which he had to recover as commission agent. The Registrar gave an award on 30-6-1951 holding that the plaintiff (appellant) was liable to pay Rs. 10,462-15-6 to the defendant. The plaintiff challenged the validity of the award.

( 3. ) THE plaintiff admitted that his family firm Raotmal Mishrimal acted as a Treasurer from 20-2-1948 till 31-7-1950, but he himself was neither the Treasurer nor a member of the society. Accordingly the reference to the registrar was not competent and the award is without jurisdiction.

( 4. ) THE defendant pleaded that the plaintiff himself was the Treasurer and was also a member of the society. The reference was thus validly made under Rule 26 framed under Section 43, Clause (1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (hereinafter called the Act ).

( 5. ) THE trial Court held that Rule 26 relied upon was wide enough to give jurisdiction to the Registrar in all disputes touching the business of the society, even if one of the contestants was a stranger. Accordingly, it held that the award was binding. It did not decide the other points on which the parties had joined issues.

( 6. ) THE decision of the question whether the dispute could be referred to the Registrar depends upon the interpretation of Rule 26. That rule is as follows :

"rule 26. Any dispute touching the business of a co-operative seciety. (i) between members of past members or persons claiming through a member or past member, or (ii) between a member or past member or persons so claiming and the committee or any officer, shall be referred to the Registrar."

We have divided the different clauses for convenience. The power to frame this rule is derived from Section 43 of the Act, Sub-section (2), Clause (1), in which identical language is used.

( 7. ) SHRI R. S. Dabir for the respondent has contended that a dispute between a society and its officers can be referred under this rule. The clause, which we have marked as (ii) above, shows clearly that the parties to the dispute sought to- be referred must be those which are joined by the conjunction "and" underlined (here in ) by us in that clause. "the Committee or any officer" fall on one side of the conjunction and the plain meaning is that disputes between them inter se cannot be refer- red to the Registrar. Thus, though a Treasurer may be an officer of the committee, a dispute between him and the committee cannot be referred to the Registrar.

( 8. ) LIKEWISE, the view of the trial Court that a dispute between the society and a stranger can be referred to the Registrar is not justified. Under Clauses (i) and (ii) above, it is necessary that one of the parties to the dispute must be a member, a past member or a person claiming through them. Rule 26 does not apply to a stranger at all.

( 9. ) RELIANCE was placed by the trial Court on Kisanlal Kapurchand v. Co-operative Central Bank, Ltd. Seoni, ILR (1945) Nag 677 : (AIR 1946 Nag 16 ).- In that case, the Treasurer had executed security bonds which were sought to be enforced. In addition to being a Treasurer, he was also a member. While discussing the implications of the expression "the business of a co-operative society" their Lordships observed in the penultimate paragraph of that decision :

". . . . . the expression the business of a co-operative society occurring in Rule 26 is not restricted to the dealings with the members of the society only but tha