Judgment :- The question that arises for consideration in this original petition is, whether a member of a co-operative society, who availed of a non-agricultural loan after executing a declaration creating a charge on all his properties, would be legally justified in preventing the sale officer from proceeding with the sale of his other properties without proceeding against the mortgaged property for realisation of the amount covered in the arbitration award? In other words, whether, under Ss.36 and 76 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act read with Rules 51, 72, 74 and 75 of the Rules framed there under, the sale officer can legally proceed with the sale of other immovable properties of the defaulter first, without proceeding against the properties mortgaged for realising the amount covered in the arbitration award? The answer is, yes, the sale officer can. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the original petition are as follows: The . petitioner applied for a loan of Rs. 10,000/- on 23-4-1986, for the construction and repairs of her house. She, along with her husband Chacko, executed a guarantee bond making a charge on all their properties for repayment of the loan amount. Along with the application, the petitioner had produced an encumbrance certificate for a period of 13 years from 1974 to 1986. The board of directors, as per the resolution dated 25-4-1986, sanctioned the loan. The petitioner, along with her husband, executed a mortgage in favour of the bank in respect of 64 cents of land comprised in Sy.No. 684/1 of Enanellur Village. On 26-5-1986, the loan amount was disbursed to the petitioner. Since default was committed in repaying the loan amount, the bank filed A.R.C. No. 309 of 1988 under S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act against the petitioner and her husband as defendants 1 and 2. The arbitrator issued notice to both the petitioner and her husband, but they remained ex parte. No evidence was also adduced on their behalf. On 25-3-1988, the arbitrator passed Ext. P1 award in favour of the first respondent bank, awarding the entire claim made by the bank with interest and costs. The arbitrator also charged all the immovable properties of the defendants for the amount decreed. Neither the petitioner nor her husband took up the matter in appeal under S.82 of the Act before the Co-operative Tribunal. P1 award in favour of the first respondent bank, awarding the entire claim made by the bank with interest and costs. The arbitrator also charged all the immovable properties of the defendants for the amount decreed. Neither the petitioner nor her husband took up the matter in appeal under S.82 of the Act before the Co-operative Tribunal. Thereafter, the first respondent bank initiated execution proceedings before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who appointed the second respondent as Sale Officer. The second respondent issued notice to the petitioner to pay the entire amount awarded as per Ext. P1. Though notice was served on the petitioner, she did not pay the amount. Thereafter, the second respondent issued another notice dated 2-12-1988 to the petitioner proposing proceedings against the property covered in Sy.No. 684/1 of Enanellur Village. Then it was found that the said property was not available for attachment or sale for realising the amount covered by Ext. P1 award. The said property belonged to the husband of the petitioner. In the year 1961, he executed Settlement Deed No. 2760/61 of Muvattupuzha Sub Registry assigning the entire property in favour of his son, Jose, but reserving a life interest in the said property. On 13-11-1961, possession was given to Jose. Thereafter, in the year 1964, Jose executed Sale Deed No. 2900/64 of Kothamangalam Sub Registry alienating the property on consideration to a third party. The petitioner's husband also joined in that transaction by selling the life estate reserved for him in favour of a third party. Thus, by 1964, neither the petitioner, her husband nor their son had any interest over the said 64 cents of land in Sy.No. 684/1. It was suppressing this fact, a mortgage deed was executed in favour of the 1st respondent bank by the petitioner along with her husband in respect of the said properly. The encumbrance certificate produced by the petitioner also did not disclose the earlier settlement deed and the sale deed of 1961 and 1964 respectively. Therefore, the first respondent requested the second respondent to attach the 42 cents of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 688/5 and 688/6 of Enanellur Village and also the movable properties belonging to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent attached the said 42 cents of land on 28-1-1989. Therefore, the first respondent requested the second respondent to attach the 42 cents of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 688/5 and 688/6 of Enanellur Village and also the movable properties belonging to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent attached the said 42 cents of land on 28-1-1989. Against the said attachment, the petitioner filed a petition under R.90 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules before the second respondent, which was dismissed on 6-5-1992. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.S.No. 394 of 1992 before the Munsiff s Court, Muvattupuzha/ha. She also filed an interlocutory application to restrain respondents 1 and 2 from proceeding with the sale of immovable properties in Sy. Nos. 688/5 and 688/6, in spite of the specific bar of jurisdiction of the civil courts in such matters under S.100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Both arc pending. 3. Thereafter, on 10-7-1992, the second respondent attached the movable properties of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter requested the second respondent not to proceed with the sale of movables and sought one month's time to pay the entire amount covered by Ext. P1 award, failing which she was agreeable to sell the property (42 cents) comprised in Sy.Nos. 688/5 and 688/6. