Judgment :- The above Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the Orders dated 211. 2007 passed in Co-operatives C.M.A.No.26, 97 and 98 of 2000 respectively, on the file of the Principal District Judge-cum-Co-operative Tribunal (Appellate Authority), Coimbatore. 2. The C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 has been filed by the respondent in Case No.256/97-98 – SP – 1 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore. 3. Case No.256/97-98 was filed by the Regional Manager, Tamilnadu Co-operative Marketing Federation, Coimbatore against the Revision petitioner herein and two others under Sec.90 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act 1983 (hereinafter called TNCS Act). The revision petitioner entered into an agreement dated 26. 1997 with the Tamilnadu Co-operative Marketing Federation for transporting manure and pesticides. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the second respondent in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008, initiated proceedings under Sec.90 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, alleging that there is short supply of manure and the same is to be made good by the revision petitioner, which is the loss caused to the Federation. The said proceedings were contested by the petitioner on the ground that as the dispute between him and the Federation could not be decided in a proceeding initiated under Sec.90 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act and therefore the proceedings are not maintainable. But, by order dated 30.7.1999, the Deputy Registrar allowed the claim and aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Registrar, the revision petitioner filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.26 of 2000 before the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore who is the Appellate Authority. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal by order dt.211. 2007 on the ground that the principles of natural justice were not followed and remanded the matter to the Deputy Registrar for fresh disposal with a direction to complete the proceedings within two months. Aggrieved by the order of remand made by the lower Appellate Court dated 211. 2007, the C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner by contending that the jurisdiction issue raised by him before the lower Appellate Court was not at all considered and if considered properly, the proceedings initiated under Sec.90 are not maintainable, as the dispute that arose between the petitioner and the Federation could not be decided under Sec.90 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act. 4. The wife of the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 is the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.721 of 2008. 4. The wife of the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 is the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.721 of 2008. She is aggrieved by the common order passed by the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in C.M.A.Nos.97 of 2000 and 98 of 2000 dismissing the appeals filed by her against the order dated 4. 2000 of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Coimbatore ordering attachment of the property of the revision petitioner and her husband. This common order was also challenged by her husband in C.R.P.No.722 of 2008, the third revision petitioner herein. Thus, both the C.R.P. Nos.721 of 2008 and 722 of 2008 have been filed challenging the common order passed by the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in C.M.A.Nos.97 and 98 of 2000. 5. The petitioners husband entered into an agreement dated 26. 1997 with the Tamilnadu Co-operative Marketing Federation for transporting the manure and pesticides. The Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies initiated proceedings under Sec.90 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, alleging that there is shortage of supply of manure and this was contested by the petitioners husband on the ground that the dispute between him and the Federation could not be decided in a proceedings initiated under Sec.90 of the TNCS Act, and the proceedings are not maintainable. But, by order dated 30.7.1999, the Deputy Registrar allowed the claim and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners husband filed C.M.A.No.26 of 2000 and by order dated 211. 2007, the lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the principles of natural justice were violated and therefore, the matter was remanded to the Deputy Registrar for fresh disposal. Challenging the order of remand dated 211. 2007, the petitioners husband filed C.R.P. No.720 of 2008. Both the husband and the petitioner filed C.P.R.Nos.721 and 722 of 2008 challenging the common order of the lower Appellate Court dated 211. 2007, dismissing their appeals and upholding the order of attachment passed by the Deputy Registrar. In C.R.P.Nos.721 and 722 of 2008, the contention of the petitioners is that, the petitioner in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 is only the wife of a Contractor and she is in no way connected with the affairs of the Society and in such circumstances, the action of attaching her personal property is without jurisdiction. She also raised the contention that the proceedings initiated under Sec.90 of the Co-operative Societies Act are itself without jurisdiction. She also raised the contention that the proceedings initiated under Sec.90 of the Co-operative Societies Act are itself without jurisdiction. The contention of the petitioner in C.R.P. No.722 of 2008 is that the initiation of the proceedings itself under Sec.90 of the Co-operative Societies Act is illegal and not maintainable and therefore, the consequent attachment order of his property is also illegal and is liable to be set aside. 