Judgment :- 1. The 1st respondent, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Idikki as per Ext. P-8 order, dated 22nd March 1979 found that the membership of the petitioner in the Board of Directors of the 3rd respondent society ceased as per R.44 (2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, with effect from 28th May 1977, i.e. the date on which the default has exceeded 3 months and that therefore from that date he is disqualified under R.44 (1) (c) (i) of the said rules to continue in the Board of the said society. The 1st respondent accordingly made a declaration as per Ext. P-8 order. This order is impugned before me by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was not in default to the 2nd respondent society as found by the 1st respondent. 2. The 2nd respondent society by the letter, dated 17th May 1974, a copy whereof is marked herein as Ext. P-1 requested the petitioner to make available a sum of Rs. 1,300 on 20th May 1974 by paying the sum in the office of the 2nd respondent society By Ext. P-1 letter sent by the secretary of the 2nd respondent society the petitioner was also informed that on 20th May 1974 the Board members of the 2nd respondent society shall also be present in the office of the 2nd respondent society It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to Ext P-1 request he gave the 2nd respondent a sum of Rs. 1,300 on 20th May 1974 As averred in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent society by its secretary the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1,300 with the 2nd respondent. But this was money collected by the petitioner and therefore the said amount is not the amount of the petitioner as claimed by him. However, the 2nd respondent society has no case that it is the 2nd respondent society's amount. 3. It appears that the 2nd respondent society demanded a further sum for entering into a transaction with the Forest Department for tongya cultivation of a coup during the period 1974-75 The said cultivation was to be over by December 1975. The petitioner has a case that he advanced a sum of Rs. 3. It appears that the 2nd respondent society demanded a further sum for entering into a transaction with the Forest Department for tongya cultivation of a coup during the period 1974-75 The said cultivation was to be over by December 1975. The petitioner has a case that he advanced a sum of Rs. 21,118.20 for entering into the tongya lease transaction and of the sard amount only Rs.19,608.64 was actually used by the 2nd respondent society for that transaction. It is his further case that as against that account a sum of Rs 1,509 56 is due by the 2nd respondent society to the petitioner as excess payment paid by him. As per Ext. P-4 letter dated, 15th March 1976 the petitioner demanded return of the said sum of Rs. 1,500 and odd which as claimed by him therein is over-payment on account of the 1975-76 coup transaction. He by Ext. P-4, demanded the return of that sum before 30th of March 1976. By Ext. P-5 reply, dated 18th March 1976 the Secretary of the 2nd respondent society informed the petitioner with reference to his Ext. P-4 letter that steps would be taken for the return of the sum of Rs. 1,509 56 paid excess by the petitioner after verifying the accounts. Ext. P-5 reply also refers to the coup transaction accounts in the name of the petitioner. 4. Admittedly the petitioner has taken a loan of Rs. 780 on 29th October 1976, that is to say subsequent to his payment of Rs. 1,300 to the 2nd respondent on 20th May 1974 and also after the correspondence between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent society evidenced by Exts P-4 and P-5 mentioned in the preceding paragraph The loan was repayable by 28th February 1977 while so, ie after he has taken the loan of Rs. 780 on 29th October 1976 and before the said amount became repayable by him to the 2nd respondent society on 28tb February 1977, on 15th February 1977 the petitioner wrote to the 2nd respondent society requesting that the amount due from him by way of loan taken by him be adjusted towards the sum of Rs. 1,300 deposited by him on 20th May 1974 A copy of that letter marked herein is Ext. P-2. By Ext. P-3 reply, the secretary informed the petitioner that the request made by the petitioner as per Ext. 1,300 deposited by him on 20th May 1974 A copy of that letter marked herein is Ext. P-2. By Ext. P-3 reply, the secretary informed the petitioner that the request made by the petitioner as per Ext. P-2 letter would be placed before the committee for consideration and further steps According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has not taken any steps in respect of Ext. P-2 request and Ext. P-4 request, namely the request to adjust the loan amount due from him to the 2nd respondent society towards the sum of Rs. 1.300 which according to the petitioner is due to him and to repay the sum of Rs 1,509 56 as demanded in Ext. P-4, though the 2nd respondent has a case that the 2nd respondent has decided not to pay back the amount to the petitioner on the ground that he is not entitled to get back the amount (inadvertently or mistakenly stated in the counter-affidavit as "the Board has not decided to pay back the amount") There is no case for the 2nd respondent that any such decision was communicated to the petitioner in answer to Exts. P-2 and P-4 requests made by the petitioner. 