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not turn up. Therefore, the second respondent gave a notice to her on 9-7-1993 proposing sale of the said properties in public auction, which was scheduled to be held on 11-10-1993. On 11-10-1993, the said properties were sold in auction in favour of the third respondent, who was the highest, bidder among the four bidders present. Thereafter the second respondent issued Ext. P2 notice asking her to pay the entire amount with 5 % of the auction amount within thirty days. On 11-10-1993 itself, the third respondent deposited 15% of the sale amount, as required under Rule 81 of the Rules, and on 25-10-1993, he deposited the balance amount also. 4. On 4-11-1993, the petitioner preferred Ext. P3 petition before the fourth respondent under R.83 of the Rules to set aside the sale of the property held on 11-10-1993 and O.P.No. 15262 of 1993 before this Court seeking the 4th respondent to be directed to dispose of Ext. P3 and till then to not to confirm the sale effected as per Ext. P2. P3 petition before the fourth respondent under R.83 of the Rules to set aside the sale of the property held on 11-10-1993 and O.P.No. 15262 of 1993 before this Court seeking the 4th respondent to be directed to dispose of Ext. P3 and till then to not to confirm the sale effected as per Ext. P2. On 11-11-1993, the third respondent filed a petition before this Court to get himself impleaded as an additional respondent in the said original petition. This Court, as per the judgment dated 18-11-1993 in O.P.No. 16262 of 1993 directed the fourth respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P3 petition. The fourth respondent posted the matter for hearing on 20-11-1993. On that day, the first respondent filed Ext. P4 objection before the fourth respondent stating that there was no illegality in proceeding against the other properties of the defaulter, since the petitioner had suppressed the .execution of the settlement and the sale deed alienating the mortgaged property in favour of a third party. It was also stated therein that while executing the mortgage deed in the year 1986 in respect of the 64 cents of land in Sy.No.684/1, neither the petitioner nor her husband had any right over the said property. It was in that circumstance, the second respondent took steps to attach the properties in Sy.Nos. 688/5 and 688/6 of Enanellur Village belonging to the petitioner. The second respondent also filed an objection before the fourth respondent, evidenced by Ext. P5, wherein he had stated the circumstances under which the 42 cents of land belonging to the petitioner was attached and sold in auction for recovering the amount covered by Ext. P1 award. Thereafter on 21-3-1994, the third respondent filed another petition before the fourth respondent to get the sale confirmed in his favour since he had already complied with all the statutory requirements, including the payment of the bid amount. Since the fourth respondent did not pass any orders thereon, the third respondent approached this Court by filing O.P.No. 373 of 1995, which was disposed of by this Courtby directing the fourth respondent to pass final orders i n the matter on or before 30-1-1995. It was thereafter, Ext. P7 was passed on 30-1-1995 rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. In Ext. P7, the fourth respondent found that the petitioner had no locus stand! It was thereafter, Ext. P7 was passed on 30-1-1995 rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. In Ext. P7, the fourth respondent found that the petitioner had no locus stand! to file such an application under R.93 of the Rules. The petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P7 in this proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard counsel on both sides. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that, as per Ext. P1 award, the arbitrator ordered recovery of the amount only in respect of the mortgaged property and that no charge was created on the 42 cents of land comprised in Sy. nos. 688/5 and 688/6 and, therefore, the second respondent could proceed only against the mortgaged property. Counsel also contended that respondents 1 and 2 proceeded against the petitioner's other properties, for which they had no authority under law and, therefore, the sale of the properties comprised in Sy.Nos. 688/5 and 688/6 was ab initio void. All the above points were considered elaborately by the fourth respondent while passing Ext. P7 and negatived the same. I do not find any legal basis or factual justification for the petitioner to raise such a contention either before the fourth respondent or before this Court in this proceeding. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner filed Ext. P3 to set aside the sale under Rule 83 of the Rules. The finding of the fourth respondent that the petitioner had no lucus standi has to be reversed, in the light of the statutory provision contained in R.83 of the Rules. Rule 83 says that an application to set aside sale on the ground of irregularity or fraud can be filed by the decree-holder or any person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of the assets or whose interests are affected by the sale. Therefore, a person whose interests are affected by the sale is entitled to sustain an application to set aside the sale, under R.83 of the Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner has sufficient interest in the property attached and sold in auction and, therefore, she is an interested party. On that ground alone, the finding of the fourth respondent that the petitioner has no locus standi is to be set aside and I do so. I hold that the petitioner is entitled to file such an application to set aside the sale. 8. On that ground alone, the finding of the fourth respondent that the petitioner has no locus standi is to be set aside and I do so. I hold that the petitioner is entitled to file such an application to set aside the sale. 8. But the question again is, whether on any of the grounds stated by the petitioner in Ext. P3 or before this Court, she is legally entitled to get the sale set aside? The petitioner has not specifically staled what exactly the irregularity is, in the matter of sale of the properties in question, and how and in what manner the fraud is committed in regard to the sale of the property. She has only generally staled the sale is irregular and ab initio void. The only legal ground that was taken before the fourth respondent as well as before mis Court is that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to proceed with the sale of the other properties of the defaulter. Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the second respondent can proceed only against the property mortgaged and not against the other properties of the defaulter which were not mortgaged. To sustain such a contention, counsel for the petitioner relies on S.35 and 75 of the Act and Rule 71 of the Rules. 9. Section 35 of the Act stipulates that any debt or outstanding demand owing to a society by any member or past member or deceased member shall be a first charge, upon the crops or other agricultural produce of such member for the raising of which the loan was taken from the society by such member. Admittedly, under S.35, the charge is created on the crops or other agricultural, produce raised by the member on the 1 and, if the loan is obtained for raising such crops or agricultural produce. Admittedly, the loan was taken not for that purpose. Therefore, S.35 does not apply to this case. Moreover, creating a charge on the crops or agricultural produces will not be a bar to recover the amount disbursed to a member from all or any of his properties. 10. Section 75 of the Act, which dels with enforcement of charge, will not be of any assistance to the petitioner. Therefore, S.35 does not apply to this case. Moreover, creating a charge on the crops or agricultural produces will not be a bar to recover the amount disbursed to a member from all or any of his properties. 10. Section 75 of the Act, which dels with enforcement of charge, will not be of any assistance to the petitioner. Section 75 stales that notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter IX or any other law for the time being in force, but without prejudice to any other mode of recovery provided i n the Act. the Registrar or any person subordinate to him empowered by him in this behalf, may direct payment of any debt or outstanding demand due to the society by any member or past member or deceased member, by sale of the property or any interest therein, which is subject to a charge under sub-section (1) of S.35. As staled earlier, S.35(1) deals with a charge on the crops or other agricultural produces for the raising of which the loan was taken. That will not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the second respondent in proceeding with the sale of the other properties of the defaulter for realisation of the decree amount. 11. Rule 71 of the Rules deals with application for enforcement of charge created under Ss.35 and 75 of the Act. Rule 71 also will not stand in the way of the second respondent in proceeding with the sale of the other properties of the defaulter. Under S.36 of the Act, a member who makes an application for a loan to a society of which majority of the members arc agriculturists, shall make a declaration in the prescribed form, which shall state that the applicant thereby creates a charge on the land owned by him or on his interest in the land held by him as tenant and specified therein for the payment of the amount of The loan which The society may make to the member on application. Rule 51 states that a declaration under Clause (1) of S.36 shall be made in Form No. 7. It was on the basis of the above statutory provisions, the petitioner had executed a declaration creating a charge on all her properties and, therefore, the second respondent was legally justified in proceeding with the matter on the basis of the statutory charge created under S.36 of the Act. It was on the basis of the above statutory provisions, the petitioner had executed a declaration creating a charge on all her properties and, therefore, the second respondent was legally justified in proceeding with the matter on the basis of the statutory charge created under S.36 of the Act. Under S.76(c), every order made under S.70 shall be executed by the Registrar or any other person subordinate to him empowered by the Registrar in this behalf, by the attachment and sale or sale without attachment of any property of the person or a society against whom the order has been passed. In the light of the above statutory provision, the second respondent was perfectly justified in proceeding against the properties of the petitioner. 12. Rule 72 enables the Registrar or person duly authorised by him to issue a certificate in favour of the Sale Officer to execute the award. Rule 74 deals with the procedure for execution of the decision, award or order and under R.74(2), the decree-holder is entitled to file an application before the Sale Officer for executing the award. The decree-holder may, under sub-rule (2) of R.74, indicate in the said application whether he wishes to proceed against the immovable properly mortgaged to the decree-holder or other immovable property or to secure attachment of any movable property. As slated earlier, in this case, the first respondent-decree holder had requested the second respondent to proceed against the immovable properties of the defaulter comprised in Sy.Nos. 688/5 and 688/6 of Enanellur Village, since the 64 cents of land mortgaged by the petitioner along with her husband was not available for sale as it had already been alienated by the petitioner's husband and their son i n favour of a third party as early as 1964 by registered documents. Thus, at the time when the mortgage deed was executed on 30-4-1986 in favour of the first respondent-decree holder, neither the petitioner nor her husband had any interest over the said land viz. 64 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 684/1 of Enanellur Village. The encumbrance certificate produced by them covered only from 1974 to 1986, which did not include the encumbrances made prior to 1974. Therefore, I see no irregularity or illegality in the second respondent selling the other properties of the petitioner in auction. 