A statutory notice under S.167 is not required if the dispute does not concern the co-operative society's business.

1. The appellant in this group of three appeals has invoked the aids of the provisions of S.96 of the Civil Procedure Code ('Code' for short, hereinafter).

2. Since a group of these three appeals arise out of a common judgment and raise identical questions, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The sole question which is posed for consideration before this Court in this group of three appeals is : whether an act of taking deposits by a co - operative society would be an act of business of the defend ant - co - operative society and, if yes, whether a notice under S.167 of the Gujarat Co - operative Societies Act ('Act' for short, hereinafter), is mandatory?

3. In order to appreciate the sole question raised before this Court in these three appeals, material facts may be stated, shortly, at the outset.

4. The appellant in all these three appeals is original defendant No. 1 against whom respondent No. 1 in all these appeals, who are the original plaintiffs, had filed suits for the recovery of different amounts. Respondent No. 2 in all these appeals is the original defendant No. 2 in all the suits who was an Administrator of appellant - co - operative society. The plaintiffs who are the daughters of Maganbhai Karsanbhai Patel, who instituted three different suits. Since the plaintiffs were minor daughters of said Maganbhai, he had filed three suits as guardian of minors. The suits were filed against the appellant, original defendant No., co - operative society and respondent No. 2, an administrator of the society. The parties are, therefore, hereinafter referred to as "original plaintiff, original defendant No. l and original defendant No. 2" for the sake of convenience and brevity.

5. The plaintiffs filed three different suits on the same day, i.e., on 2-3-1971 against original defendant No. 1 - Shankerbaug Co - operative Housing Society Limited ('Society' for short, hereinafter) and also defendant No. 2 who was an administrator of the society at the relevant point of time. The other relevant facts leading to the rise of the present three appeals, may be stated, and tabulated as follows:

6. As per the case of the plaintiffs, the deposit of Rs. 20,000/- was made by each plaintiff with the defendant - society and the defendant - society had to pay interest at the rate of 6.5% on the said amount of deposits. Each plaintiff had deposited amount of Rs. 20,000/- with the defendant - society. The defendant - society had paid certain amounts to the plaintiff by way of interest and certain amount towards the principal amount of deposits. Since the defendant - society failed to repay full amount, father of all the three minor plaintiffs served the defendant - society with a notice. Notice was not replied or complied with. Therefore, minor plaintiffs who are the daughters of Maganbhai Karsanbhai Patel, filed three suits through their guardian and father, on 2-3-1971, as stated in the above table.

7. Defendant No. 1 society appeared and filed written statement and, inter alia, contended that it is a registered society and, therefore, suit against it is not maintainable without statutory notice under S.167 of the Act. The transaction of deposit as alleged by the plaintiff was also denied.

8. It was contended on behalf of the defendant - society that the father of the plaintiffs had started the defendant - society and the books of accounts of the society were maintained as per the instructions of the father of the plaintiffs. It was further contended that false entries were made in the books of accounts of the society by th