6. Heard the learned Senior counsel Thiru G.Rajagopal for the petitioners in all the petitions, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Additional Govt. Pleader (Civil side), for the second respondent in all the petitions. I have also gone through the entire documents available on record. 7. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies has no jurisdiction to entertain any case with regard to any dispute between the petitioner and the Tamilnadu Co-operative Marketing Federation, as the dispute is not within the scope of Sec.90 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act. He further pointed out that as per the agreement entered into between the petitioner in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 and the Marketing Federation, the disputes that may arise within the parties are to be decided by the Courts situated in Chennai and therefore the entertainment of the dispute raised by the Marketing Federation by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies is also without jurisdiction. He further urged that Sec.90 of the Co-operative Societies Act was wrongly interpreted by the Deputy Registrar and when the same was questioned before the lower Appellate Court, the same was not at all considered and the lower Appellate Court mechanically remanded the matter for fresh disposal. 8. In so far as C.R.P.No.721 of 2008 is concerned, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the petitioner is only the wife of the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 and she has nothing to do with the affairs of the Society. Hence, according to the learned Senior counsel, the question of attaching her personal property for the alleged liability of her husband does not arise at all and therefore the order of the lower Appellate Court upholding the order of the Deputy Registrar is without jurisdiction and the same is to be set aside as illegal. 9. Hence, according to the learned Senior counsel, the question of attaching her personal property for the alleged liability of her husband does not arise at all and therefore the order of the lower Appellate Court upholding the order of the Deputy Registrar is without jurisdiction and the same is to be set aside as illegal. 9. While arguing C.R.P.No.722 of 2008, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that as a transporter for transporting the goods, the petitioner does not come within Sec.90 of the TNCS Act and therefore, the initiation of the proceedings under Sec.90 and the consequential attachment of the property is illegal and without jurisdiction. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent Marketing Federation submits that the dispute filed under Sec.90 of the Co-operative Societies Act and the orders passed thereon are within the scope of Sec.90 and therefore it cannot be said that the Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Relying on Sec.90 (5) of the TNCS Act, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the attachment of the property of the wife of the petitioner is also well within the jurisdiction and therefore there is no merit in the contention that the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction. He further pointed out that the very same question was raised before the Deputy Registrar and the Deputy Registrar having referring to Sec.182 of the Indian Contracts Act, held that the petitioner in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 is an agent of the Society and therefore, the Sec.90 proceedings get attracted. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of all the revision petitions. 11. I have considered the rival submissions carefully. 12. In the light of the above submissions made by the learned counsel and on the basis of the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and the lower Appellate Court, the following questions are to be decided in the above revision petitions. 1. Whether the initiation of proceedings by the Marketing Federation under Sec.90 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 against the petitioner in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 is without jurisdiction? 2. Whether the property of the petitioner in C.R.P.No.721 of 2008, who is the wife of the petitioner in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 could be attached by the Deputy Registrar? 13. It is not in dispute that on 26. 2. Whether the property of the petitioner in C.R.P.No.721 of 2008, who is the wife of the petitioner in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 could be attached by the Deputy Registrar? 13. It is not in dispute that on 26. 1997 an agreement was entered into between the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 and the Marketing Federation for transporting the manure and pesticides. It is also not in dispute that the Federation initiated proceedings against the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 along with two others for cheating the Federation by not bringing the manure to stock, amounting to total sum of Rs.29,15,151/-. 14. This was resisted by the revision petitioner by contending that the initiation of the proceedings under Sec.90 is without jurisdiction and therefore, the Deputy Registrar has no authority to enquire into the matter. By a common order dated 30.7.1999 the Deputy Registrar passed a lengthy order wherein the question of jurisdiction as contended by the revision petitioner was also considered by the Deputy Registrar. After considering the question, the Deputy Registrar came to the conclusion that as per the agreement dated 26. 