13. 64 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 684/1 of Enanellur Village. The encumbrance certificate produced by them covered only from 1974 to 1986, which did not include the encumbrances made prior to 1974. Therefore, I see no irregularity or illegality in the second respondent selling the other properties of the petitioner in auction. 13. Again, under R.75 also, the second respondent was perfectly justified in proceeding against the immovable properties mortgaged to the decree holder or other immovable properties belonging to the defaulter in execution of the award. As per Rule 75, unless the decree holder has expressed a desire that proceedings shall be taken in a particular order as laid down in sub-rule (2) of Rule 74, execution shall ordinarily be taken in the manner prescribed therein. As stated earlier, the decree holder had specifically expressed its desire to proceed against the other properties belonging to the defaulter. Even under R.75, the decree-holder can proceed against the other immovable properties of the defaulter. Therefore, I see no legal force in the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent can proceed against, the mortgaged property only. 14. Admittedly, the mortgaged properly was not available for proceeding against, since it had already been alienated by Sale Deed No. 2900/64 of Kothamangalam Sub Registry, Therefore, I find no illegality in proceeding against the other proper tics of the defaulter, who had obtained the loan, by suppressing material facts. 15. As stated earlier, the petitioner has not stated what is the irregularity in the sale conducted by the second respondent. She does not seem to have raised a case before the fourth respondent that the property was undervalued or it would have fetched more than obtained in auction. No collusion between the second respondent and the third respondent was also seen alleged in Ext. P3 nor had mere been any fraud in the sale of the properly in question. I see no illegality or irregularity in Ext. P7 warranting interference by this Court under Art.226 of the. Constitution of India. But the finding therein that the petitioner has no locus standi at all to file an application to set aside the sale is not: jus tilled under R.83 of the Rules. But that will not be sufficient to set aside the sale, even i f the petitioner has interest in the matter. Constitution of India. But the finding therein that the petitioner has no locus standi at all to file an application to set aside the sale is not: jus tilled under R.83 of the Rules. But that will not be sufficient to set aside the sale, even i f the petitioner has interest in the matter. She has not established any case for selling aside the sale either on the ground of irregularity, illegality or fraud. 16. The petitioner, after availing of loan from the first respondent bank, did not pay a single paise towards the loan amount, which compelled the first respondent to file an arbitration case against the petitioner and her husband. They had mortgaged the property in the year 1986, over which they ceased to have interest as early as in 1964 by alienating it to a third party. Even after the award, the petitioner did not make any arrangement to pay the amount. Therefore, while selling aside the finding in respect of the petitioner's locus standi to file an application under R.83 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, I hold, in all other respects, Ext. P7 is legal and no interference is called for in this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 17. The petitioner has suppressed the fact that she had filed O.S.No. 394 of 1992 before the Munsiff's Court Muvattupuzha praying for an order of injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 from proceeding with the recovery of the amount, even though, under S.100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is barred in such matters. She has also suppressed the fact that the application filed to set aside the attachment was dismissed by the second respondent. Her case that the undertaking given by her on 10-7-1992 agreeing to repay the entire amount within one month or to proceed with the sale of 42 cents of land in Sy.No. 688/5 and 688/6 was obtained by coercion, compulsion, etc. is made for the first lime before this Court. She had no such contention before the fourth respondent in Ext. P3 filed as early as on 4-11-1993. The petitioner has suppressed the fact that her husband and her son had executed the sale deed in favour of a third party in respect of the mortgaged property. is made for the first lime before this Court. She had no such contention before the fourth respondent in Ext. P3 filed as early as on 4-11-1993. The petitioner has suppressed the fact that her husband and her son had executed the sale deed in favour of a third party in respect of the mortgaged property. Therefore, there is no bona tides on her part to approach this Court complaining about the order passed by the fourth respondent. The petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- before this Court, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 17-2-1995, which shall be refunded to the petitioner on application to that effect either by herself or her counsel to this Court. The original petition is devoid of merits and hence it is dismissed with cost to the third respondent. advocate's fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-.