JUDGMENT : Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappally in O.S.No.295/2007 followed by those of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Pala in A.S.No.58/2009, the defendant in the suit has come up with this second appeal. 2. The suit is one for recovery of possession based on title, of plaint 3rd schedule item having an extent of 81 sq.mtrs. of land. The plaintiff is admittedly a member of Kanjirappally Housing Co-operative Society No.372. The said co-operative society is the defendant in the suit. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased 8 Ares and 70 sq.mtrs of property from the defendant co-operative society through Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds of the Kanjirappally Sub Registry. Originally, the plot was admeasuring 9.50 Ares which was lying as a single plot. The defendant co-operative society retained an extent of 80 sq.mtrs. from the southern most portion of the said 9.50 Ares for the formation of a road. After retaining 80 sq.mtrs. of land for the said purpose, the defendant co-operative society executed Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff for the remaining extent of 8.70 Ares. The said property having an extent of 8.70 Ares purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant through Exts.A1 and A2 is scheduled as plaint schedule item No.1 property. The 80 sq.mtrs. retained by the society for the formation of the road from the southern side of 9.50 Ares is the plaint schedule item No.2. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that in his absence, the defendant co-operative society, under the influence of some other residents in the housing colony, widened the said road at the southern side thereby encroaching upon the portions of the plaint schedule item No.1 property and reduced a portion having an extent of 81 sq.mtrs. from the southern most portion of the plaint schedule item No.1 property into the possession of the defendant co-operative society. The said portion having an extent of 81 sq.mtrs., allegedly encroached upon by the defendant co-operative society, is the plaint schedule item No.3 property. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking recovery of possession of plaint schedule item No.3 property from the defendant co-operative society. 4. The defendant clearly admitted that the plot was originally having a measurement of 9.50 Ares out of which, 80 sq.mtrs. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking recovery of possession of plaint schedule item No.3 property from the defendant co-operative society. 4. The defendant clearly admitted that the plot was originally having a measurement of 9.50 Ares out of which, 80 sq.mtrs. of property from the southern most portion was retained by the co-operative society and the remaining extent of 8.70 Ares was sold to the plaintiff. It is the further contention of the defendant that there was a compound wall separating the southern road and the property sold to the plaintiff and therefore, there was no encroachment over any of the portions of the plaint schedule item No.1 property. The main contention resorted to by the defendant is that the dispute between the parties is one squarely coming under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred to entertain the suit, as per Section 100 of the Act. The trial court initially decreed the suit in terms of the plaint. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred as A.S.No.58/2009 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Pala. The first appellate court also concurred with the findings entered by the Munsiff's Court and dismissed the appeal. 5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. K. Ramkumar for the appellant and learned counsel Sri. Liji. J. Vadakedom for the respondent. 6. The learned Senior Counsel has argued that the dispute between the plaintiff, who is admittedly a member of the co-operative society, and the society involved in this case is nothing but a dispute in respect of the allotment made by the co-operative society in favour of one of its members and therefore, this is a dispute touching the business of the society, thereby Section 69 of the Act comes into play. It has been argued that, when it is a dispute coming under Section 69 of the Act, the suit is clearly barred under Section 100 of the Act. 7. It has been argued that, when it is a dispute coming under Section 69 of the Act, the suit is clearly barred under Section 100 of the Act. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that this is not a dispute relating to the allotment and that, it is the admitted case of the defendant that a plot having an extent of 8.70 Ares was sold by the defendant to the plaintiff and therefore, the subsequent encroachment through a trespass by the co-operative society into the land sold out to the plaintiff cannot be a dispute touching the business of the society. The argument is that therefore, the suit is perfectly maintainable before a civil court and there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the concurrent findings entered by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. 8. This second appeal has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law: "Is the dispute raised in the suit, a dispute coming under Sec.2(i) of the Act and whether the suit is barred in view of Sections 69 and 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act; did the courts below go wrong in holding otherwise?" 