1997, the revision petitioner is only an agent of the Society. To come to the above conclusion, the Deputy Registrar relied on the Indian Contracts Act, wherein under Sec.182, it is stated that an agent is a person employed to do any act for another or do represent another in dealing with the third persons. Therefore, the Deputy Registrar came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner is only an agent of the Federation for transporting the manures and pesticides. Accordingly, the Deputy Registrar decided the question that he has got jurisdiction to decide the dispute under Sec.90 of the Act. On merits, the Deputy Registrar found that the revision petitioner is guilty of cheating the Federation by not delivering the stocks to the Co-operative Banks. Therefore, he directed the revision petitioner to return the money with interest at 18.5% per annum. Challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 30.7.1999, an appeal was filed in C.M.A.No.26 of 2000 by the revision petitioner. Similarly, the other two persons have filed appeals in C.M.A.No.45 of 2000 and C.M.A.No.193 of 2000. By a common order dated 211. Therefore, he directed the revision petitioner to return the money with interest at 18.5% per annum. Challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 30.7.1999, an appeal was filed in C.M.A.No.26 of 2000 by the revision petitioner. Similarly, the other two persons have filed appeals in C.M.A.No.45 of 2000 and C.M.A.No.193 of 2000. By a common order dated 211. 2007 the lower Appellate Court found that the principles of natural justice were not properly followed by the Deputy Registrar and accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Deputy Registrar for fresh disposal. 15. The main contention of the revision petitioner before this court is that the initiation of proceedings under Sec.90 of the Co-operative Societies Act is not maintainable against the revision petitioner as he is only a transporter of the manures and pesticides on the basis of an agreement dated 26. 1997. 16. To decide this issue, it is useful to refer to Sec.90(1) of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, which reads as under: "90. Disputes – (1) If any dispute touching the constitution of the board or the management or the business of a 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 members, 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 and any past board, any officer, agent or servant, or any past officer, past agent or past servant, or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased servant of the society, or (d) between the society and any other registered society, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision." 17. From the above, especially Sec.90(1)(c), it is very clear that if any dispute arises between the Society and any agent, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision. From the above, especially Sec.90(1)(c), it is very clear that if any dispute arises between the Society and any agent, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision. Therefore, it can be safely said that a dispute between the Society and an agent of the Society could be referred to the Registrar for decision under Sec.90 of the TNCS Act. Then, the next question that arises for consideration is, Whether the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 is an agent or not ? To answer this question, it is useful to refer to the agreement dated 26. 1997, entered into between the revision petitioner and the Federation. A perusal of the Lorry Transport Contract deed dated 26. 1997 will show that the revision petitioner agreed to transport the manures and the pesticides to various places as per the directions of the Federation. In such circumstances, it can be presumed that while transporting the manures and pesticides on behalf of the Federation, the revision petitioner could only act as an agent of the Federation. Once it is decided that the revision petitioner is acting as an agent for the Federation as per the Lorry Transport contract deed dated 26. 1997, then sub-clause (c) of sub section (1) of Sec.90 will get attracted and therefore the dispute that arises between the revision petitioner and the Federation could be referred to the Registrar for a decision under Sec.90 of the Act. Therefore, I am in agreement with the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore in this regard and accordingly, the question of jurisdiction as contended by the revision petitioner is held against him. 18. Now, let me consider the second question namely whether the property of the wife of the agent of the Federation could be attached in a proceeding initiated before the Deputy Registrar under Sec.90 of the TNCS Act? 19. 18. Now, let me consider the second question namely whether the property of the wife of the agent of the Federation could be attached in a proceeding initiated before the Deputy Registrar under Sec.90 of the TNCS Act? 19. As reliance was placed on Sec.90(5) of the Act in this regard by the learned counsel for the first respondent, it is useful to refer to sub-sections 5 and 6 of Sec.90 of TNCS Act which reads as under: "(5) where any dispute referred to the Registrar under sub-section (1) or withdrawn by him under sub-section (3) relates to immovable property, the Registrar or the person or the Arbitrator or Arbitrators to whom it is transferred, referred or re-transferred under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) may, on the application of a party to the dispute direct that any person who is interested in such property, whether such person be a member or not, be included as a party to the dispute and any decision that may be passed on the reference, by the Registrar, the person, the Arbitrator or Arbitrators aforesaid, as the case may be, shall be binding on the party so included, provided that he shall be liable only to the extent of such property. (6) The Registrar may pass such interlocutory orders as he may deem fit in the interests of justice." 20. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Solvency Certificate produced by the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 issued by the Tahsildar, Pollachi. It is stated therein that enquiry reveals that the revision petitioner is solvent to the extent of Rs.50,000/- on his own immovable properties, over which, he has an independent saleable right in the State of Tamilnadu and over which there is no encumbrance. It is also not in dispute that the Deputy Registrar attached four of the immovable properties of the revision petitioner, out of which, two of the immovable properties are standing in the name of his wife, K.Sivagami (Revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.721 of 2008) and his mother R.Rajeswari. Three lorries and one Ambassador Car were also attached, out of which, two lorries and the Ambassador Car are standing in the name of K.Sivagami, the wife. It is also on record that challenging the order of attachment, K.Sivagami, filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.2304 of 1998 before this Court and this Court by order dated 6. Three lorries and one Ambassador Car were also attached, out of which, two lorries and the Ambassador Car are standing in the name of K.Sivagami, the wife. It is also on record that challenging the order of attachment, K.Sivagami, filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.2304 of 1998 before this Court and this Court by order dated 6. 1998 dismissed the Writ petition by holding that the same is not maintainable, when there is an effective alternative remedy provided under Rule 135 of the Cooperative Societies Rules. Thereafter, both the husband and the wife approached the Deputy Registrar and the Deputy Registrar by order dated 29. 1998 released the movable properties namely three lorries and one Car by way of an interim custody and that too on certain set of conditions. 21. It is also not in dispute that on 17. 2000 a notice was sent on behalf of Tmt. Rajeswari, the mother of the Karuppusami, the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008, stating that her property in S.No.2, Makkinampatti Village, Site No.7 measuring 2400 sq.ft. is wrongly attached and therefore the same is to be released from the attachment as the property is standing in her name. The said R.Rajeswari also sent a representation to the Joint Registrar, Coimbatore, in this regard. The Deputy Registrar by a separate order found that her property was wrongly attached and released the same from attachment. 22. It is the contention of the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.721 of 2008 that her property also to be released as that of the property of her mother-in-law. This was resisted by the learned counsel for the Federation by stating that the property itself was purchased by her husband by using the amount illegally earned while transporting the Federations manures and pesticides. Accepting the contention of the Federation, both the lower Appellate Court as well as the Deputy Registrar refused to release the attached property of the wife of the transporter. 23. Now, it is not in dispute that the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the Sec.90 proceedings were not property conducted by the Deputy Registrar and the principles of natural justice were flouted. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Deputy Registrar for fresh disposal. 23. Now, it is not in dispute that the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the Sec.90 proceedings were not property conducted by the Deputy Registrar and the principles of natural justice were flouted. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Deputy Registrar for fresh disposal. If that being so, I am of the considered view that by way of interim attachment, the property of the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.721 of 2008 could not be attached and the same is to be released. Unless and until it is proved that the revision petitioners property was acquired only by using the money siphoned of from the Federation, it is not possible to attach the property of the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.721 of 2008, the wife of the transport Contractor as the same is standing in her name and not in the name of her husband/the transport Contractor. Therefore, while upholding the attachment of the Deputy Registrar, attaching the property standing in the name of the revision petitioner in C.R.P.Nos.720 and 722 of 2008, I am setting aside the orders of the Deputy Registrar and the lower Appellate Court, in so far as the attaching the property of the wife/the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.721 of 2008. 24. In the result, all the above Civil Revision petitions are disposed of by holding that the initiation of the proceedings under Sec.90 of TNCS Act against the revision petitioner in C.R.P.Nos.720 and 722 of 2008 is well within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar and the lower Appellate Court has correctly decided the appeal by remanding the matter to the Deputy Registrar for fresh disposal as per the directions given in that order. The attachment of the properties standing in the name of the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 and 722 of 2008 is upheld and the attachment of property standing in the name of the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.721 of 2008 is set aside. 25. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore is directed to dispose of the remanded case on merits and in accordance with law and also in the light of the directions issued by the lower Appellate Court within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 26. In the result, C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 and C.R.P.No.722 of 2008 are dismissed and the orders of the lower Appellate Court are upheld. 27. 26. In the result, C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 and C.R.P.No.722 of 2008 are dismissed and the orders of the lower Appellate Court are upheld. 27. C.R.P.No.721 of 2008 is allowed and the common order of the lower Appellate Court is set aside in so far as this revision petitioner alone is concerned. No cost. All the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.