ORDER : Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. 1. The petitioner has called into question the first respondent's order dated 3-3-2011 (Annexure-B), attaching the properties in question in exercise of the power conferred by the Section 103 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. She has also challenged the order dated 8-2-2013 (Annexure-C) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('KAT' for short) confirming the said order. Sri A.S. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society has attached the properties belonging to the petitioner and that too without putting her on notice. He submits that she was not even a party to the dispute between the respondents 2 and 3. 2. Sri A.S. Patil submits that resorting to the attachment of the property without even initiating the surcharge proceedings is bad in law. He submits that the petitioner is not at all liable to make good the amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by her husband ('the respondent 3' herein). On being asked as to how the petitioner has purchased the properties in question and how she has become the owner of the property, he submits that her name figures in the record of rights. He submits that the entry in column (10) shows that she has purchased the lands. 3. Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent 1 submits that what is impugned is only a show-cause notice. If the respondent 3 furnishes the requisite security, the impugned attachment could be lifted. He submits that respondent 3 and the petitioner together had earlier filed an appeal before the KAT. He also brings to my notice the affidavit filed by the petitioner undertaking not to alienate the property till the disposal of this writ petition. 4. The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. Nothing is placed on record to show as to how the petitioner has purchased the properties in question and how she has become the owner of the properties. No title deeds are placed on the record of the Courts. It is trite that the record of rights do not constitute title deeds. 5. The right of the respondent 2 to recover the amounts stated to have been misappropriated by the respondent 3 cannot be defeated by his wife. The impugned order dated 3-3-2011 is not even confirmed yet. The whole exercise is premature. It is trite that the record of rights do not constitute title deeds. 5. The right of the respondent 2 to recover the amounts stated to have been misappropriated by the respondent 3 cannot be defeated by his wife. The impugned order dated 3-3-2011 is not even confirmed yet. The whole exercise is premature. It is open to the respondent 3 to furnish the security to the satisfaction of the respondent 1. It shall be also open to the petitioner to make the necessary application before the first respondent himself, showing the source of her income and how she acquired the properties in question. It is for the respondent 1 to consider such an application, if filed. With these liberties and observations, this petition is dismissed.