5. On these facts and these circumstances it is contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a case where no amount is due from him to the 2nd respondent society in so far as the sum of Rs. 780 borrowed by him from the 2nd respondent society need only be adjusted towards the amount due to him as mentioned in Exts. P-2 and P-4. It is further contended that as and when the petitioner to whom the larger sum of Rs. 1,300 is Hue from the 2nd respondent society made a request to adjust the lesser sum of Rs. 780 due from him to that society as per Ext.P-2, the 2nd respondent society should have made adjustment and that I should deem that what the 2nd respondent society should have done as done. On that basis it is contended that the petitioner cannot be said to be in default in respect of repayment of the sum of Rs. 780 at any time The learned counsel for the petitioner in that behalf relies on the well settled principle which Mellish, L. J. propounded and which Lord Wright quoted with approval in Trinidad L. A. Co. 780 at any time The learned counsel for the petitioner in that behalf relies on the well settled principle which Mellish, L. J. propounded and which Lord Wright quoted with approval in Trinidad L. A. Co. v. I. T. Commr., AIR. 1945 P. C. 85 at 88: "Nothing is clearer than if parties account with each other and sums are stated to be due on the one side and sums of an equal amount due on the other side of that account and these accounts are settled by both parties, it is exactly the same thing as if the sums due on each side bad been paid. Indeed it is a general rule of law that in every case where a transaction resolves itself into paying money by A to B and then handing it back again by B to A if the parties meet together and agree to set one demand against the other, they need not go through the form or ceremony of handing the money backwards and forwards." 6. So far as Ext P-8 order is concerned it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 1st respondent has erred in taking the view that it was not a matter to be considered by him that as to whether any amount was payable by the petitioner or not in the circumstances stated above. The 1st respondent has taken the view that it is not necessary for him to enquire into the reasons for the default. He proceeds on the premise that the petitioner was in default According to the 1st respondent, he concluded that the petitioner was in default because there was no case for the petitioner that the sum of Rs. 780 borrowed by him on 29th October 1976 was repaid in cash But in Ext P-7 answer to Ext. P-6 show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent be had mentioned the facts detailed above. It was therefore incumbent upon the 1st respondent to decide with reference to these facts and on the said circumstances as to whether the petitioner was in default or not in respect of the borrowing of Rs. 780 by him. In that respect it was also necessary for the 1st respondent to consider the question as to whether the petitioner's case that the sum of Rs. 1,300 and another sum of Rs. 780 by him. In that respect it was also necessary for the 1st respondent to consider the question as to whether the petitioner's case that the sum of Rs. 1,300 and another sum of Rs. 1,509.56 were due to him from the 2nd respondent society to whom the petitioner owed the sum of Rs. 780. It was also necessary to consider the question whether the petitioner was entitled to treat the loan as wiped off as on 15th February 1977 when he to whom the larger amount according to him, was due from the society made a request to adjust the lesser amount due by him to the society. These aspects were not considered by the respondent The learned counsel for the petitioner is also well founded in submitting that the 1st respondent erred in thinking that the amount deposited by him with the 2nd respondent society has been forfeited. The forfeiture was of the amount deposited by the 2nd respondent - society as a security for the tongya cultivation transaction. That the sum was forfeited by the Forest Department would not make the 2nd respondent society any the less liable or answerable for the amount, if any. due by it to its creditors. If the petitioner's case is correct, that he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,300 on 20th May 1974 pursuant to Ext P-4 request he stands vis-a-vis the 2nd respondent society in the position of a creditor - obviously the 2nd respondent society has no case that the said sum was a gratuitous payment made to it and that therefore it was not re-payable. In this context it is the contention advanced on behalf of the 2nd respondent society that the petitioner collected the sum of Rs. 1,300 and made the deposit. May or may not be so. So far as the 2nd respondent society is concerned it has no title thereto and it claims no title thereto The 2nd respondent society has also no case that the society is answerable for the sums deposited by the petitioner to any one from whom the petitioner has collected the same. So far as the petitioner and the 2nd respondent society are concerned the relationship is that of creditor and debtor. 7. So far as the petitioner and the 2nd respondent society are concerned the relationship is that of creditor and debtor. 7. If the position is aforesaid the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded in his submission that applying the principles stated by Mellish, L. J. to which I have adverted to hereinbefore the 2nd respondent society was bound to adjust the claim unless the 2nd respondent society had some other claims in respect of the sum of Rs. 1,300 deposited by the petitioner on 20th May 1974 The learned counsel is also well founded in his submission that by refusing to do so for whatever reason this may be the 2nd respondent society cannot seek to recover the sum of Rs. 780 from him and that therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner was in default in respect of the said amount at any time after 15th February 1977 The amount of Rs. 780 was as per the loan agreement repayable only on 20tb February 1977. Even earlier the petitioner has sought for adjustment as per Ext. P-2 letter. In view of what is stated hereinbefore it is necessary to strike down Ext. P-8 order and direct the 1st respondent to consider the matter afresh in the light of what is stated hereinbefore and applying the provisions of law governing the same I do so. This writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There will be no order as regards costs.