Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Geetha K.B., J
Siddappa Lagama Pujari – Appellant
Versus
Lagamavva Maruti Kesaragoppa – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100221 OF 2014
(A) Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Section 70 and 118 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Dispute between members of a co-operative society concerning allotment of land by the society - Suit for possession of encroached portion filed without seeking declaration of title - The dispute touches the business of the society, as the business of the society is to purchase or take on lease land for cultivation and to allot it to its members - As per Section 70 of the Act, such disputes must be referred to the Registrar for decision, and no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit in respect of such dispute - Section 118 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters required to be referred under Section 70 - The trial and first appellate courts erred in decreeing the suit, as the plaintiffs and defendants were members of the society and the dispute related to the allotment of land by the society. (Paras 20-42)
(B) Appeal - Substantial question of law - When a Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit, the judgment and decree passed by it are without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside - Other questions of law need not be considered. (Para 42)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of encroached portions in Re.Sy.No.556 and 557, claiming that the defendants had encroached on their land. The plaintiffs and the defendants were members of the Shivaji Park Tenant Co-operative Farming Society. The society had allotted land to the plaintiffs. The defendants contended that the society had cancelled the allotment to the plaintiffs and re-allotted it to defendant No.2. The trial court decreed the suit, which was confirmed by the first appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts, holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The court found that the dispute was between members of a co-operative society and touched the business of the society, i.e., the allotment of land. Therefore, as per Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, the dispute must be referred to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 118 of the Act.
Issues: The main issues were whether the suit was maintainable before the Civil Court given that the parties were members of a co-operative society and the dispute pertained to the business of the society, and whether the courts below had overlooked material evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: A dispute between members of a co-operative society concerning the allotment of land by the society, which is the society's primary business, must be adjudicated by the Registrar under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred under Section 118 of the Act for such disputes. A decree passed by a Civil Court without jurisdiction is a nullity.
Result : Appeal allowed. The judgments and decrees of the trial court and the first appellate court were set aside as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The dispute was directed to be raised before the appropriate authority under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. (Para 43)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and parties (Para 1) |
| 2. nature of appeal and relief sought (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. plaintiffs' case and defendants' contentions (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. defendants' additional written statements (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. trial court proceedings and first appeal (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. substantial questions of law (Para 11) |
| 7. arguments of counsel for both parties (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 8. court's analysis on facts and evidence (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. society's bye-laws and applicable law (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is the appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2014 in RA No.47/2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag (for short ‘First Appellate Court’) and the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2009 in OS No. 220/2004 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) Raibag (for short ‘trial Court’) and to dismiss the suit of plaintiff.
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before trial Court for sake of convenience and clarity.
3. Plaintiffs have filed the suit praying for the relief of possession in respect of encroached portion of 16 guntas in Re. Sy.No.556 shown with letter ‘A’ and encroached portion of 4 acres 14 guntas in Re-survey No.557 shown with letter ’B’ in P.T. sheet from the defendants; for Court costs and for such other reliefs.
4. The case of plaintiffs before trial Court in nutshell is that the land bearing Re.Sy.No.558 of Raibag is in the ownership of Shivaji Park Tenant Co-operative Farming Society, Raibag. Plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff No. 2 to 6 were members of the said society and as such said society has granted lands to plaintiffs on permanent basis and thus plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of said property since from the date of grant. Plaintiff No.1 is the owner of Re.Sy. No.558, measuring 8 acres 15 guntas and plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 are the owners of re-survey No. 558/2 measuring 8 acres 16 guntas. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are owners of re-survey No.557/B measuring 4 acres 20 guntas of Raibag and defendant Nos.5 and 6 are neighboring owners. Plaintiffs have given an application to ADLR Chikodi for measurement of their lands. Then, ADLR Chikodi at KBC/MR-122/2000-1 dated 24.01.2001 has conducted the survey and fixed the boundaries. At the time of measurement, defendants objected to it and even police officials were present. After conducting the measurement, ADLR, Chikodi submitted P.T. sheet extract. The description of encroached portion is shown with letters ‘A’ and ‘B’ in PT Sheet, which is in possession of defendants.
5. Defendant after service of summons has appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement, wherein he has taken contention that the suit is not maintainable in present form. The dispute in present case is in respect of boundaries. As per Section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He denied all other averments made in the plaint and further contended that defendant No.2 has filed OS No.172/2002 for declaration that he is the owner of Re. Sy. No.558, measuring 5 acres situated at Raibag. Originally, the suit schedule property belonged to the Government and Government allotted Re.Sy.No.558 of Raibag in favour of Shivaji Park Tenant Co-operative Farming Society, Raibag. The said society in turn has allotted Re.Sy.No.558 to defendant No.2 and the plaintiffs. After such grant, name of defendant No.2 was entered into record of rights. Since, from the date of allotment, defendant No.2 was in possession of Re.Sy.No.558 measuring 5 acres as per the allotment of the society. He has given application to Village Accountant on 11.08.1995, based on it, M.E. No. 5893 of Raibag was certified in his name as per Order dated 30.09.1995. After getting such grant, defendant No.2 dug bore well in his land allotted by the society and in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
