Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1983 DIGILAW 126 (KAR)

H. R. SEETHAMMA v. MYS. UNIVERSITY COOP BANK LTD.

1983-06-20

M.P.CHANDRAKANTARAJ

body1983
M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are the wife and son respectively of one H. R. Ramachandra rao who was the ex-manager of the mysore University Co-operative Bank ltd. , Mysore. In this petition they have prayed for the quashing of the order at Annexure-B. That order is an order of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore Divn. , Mysore 2nd respondent herein, dt. 6th September 1980. That order came to be passed on the application made by the writ petitioners in Dispute No. DRD 1269179-80 before the 2nd respondent-Joint Regisrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore. That application was for impleading the writ petitioners as parties in place of the said H. R. Ramachandra Rao who has been absconding since his dismissal from the first respondent cooperative Bank in the reference of the dispute of the money he owed to the Bank in the sum of Rs. 87,556-70ps which he is alleged to have misappropriated. ( 2 ) THE contention before the 2nd respondent-Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies was that under IS. 117 (b) and (c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') any Award passed uncontested against H. R. Ramachandra Rao would seriously affect the rights of the writ petitioners to continue in possession and management of the premises bearing No. 1434, New No. 21 in Krishnamurthipuram, Mysore-4, which undisputedly stands in the name of the absconding H. R Ramachandra rao. The 2nd respondent, after hearing the advocate for the applicants before him, dismissed the application on the ground that the applicants-writ petitioners had not any right in the premises in question and therefore, they could not be treated as either necessary parties or proper parties in the dispute before him. ( 3 ) AGAINST that order of rejection of application for being impleaded, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, and that was numbered as Revision Petn. No. 37 /1980. By an order dt. 30. 3. 1983 the order of the 2nd respondent Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies came to be confirmed and the revision petition was dismissed for the same reason given by the 2nd respondent. ( 4 ) IN this Court also Mr. No. 37 /1980. By an order dt. 30. 3. 1983 the order of the 2nd respondent Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies came to be confirmed and the revision petition was dismissed for the same reason given by the 2nd respondent. ( 4 ) IN this Court also Mr. T. N. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the petitioners are proper parties in the proceedings before the Joint Registrar in as much as in the absence of H. R. Ramachandra rao, they occupy the premises No 21 in Krishnamurthipuram, Mysore. in their capacity as the wife and son of the said H. R. Ramachandra Rao and they are the trustees to properly manage the property and by process of getting the ex parte award against the said h. R. Ramachandra Rao in his absence, the first respondent Bank would ultimately disturb their possession and therefore, they are interested in the property. It is further submitted that even during the pendency of the dispute the property in question has been attached. In support of his argument as to what constitutes "interest", the learned counsel relied upon Black's law Dictionary. Vth Edn. in which "interest" is defined at page 729 as under :"the most general term that can be employed to denote a right, claim,' title or legal share in something. In its application to lands or things real it is frequently used in connection with the terms "estate", "right" and "title. More particularly it means a right to have the advantage accruing from anything ; any right in the nature of property but less than title. " ( 5 ) THE learned counsel has placed reliance upon the last two sentences of the meaning given in Blacks Dictionary. By doing so, he over-looks the first meaning which is the real meaning given to "interest" in judicial proceedings. The last two sentences merely mention the other uses of the term "interest" and the occasions on which it is so used. ( 6 ) WHEN the petitioners have admitted that the title to the property in question is only in the absconding h. R. Ramachandra Rao, they cannot really be said to have any interest in the property, i. e. , in the title, until either H. R. Ramachandra Rao dies or passes on the title to them by a mode known to law. Till then their right to possession and occupation of the premises in question is only by virtue of relationship to the owner and no more. That right is to continue in possession till the title is lawfully divested from h. R. Ramachandra Rao. It is a legal right which stands as it is as far as the title of Ramachndra Rao lasts. That right to possession and enjoyment of the property cannot be said to be something which entitles the petitioners to claim an interest in the dispute pending before the 2nd respondent Joint registrar of Co-operative Societies, mysore, in a matter unconnected with the title of Ramachandra Rao to the property. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued that reading as a whole, S. 117 of the Act is wide enough to include within its ambit the interest which the writ peititioners claimed to defend in the proceedings in arbitration in place of H. R. Ramachandra Rao. ( 8 ) I do not think that such a wide ambit is envisaged in the scheme of sec. 117 of the Act. Sec. 117 of the act is an enabling provision providing for procedure in respect of the disputes referred to arbitration before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or by the Registrar to any other person. The provision under Sec. 117 of the act is similar to Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. It empowers the arbitrator to add or strike out parties in a dispute before him. ( 9 ) AS already noticed, the dispute before the Joint Registrar concerns the mis-appropriation of funds by H R ramachandra Rao the Ex-Manager of the first repsondent Co-operative Bank. In other words, it is a dispute raised between the co-operative bank incorporated under the Act and one of its former employees. Thus, this is restricted to the factum of mis-appropriation of the Bank's funds. It does not cover any other relationship H. R. Ramachandra Rao may have with the. Bank. In such a dispute how the wife and son acquire an interest to be nececessary or proper parties is beyond my comprehension. ( 10 ) IT was argued that the dispute referred to under Sec. 117 of the Act should be read d'hors S. 70 of the Act. Bank. In such a dispute how the wife and son acquire an interest to be nececessary or proper parties is beyond my comprehension. ( 10 ) IT was argued that the dispute referred to under Sec. 117 of the Act should be read d'hors S. 70 of the Act. ( 11 ) I am unable to accedie to that argument because there can't be any dispute which is required to be resolved in accordance with S. 117 of the Act, which is not a dispute under S. 70 of the Act. ( 12 ) IN the result, the conclusion reached by the 2nd respondent-Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore, and the 3rd respondent Tribunal are correct and do not call for interference. ( 13 ) HENCE, this Petition is rejected. --- *** --- .