Judgment :- Jagannadha Rao, C.J. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No, 10687 of 1992 dated 14-12-1992 by, which the Writ Petition was dismissed. The matter re lales to election to a co-operative society. The contention of the writ petitioner-appellant is that 50 persons had obtained membership within sixty days from the date of election, and therefore they ought not to have been allowed to vote. The learned Single Judge found that the admission of the said fifty persons was not within sixty days from the dale of election, and that therefore their inclusion in the voters' list and there participation in the election were valid. A point was however raised before the learned Single Judge that the share-capital was not fully paid by these fifty persons on the date on which they made their applications for admission and they were permitted to pay the share-capital in installments under the bye-law of the society and that therefore unless all the installments were paid well before the prohibited period of sixty days before the date of election, they would not be entitled to be admitted as members. This contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge. This appeal is preferred against the said judgment. 2. The following arc the facts. The above said fifty persons submitted their applications for membership on 4-1-1992, and paid Rs. I/- towards application form and Rs. 14/- towards partial subscription for the share-capital. Each of them paid the remaining Rs. 36/- on 28-7-1992. In so far as there admission as members is concerned; resolution admitting them as members was even passed on 4-1-1992 itself. Election notification was issued on 31-7-1992 as per Ext. P3 fixing the date of election as 16-9-1992. The petitioner as per Exts filed objections. P1 and P2 on 7-8-1992, but the same were rejected and Preliminary Voters' List was published and the came was finalized and election, which was scheduled to take place on 16-9-1992 was postponed and elections were held on 29-11-1992. As stated earlier, the application fee of Rs. I/- and Rs. 14/- towards share capital were paid on 4-1-1992, and the balance of the share-capital was paid on 28-7-1992 by each of these fifty persons. 3. As stated earlier, the application fee of Rs. I/- and Rs. 14/- towards share capital were paid on 4-1-1992, and the balance of the share-capital was paid on 28-7-1992 by each of these fifty persons. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, all the fifty persons would be entitled to be admitted as members only on or after 28-7-1992, when they paid the entire share capital, and that unless the said date is out of sixty days from the date of election, the admission of me said members is violative of Rule 26 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, and is therefore invalid. 4. For the purpose of understanding the above contention, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. S.16 deals with qualification of persons to become members. S.19 reads as follows: "19. Member not to exercise rights till due payment made:-No member of a society shall exercise the rights of a member unless he has made such payments to the society in respect or membership of has acquired such interest in the society, as may be prescribed by the rules or the bye-laws". Rule 16 of the Rules deals with conditions to be complied with for admission for membership. It reads as follows: "16. Conditions to be complied with for admission for membership.-f!) No person shall be admitted as a member of a society unless - (a) He has applied in writing in the form if any laid down by the society. (b) His application is approved by the committee of the society. (c) He has fulfilled all other conditions laid down in the Act, Rules and By-laws. (d) Rule 20 deals with payment to be made to acquire rights of a member, and it reads as follows: "20. Payment to be made to acquire rights of a member.-'Hie payments to acquire right of membership shall include - (1) Admission fee (ii) Subscription to share capital (iii) any other payments required to be made under the bye-laws". Rule 26 deals with prohibition on admission of members and transfers of shares on the eve of general meeting. It reads as follows: "26. Rule 26 deals with prohibition on admission of members and transfers of shares on the eve of general meeting. It reads as follows: "26. Prohibition on admission of members and transfer of shares on the eve of general meeting.-(1) No society shall admit members or approve the transfer of shares within sixty days prior to the date of election or the date of general body meeting. (2) Any person admitted as member and any person in whose favor the transfer of shares have been approved in contravention of this rule shall not have the right to membership or the right 10 vote at the said election or at the general body meeting." Rule 20 deals with restriction on the right of vote at the election and it reads as follows: "20. No member of a society shall be eligible to vote at the meeting fixed for any election to the committee of that society, unless thirty days prior to the date of such meeting he acquires the number of shares for membership as may be provided in the bye-laws of the society of which he is a member", 5. On a reading of the above said provisions, it is clear that R.16 lays down the conditions to be complied with for admission 10 memberships. Rule 20 deals with payment to be made to acquire the rights of a member. Sub-clause (ii) of Rule 20 which deals with subscription to share capital would ordinarily mean that a person gets a right of membership if he makes subscription to the share capital, apart from complying with the ether sub clauses of Rule 20. The words 'subscription to share capital' do not mean payment of the entire share capita!. It will be sufficient, if subscription is made in accordance with the mode prescribed in the byelaws of the society. In the present case, it is admitted that bye-law 4 permits payment of share capital of Rs. 50/- in twenty two installments, of which 21 installments at the rate of Rs. 21- and the 22nd installment will be Rs. 3/'-. It is not in dispute that on 4-1-1992 when the application for admission was submitted, the application foe of Us. I/-was paid along with Rs. 14/- towards share capital by each of the fifty persons, and the balance share capital of Rs. 36/- was paid on 28-7-1992 by each of the fifty persons. 