9. The question to be decided is precisely whether the dispute involved in the suit is one touching the business of the co-operative society. Of course, if the dispute is one touching the business of the co-operative society, then the dispute is one coming under Section 2(i) read with Section 69 of the Act, and in such case, the suit is barred under Section 100 of the Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the dispute is one relating to the extent of property allotted by the co-operative society to one of its members. In the written statement it has been clearly admitted that the land after retaining an extent of 80 sq.mtrs of land from the plot having an extent of 9.50 Ares, was the property which was the subject matter of allotment. It has been further admitted that after retaining an extent of 80 sq.mtrs from the southern most portion of that plot having an extent of 9.50 Ares, the society sold the property having an extent of 8.70 Ares to the plaintiff. That has been clearly admitted in the written statement. It has been further admitted that after retaining an extent of 80 sq.mtrs from the southern most portion of that plot having an extent of 9.50 Ares, the society sold the property having an extent of 8.70 Ares to the plaintiff. That has been clearly admitted in the written statement. Therefore, the defendant has no dispute with regard to the extent of plot sold to the plaintiff through Exts.A1 and A2. It has been clearly admitted that the extent of property sold to the plaintiff is 8.70 Ares. 10. The case of the plaintiff is that there is a road in existence through the southern side of the plaint schedule item No.1 property. The 80 sq.mtr of land retained by the society also forms part of the said road. The said 80 sq.mtr of land retained by the society is plaint schedule item No.2. According to the plaintiff, subsequently the co-operative society tarred the said road in existence and at that time the plaintiff was not in station. The plaintiff is residing far away. According to the plaintiff, in his absence, the co-operative society trespassed into the portions of the plaint schedule item No.1 property and reduced a portion having an extent of 81 sq.mtrs into the unlawful possession of the defendant co-operative society and transformed that portion also as the road. The said portion allegedly trespassed upon by the defendant co-operative society is the plaint schedule item No.3 property. 11. A Commission was taken out and the property was measured out. Even though the defendant has no dispute with regard to the extent of property to which the plaintiff is entitled, i.e., plaint schedule item No.1 property, it has been clearly come out that the portion noted in Ext.C1 (a) plan, prepared by the competent surveyor as ^fgjk* which is plot No.3 in Ext.C1(a) having an extent of 81 sq.mtrs of property, was trespassed upon from the plaint schedule item No.1 property thereby decreasing the extent of the property in the possession of the plaintiff presently to 7.89 Ares, which is ^efkl* plot in Ext.C1(a). Even when the extent of property to which the plaintiff is entitled, is admitted by the defendant as 8.70 Ares, it seems that subsequent to the execution of Exts.A1 and A2, the extent has been reduced and the present extent available is only 7.89 Ares. 12. Even when the extent of property to which the plaintiff is entitled, is admitted by the defendant as 8.70 Ares, it seems that subsequent to the execution of Exts.A1 and A2, the extent has been reduced and the present extent available is only 7.89 Ares. 12. Either the plaint or the affidavits in the suit do not reflect any dispute relating to the allotment. The defendant has no case that only a lesser extent, i.e., 7.89 Ares of property was allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also no case that only a lesser extent was allotted to him. Therefore, in this particular case, there is no dispute relating to the allotment of plot exists between the plaintiff, who is a member of the co-operative society, and the defendant co-operative society. In such a case, it cannot be said that it is a dispute covered under Section 2(i) of the Act. As per Section 2(i) "dispute" means: ""dispute" means any matter touching the business, constitution, establishments or management of a society capable of being the subject of litigation and includes a claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a society, whether such claim be admitted or not;" 13. As per Section 69(i)(e) of the Act, if a dispute arises between the society and the members of the society, the Registrar shall decide such dispute and no other court or other authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such a dispute. As per Section 100 of the Act, no civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter for which provision is made in the Act. 14. At any stretch of imagination, in this case, the present dispute involved in the suit cannot be treated as a dispute touching the business of the society. The matter involved in the suit is not a dispute regarding the extent of the property allotted to a member of the society, since it stands clearly proved that Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds were executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule item No.1 property. The said extent of property sold out to the plaintiff is also admitted by the defendant. Therefore, there is no question of any dispute relating to the allotment. The said extent of property sold out to the plaintiff is also admitted by the defendant. Therefore, there is no question of any dispute relating to the allotment. The plaintiff has proved his case by proving that subsequent to the execution of Exts.A1 and A2, plaint schedule item No.3 portion from the southern portion of plaint schedule item No.1 property has been encroached upon and such portion was used for widening the then existing road. The said portion encroached upon is plaint schedule item No.3 property, which is plot No.3 in Ext.C1(a). This is a suit for recovery of possession based on title. When the title of the plaintiff over the said portion of the property is clearly admitted, there is no dispute as such in existence. The trial court has decreed the suit in terms of the plaint thereby granting recovery of possession as prayed for. The lower appellate court has also considered the said aspect in its correct perspective and has concurred with the findings entered by the trial court. 15. From the discussions made above, this Court is satisfied that there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees. This Second Appeal therefore fails, and is only to be dismissed with costs, and I do so. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. All the interlocutory applications in this appeal are closed.