Judgment : ABDUL HADI, J. ( 1 ) THESE two Second Appeals are taken up together for disposal since the point involved in both the matters is same No doubt these appeals are filed by two different person, who are respectively the plaintiff in O. S. No 12 4 of 1988 and O. S No. 1223 of 1988 both on the file of the District Munsif, Valliyoor. The 1st defendant in both the suits is same. It is Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Cooperative house Construction Society Valliyoor and is the 1st respondent in these two Second Appeals. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff in each of the two suits the 1st defendant society is a registered society, which was registered pursuant to. G. O. No. 1193 dated 31-7-1986. Prior to coming into existence of the said registered society, the said society was an unregistered body. While the said society was such an unregistered body, the respective plaintiffs became its members in 1980 find in the same year, the said society offered to sell two different house sites, viz , Plot Nos 19 and 37 respectively, the former, to the plaintiff in O S No 1224 of 1988 and the latter in favour of the plaintiff in O S No 1223 of 19s8 and thereafter by letter dated 7-2-1982, the said Society informed the respective plaintiff that it has allotted in them the said plots, in the proposed housing colony and that the probable date of registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs would be intimated separately But, it did not so intimate. But. finally on 1-7-1987 by which time. the old unregistered society became a registered society which is the 1st defendant, it refused to register the sale deed on the footing that the abovesaid plaintiffs were not employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and as per the Rules and Regulations of the 1st defendant registered society and also as per g O. No. 11193, allotment of house sites belonging to the 1st defendant could be made only to employees of the Electricity Board. Hence the said suit were filed and since the 1st defendant has alleged, that the above referred to Plot No 39 was allotted by the 1st defendant Society in favour of the 2nd defendant in O. S No. 1221 of 1988 he was impleaded as 2nd defendant in the said suit Likewise since the 1st defendant alleged that the Plot No 37 was allotted by the 1st defendant-society in favour of the 2nd defendant in O S. No. 1223 of 1988, he was impleaded as 2nd defendant in the said suit The said 3rd defendant in each of the said suits is respectively the 2nd respondent in these Second Appeals. ( 3 ) BOTH the abovesaid suits were dismissed and the appeals therefrom by the plaintiff respectively in A. S. No. 118 of 1992 and A S No 119 of 1992 both on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli were also dismissed. The judgments both at the trial stage and at the first appeal stage were not common judgments and they were delivered separately. The respondents in both the appeals are represented by the same counsel. ( 4 ) IN the light of the arguments on either side, only two questions have to be gone into in these two Second Appeals The first, arises out of the finding of the court below accepting the case of the defendants that since the Rules and Regulations of the 1st defendant registered society and also the above referred to Government Order do not permit non employees as Tamil Nadu Electricity Board getting allotment of house sites from the 1st defendant society, the respective plaintiff cannot claim against the first defendant, t he above referred to specific performance of the sale agreements they entered into in 1980 with the erstwhile unregistered society. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the courts below erred in coming in the aforesaid conclusion despite section 19 (b) of the Specific Relief Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the judgments concurrently rendered by the courts below are correct. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the courts below erred in coming in the aforesaid conclusion despite section 19 (b) of the Specific Relief Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the judgments concurrently rendered by the courts below are correct. ( 5 ) THE second question arises out of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that the civil court has no jurisdiction to take up the dispute raised herein in view of Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (Act 30 of 1983) This jurisdiction question was also raised in the written statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argues that the said section 90 would not apply at all to the present dispute. ( 6 ) I have considered the rival submissions. ( 7 ) I shall first take up the shove referred to first question. The relevant portion of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act run as follows :"19 Relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title Except as provided by this chapter specific performance of a contract may be enforced against: (a) either party thereto ; (b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract; thus, the Societies clear that even a person, who claims through the original person who agreed for sell subject, of course, to the above referred to excepted category, is bound to specifically perform the original agreement entered into by the abovesaid predecessor; In other words, the abovesaid plaintiffs would be entitled to claim specific performance even against the successor to the original vendor, viz the unregistered society when there is no plea that the lat defendant comes within the. aforesaid excepted category It is not in dispute that the 1st defendant registered society has taken over completely the original unregistered society with all its assets and liabilities The obligation that was cast on the original unregistered society with all its assets and liabilities The obligation that was cast on the original unregistered society pursuant to the agreement to sell, entered into by it with the respective plaintiff for selling the above referred to respective plot would therefore, now be cast on the new registered society, which is the 1st defendant ever since it got registered pursuant to the above G. O dated 31-7-1986. It is more so when it is found by both the courts below that the sale consideration paid by the original unregistered society, in its scheme to purchase the abovesaid housing colony sites of which the aforesaid portions were allotted to the respective plaintiffs, when the 1st defendant Society has taken all the assets and liabilities of the original unregistered society, it should necessarily fulfil all the obligations of the original Society. Once it has taken over all the obligations also from the erstwhile Unregistered society, it