3/'-. It is not in dispute that on 4-1-1992 when the application for admission was submitted, the application foe of Us. I/-was paid along with Rs. 14/- towards share capital by each of the fifty persons, and the balance share capital of Rs. 36/- was paid on 28-7-1992 by each of the fifty persons. Therefore, there is compliance with the provisions of Rule 20 and the byelaw. 6. Coming to Rule 26, it deals with the limited question, namely, prohibition on admission of members and transfer of shares on the eve of general body meeting. It prohibits a society from admitting members or transferring shares within sixty days prior to the date of election or the date of general body meeting. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 provides that any person ad milled as member and any person in whose favor the transfer of shares has been approved in contravention of Rule 26 shall not have the right to membership or the right! to vole at the said election or at the general body meeting. In a case where Rule 16 has been complied with by making proper application by payment of Rs. I/- towards the application fee, one by payment of the particular installment of share capital as provided in the bye-laws and where the said application is approved by the committee, (here can bacon doubt that the membership will' start from that date. In the present case, these events have happened on 4-1-1992, and therefore the membership started from thai date. Byelaw 4 in the present case states that if there is default in payment of three consecutive installments, the membership shall cease. That itself would mean that till such default was committed, a person would have to be treated as member. 7. The question then is whether there is any admission of members within sixty days before the date of election. I f, as staled above, Rules 16 and 20 and bye-law 4 had been complied with on 4-1-1992, admission to membership took place on 4-1-1992 and not on 28-7-1992, when the remaining instalments of the share capital were paid by all the fifty persons. Therefore, this is not a case where any admission to membership has taken place on 26-7-1992, within sixty days before the date of election. 8. Rule 28 has a different context; 11 deals with restriction on the right to vote at the election. Therefore, this is not a case where any admission to membership has taken place on 26-7-1992, within sixty days before the date of election. 8. Rule 28 has a different context; 11 deals with restriction on the right to vote at the election. It states that no member of a society shall be eligible to vote at the meeting fixed for any election to the committee of that society, unless thirty days prior to the date of such meeting he acquired the number of shares for membership as may be provided in the bye-laws of the society of which he is a member. That Rule deals with the right to vote at the election. Unless a person acquires the number of shares as determined by the bye-laws of the society, he will not be entitled to vote, unless such purchase of shares is thirty days prior to the date of the general body meeting. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Krishnan Ezhtithachan v. Asst. Registrar, 1990 (I) KLT 695. In that case, the position was that the admission 'membership took place on 14/16-11-1988, but on that dale not even the application for admission was submitted by the persons. 'Hie applications were submitted on 13-12-1990. Application fee and the share capital amount were paid subsequently as is clear from the facts there. In that case, byelaw 3(2) required to full share capital was to be paid on the allotment of share. There was no provision in the byelaw for payment of share capital in-installments. In those circumstances, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the admission of members was within the prohibited period of 90 days as R.26 then stood, before the date of election, i.e., 26-2-1989. We are in general agreement with the principle of interpretation of Rules 16,20,26 and 28 in the said judgment, except in respect of the statement of law in paragraph 15, which reads as follows: "15. I am unable to read R.28 as expressing any contrary intention. It has to be read in the context of S.19 and Rules 16 and 26. The rule is very badly and inartistically drafted. It speaks of the person as a "member' and yet speaks of his acquiring the number of shares for membership'. I am unable to read R.28 as expressing any contrary intention. It has to be read in the context of S.19 and Rules 16 and 26. The rule is very badly and inartistically drafted. It speaks of the person as a "member' and yet speaks of his acquiring the number of shares for membership'. Whatever this rule is intended to convey or lay down, it cannot certainly override Rule 16 and 26 or enable a person to vote at the election unless he was a member prior to 90 days thereof (as held by this Court on an interpretation of the relevant provisions in George v. State of Kerala, 1985 KLT 836)." 10. In our view. Rule 28 merely deals with the right to voteAhe right to vote must be distinguished from admission as a member. While Rules 16 and 20 deals with conditions for admission, Rule 26 deals with prohibition for admission to membership within a particular period. Rules 16 and 20 go together. Rule 26 and Rule 28 are applicable to different situations, as stated above. Therefore for the purpose of Rule 28, a person may still be a member, even before he acquires a right to vote. Such a right to vote accrues on payment of the full share capital. If the full payment falls within the period mentioned in Rule 28, he cannot vote at any meeting falling within 30 days of such payment. To the extent that paragraph 15 in the said judgment in Krislman Ezhiithachan's case is contrary to the above said interpretation, we are unable to agree to'. Hat extent with the said judgment. In other respects, we are in agreement wit, i the said judgment. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Single judge was right in holding that 50 persons in question were admitted to membership on 4-1-1992, which was the date beyond 60 days from the original date of election on 16-9-1992 which was postponed to 29-11-1992. Therefore, there was no violation of Rule 26 inasmuch as these 50 persons had paid the entire share capital by 28-7-1992, which was far beyond 30 days before the date of election as provided in R.28. Therefore they were entitled to vote in the election, which took place on 29-11-1992. Therefore the Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed.