A dispute regarding a deposit in a cooperative society is neither purely a member dispute nor barred by cooperative laws if it does not relate to membership transactions.

1 In this revision petition Mr. George Varghese, learned counsel for the 1st defendant petitioner, the Cooperative society in question, challenges the decree and judgment of the learned Munsiff of Kottarakara in S. C. S. No. 43/1963 accepting the claim of the plaintiff and passing a decree in his favour.

2 According to the plaintiff, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 267/- in a savings bank account with the 1st defendant society, of which the plaintiff is also a member. Out of the amount deposited by him, the plaintiff states that he has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 50 and as the balance amount has not been paid inspite of demand, he has instituted the suit in question for realisation of the same. Both the cooperative society as well as its President, who were defendants 1 and 2 respectively in the action, took up two contentions viz., that the amount, for the recovery of which the plaintiff has instituted the suit, really represents a security deposit that has been made by the plaintiff, and that inasmuch as he is a member of the society, the proper remedy to be adopted will be as provided for in S.60 of the Travancore - Cochin Cooperative Societies Act (Act X of 1952). The same plea was also urged even on the assumption that the amount which is sought to be recovered represents amount due under a savings bank deposit.

3 Therefore the Trial Court had to consider two questions viz., as to whether the plea of the defendants that the amount, the recovery of which the plaintiff seeks in the suit, was really one deposited by him as security in connection with a contract for the construction of a building stated to have been taken and secondly as to whether their further contention that the plaintiff's remedy if at all, is not by coming to the civil court for relief, but to approach the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, under S.60 of the Travancore - Cochin Cooperative Societies Act, inasmuch as the dispute is one which touches the business of the society. The learned Munsiff has considered both the aspects and recorded findings as against the defendants. So far as the nature of the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants is concerned, the learned Munsiff is of the view that the claim of the plaintiff that the amount, which he seeks recovery of, is really a deposit made by him in savings bank account with the society is true and the case of the defendants that it really represents a security deposit, cannot be accepted. In fact, the learned Munsiff is of the view that the defendants, notwithstanding the fact that they have raised this contention, have let in no evidence whatsoever in support of such a plea. After finding to that extent in favour of the plaintiff, the learned Munsiff considers the further question as to whether, even in respect of relief sought for the recovery of amounts due to the plaintiff under a savings bank account from the society, of which he is a member, the provisions of S.60 of the Travancore - Cochin Cooperative Societies Act operate as a bar. So far as that is concerned, here again the learned Munsiff considers the bye laws of the society, in which one of the objects of the society is to promote cottage industries by raising funds by borrowing. In particular, the learned Munsiff refers also to the provisions regarding opening of savings bank accounts; and in that connection he refers to clause (d) of bye law 16 which provides for amounts being received by the society in savings bank account, both from members as well as non members, preference being shown to members. But the learned Munsiff, on the basis of a judgment of my learned brother T. C. Raghavan, J., reported in Coir Industrial Cooperative Society, Chingoli v. Govindan (1962 KLT 400), makes a distinction between transactions "for the purpose of the business" and transactions "touching the business of the Society", and ultimately the learned Munsiff comes to the conclusion that the case on hand does not fall within the latter type of cases re