The court emphasizes the need for a Claim Petition under relevant rules for asserting property rights against surcharge orders.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the daughter of one Ameerhyderkhan. The petitioner is the progeny of the wedlock between the said Ameerhyderkhan and one, Parameswari.

2. The petitioner's father was a Secretary of the 2^nd respondent society. He was visited with surcharge proceedings for alleged malfeasance during his tenure as the Secretary of the 2^nd respondent society. The surcharge order was passed quantifying the loss at Rs.16,32,253/-. Aggrieved by the same, Mr.Ameerhyderkhan has also preferred an Appeal before the Principal District Judge cum Co-operative Tribunal at Mayiladuthurai in C.M.A. No. 348 of 2021. The appeal is said to be pending. The petitioner's father was dismissed from service and he has also challenged the said dismissal in W.P. No. 35739 of

2023. As there is no interim order in any of the proceedings, the 1^st respondent had proceeded to attach the property in his proceedings Na.Ka. 1298/2021/Sa.Pa. dated 26.09.2025. The communication sent by the 1^st respondent was also forwarded to the 3^rd and 4^th respondents for making endorsement in the encumbrance certificate of the property. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the property attached is not an exclusive property of her father, Mr.Ameerhyderkhan. She states that the property was purchased by her mother, Parameswari in the year 2011. Parameswari unfortunately passed away in the year 2012 leaving behind her husband and the petitioner as her legal heirs. The petitioner pleads that while the respondents can proceed against the share of her father for the alleged amount crystallized under the surcharge order, she, not being a member or servant of the 2^nd respondent society, is not answerable to the said amount. Hence, this Writ Petition.

4. I heard Mr.C.Prakasam, for the petitioner, Mr.S.Ravikumar, for the 1^st respondent, Mr.C.Sathish, for the 2^nd respondent and Mr.M.S.Arasakumar, for the 3^rd and 4^th respondents.

5. The plea of the petitioner is literally in nature of a Claim Petition filed asserting that her share of the property cannot be attached for execution of the surcharge order passed against her father.

6. A Claim Petition requires evidence, both documentary and oral. Under Rule 135 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, the 1^st respondent has been empowered to entertain Claim Petitions and decide whether a person making a claim over the property has any right, title or interest over the same. Such an enquiry would also include whether the claimant has a fractional share of the property. When Rule 135 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 exists, I do not wish to don on myself, the role of the 1^st respondent and decide whether the petitioner has an interest over the property. Hence, the petitioner is relegated to the 1^st respondent to file a Claim Petition under Rule 135 and work out her rights in accordance with law.

7. Mr.C.Prakasam, pleads that in the meantime, if the property is sold in a public auction, third party rights would intervene and the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and prejudice.

8. I find a lot of strength in this submission. Hence, this writ petition is disposed in the following terms:-

1. The petitioner shall file a Claim Petition before the 1^st respondent within thirty(30) days from today;

2. To avoid the property being brought for sale in a auction, the petitioner shall deposit 50% of Rs.16,32,253/- with the 1^st respondent. The deposit shall be made within a period of six(6)

weeks from today;

3. In case the deposit is not made, the 1^st respondent is free to proceed with the execution of an order of sale, and such sale shall be subject to the result of the Claim Petition;

4. The amount, if