Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal arises from a suit filed by the respondent, Madhaodas s/o Mohanlal Mundhada, who is the Treasurer of Pradhyapak Sahakari Gruha Nirman Sanstha Ltd., Washim, against the appellants, Shriram Dattarao Chaudhari and Vishnu Dattarao Chaudhari, for recovery of possession of property. The appellants are labourers residing in Lakhala, Washim. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the decree was confirmed by the first appellate court. Aggrieved, the appellants filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appeal was admitted on 12.7.2005 on a substantial question of law: whether the Civil Court would have taken cognizance of the suit for recovery of possession in view of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act). At the final hearing, the appellants and their counsel remained absent. The respondent's counsel, Mr. R.L. Khapre, submitted that the substantial question of law does not survive in light of the ruling in Alok Agarwal and Others vs. Punam Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Others, 2013 (1) Mh.L.J. 104, which refers to the Supreme Court decision in Margret Almeida vs. Bombay Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 642. In Margret Almeida, the Supreme Court held that disputes which are mandatorily required to be referred to the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act must be between parties belonging to one or other category specified in clauses (a) to (e) of subsection (1) of Section 91. Since the appellants are not members of the society, the dispute does not fall within those categories, and the Civil Court has jurisdiction. Accordingly, the substantial question of law was answered against the appellants, and the second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Section 91 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - Bar of jurisdiction - The suit for recovery of possession filed by a cooperative society against a non-member is not barred under Section 91 of the MCS Act, as the dispute does not fall within the categories specified in clauses (a) to (e) of subsection (1) of Section 91. The Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. (Paras 2-3)
B) Cooperative Law - Dispute Resolution - Section 91 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - Scope of disputes referable to Cooperative Court - The disputes which are mandatorily required to be referred to the Cooperative Court must arise between parties belonging to one or other category specified in clauses (a) to (e) of subsection (1) of Section 91. A dispute between a society and a non-member for recovery of possession is not covered. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Court would have taken cognizance of the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of possession from the appellant in view of Section 91 of the M.C.S. Act?
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellants. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Civil court jurisdiction
- Section 91 MCS Act
- Cooperative society disputes
- Recovery of possession
- Bar of jurisdiction
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (02) 206
Second Appeal No.424 of 2004
Mr. R.L. Khapre for the respondent
Shriram Dattarao Chaudhari and Vishnu Dattarao Chaudhari
Madhaodas s/o Mohanlal Mundhada
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent decrees for recovery of possession in a suit filed by a cooperative society against non-members.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to challenge the decrees for recovery of possession passed by the trial court and first appellate court.
Filing Reason
The appellants were aggrieved by the decrees for recovery of possession and raised the issue of civil court's jurisdiction in view of Section 91 of the MCS Act.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit for recovery of possession; the first appellate court confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of possession filed by a cooperative society against a non-member in view of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960?
Submissions/Arguments
The respondent's counsel submitted that the substantial question of law is covered by the ruling in Alok Agarwal and Others vs. Punam Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Others, which refers to Margret Almeida vs. Bombay Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Limited, holding that disputes between a society and non-members are not barred under Section 91 of the MCS Act, and thus the Civil Court has jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of possession filed by a cooperative society against a non-member, as such a dispute does not fall within the categories specified in clauses (a) to (e) of subsection (1) of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and therefore the bar under Section 91 does not apply.
Judgment Excerpts
The substantial question of law as above was framed by this Court after the appellant was heard for admission on July 12, 2005.
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the substantial question of law would not really survive as the controversy is covered by the ruling in the case of Alok Agarwal and Others (cited supra) which also refers to the ruling by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Margret Almeida vs. Bombay Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Limited ... in which, after making reference to Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that the disputes which are mandatorily required to be referred to the Cooperative Court for adjudication must be the disputes arising between the parties to the dispute who should belong to one or other category specific in clauses (a) to (e) to subsection (1) of Section 91.
Procedural History
The respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession against the appellants in the Civil Court. The suit was decreed. The appellants appealed to the first appellate court, which confirmed the decree. The appellants then filed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, which was admitted on 12.7.2005 on the substantial question of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of Section 91 of the MCS Act. The appeal was listed for final hearing on 26.2.2014, when the appellants and their counsel were absent.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960: Section 91