cannot later on contend that the Rules and Regulations by which it is governed subsequent to its formation, prohibit allotment of house sites to nod employees of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and refuse to honour the obligations which it had taken over from the erst while society. Even assuming there are such Rules and Regultions the plaintiffs who are not members of the 1st defendant society are not bound by them. " ( 8 ) THERE arc also other similar clauses in Section 19 of the Specific relief Act, viv,, (e) (d) and (c) and in Indian Bank v. K Usha, (1993-II L L. N. 739 (DB) : 1999 1 LW 449) this court has also applied the same principle found in Section 19 (a) of the Specific Relies Act in a case where there was amalgamation of the company which entered into the agreement in question with another company In that context, the Division Bench observed thus :"section 19 (d) of the Specific Relief Act made the said contractual obligations of the Bank of Thanjavur Ltd. , binding on the appellant-bank and enforceable against it. "therefore the court below has erred in not applying Section 19 (b) of the Specific Relief At to the present case and decreeing the suit. ( 9 ) THEN, coming to the above referred to second submission relating to jurisdiction. I find that the relevant portions of Section 90 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1963 run as follows :"90 Disputes: (1) If any dispute touching the constitution of the board or the management or the registered society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the competent authority constituted under sub-section (3) of Section 75 or the registrar or the society or its board against a paid servant of the society) arises. (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through a member, past members and deceased members, or (b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its Board or any officer, agent or servant of the society, or (c) between the society or its Board any past Board, any officer, against or servant, or any past officer, past agent or past servant or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any officer, deceased agent, or deceased servant of the society ; or (d) between the society and any other registered society such shall be referred to the Registrar for decision. "from a reading of the said Section 90 (1) it is clear that to the present facts, the said section will not apply at all- First of all the dispute in the present case will not come under clauses (a) (b) (c) or (d) above mentioned. That apart, the present dispute cannot be said to be a dispute touching the business of a registered society, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. According to the said learned counsel, allotment of house sites is a business of the 1st defendant-society. But, i should state that the 1st defendant society is asked now only to honour the obligation which it has taken over at the time when it took over the assets and liabilities of the erst while society and registered itself as society. According to the said learned counsel, allotment of house sites is a business of the 1st defendant-society. But, i should state that the 1st defendant society is asked now only to honour the obligation which it has taken over at the time when it took over the assets and liabilities of the erst while society and registered itself as society. Housing such an obligation cannot be termed its business Actually its business, if at all, should come in only after it is formed But, here, if the 1st defendant society is to allot the above referred to respective house site Plot to the respective plaintiff, it only honours the obligation it took over from the erst while unregistered society. That cannot be termed as its business. ( 10 ) THE decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents namely Bagavathy Ammal v. The Chingleput Cooperative House Building society Limned, Chingleput and another, 1988 TLNJ 423 will have no application at all to the present facts The said case arose under Section 73 of the old Co-operative Societies Act, which, now corresponds to Section 90 of the present Co-operative Society Act of 1988 There, the question involved was not regarding the meaning of the term "touching the business of the Society" used in the above referred to Section 73. The facts in the said case are briefly as follows: the 1st defendant therein had been allotted a Plot as per resolution of a registered society. The conveyance deed bad to be executed by the society only after the house has been completed by the 1st defendant-member therein to the satisfaction of the society. But, instead of completing the construction and obtaining a conveyance, the 1st defendant therein executed a sale deed of the said Plot to the 2nd defendant therein and the question that arose for consideration there was, whether the said 2nd defendant was a person claiming through. a member as contemplated in the above referred to old Section 73 of the Act. ID that context, this court only held that the 2nd defendant therein came under the category of persons referred to under Section 73 of the said old Act, as claiming through a member, the facts and the issue in question, in the present case, are entirely different and the said decision has no application to the present facts. ID that context, this court only held that the 2nd defendant therein came under the category of persons referred to under Section 73 of the said old Act, as claiming through a member, the facts and the issue in question, in the present case, are entirely different and the said decision has no application to the present facts. Therefore, I hold that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the dispute in question here. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Second Appeals are allowed, the judgments and decrees of the courts below are set aside and the suits are decreed as prayed for with costs throughout. This appeal having been posted this day for being mentioned in the presence of Mrs. G. Latha for Mr A Sankarasubramaniam, Advocate for the appellant and of Mr. A. Sivaji, Advocate for the 2nd respondent the court delivered the following judgment : though specific performance decrees were granted in these Second appeals, time was not specified for executing the sale deed. No doubt learned counsel for the appellants states that the entire sale consideration had already been paid. So only some time has to be granted for execution of sale deed. Two months time is granted for execution of sale deed. Since, this aspect was riot touched upon when the judgment was pronounced on 21-2-1924 in these Second Appeals they have been after hearing both the counsel, this order is passed. This order shall for part of the abovesaid judgment. Appeal allowed.