JUDGMENT S. Ramathilagam, J. The Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2002 passed in A.S.No.45 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivaganga, reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2000 passed in O.S.No.165 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sivaganga. 2. The suit in O.S.No.165 of 1999 was filed by the plaintiff to declare the auction sale held on 15.07.1994 as null and void against the defendants and for permanent injunction against the defendants and his men not to encumber the suit property. 3. The brief facts stated by the plaintiff are as follows : 3. (i) The suit property belongs to the plaintiff and the plaintiff obtained a loan from the second defendant by mortgaging the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was repaying the loan amount. It is his averment that he has not received any notice from the second defendant that he has to pay the entire loan amount, but on 28.05.1994 there was a publication in the "Dinadhandhi" Magazine that the suit property will be auctioned on 22.06.1994 for the first time. Immediately, when the plaintiff approached the second defendant, he was informed that there will not be any auction on that day and only for statistical purpose, the publication was given. As he was informed, there was also no auction conducted on that day. 3. (ii) It is the further case of the plaintiff that already a suit was filed by the plaintiff against the first defendant in O.S.No.461 of 1997 and the suit was decreed in his favour and thus there is an enmity between the plaintiff and the first defendant. Because of the enmity, the first defendant colluded with the second defendant, created documents as though auction was conducted. After coming to know the same, the plaintiff filed writ petition in W.P.No.12160 of 1994 before the Madras High Court and an order was passed with the condition that the plaintiff shall pay a sum of Rs. 17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand only) to the second defendant. Since the first and second defendants were aware the order of the High Court, the second defendant refused to receive the amount of Rs. 17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand only). 17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand only) to the second defendant. Since the first and second defendants were aware the order of the High Court, the second defendant refused to receive the amount of Rs. 17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand only). The second defendant also has not given a publication that the auction was cancelled and further it will be held on 15.07.1994. But the defendants 1 and 2 created documents and the patta for the suit property and they have also transferred it to the first defendant and the first defendant is claiming right over the suit property. The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.323 of 1995 was dismissed as the auction is the defective one. It is the averment of the plaintiff that the second defendant had not given a notification as per Section 39 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Without doing so, the right over the suit property was transferred to the auction purchaser. Further, the plaintiff was also not informed for receiving the balance amount from the auction amount. Hence the plaintiff has filed the suit. 4. The first defendant has stated in the written statement that the suit property was brought on auction when the plaintiff has not repaid the loan amount and he took the suit property in the auction for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and the plaintiff is well aware of the above said facts. Challenging the auction, the plaintiff approached the High Court in W.P.No.12160 of 1994 wherein, this Court directed the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 17,000/-. However, the plaintiff has not paid the said amount to the second defendant as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court. Since the order of the High court has not been complied with, the auction was also confirmed in favour of the first defendant, who is the successful bidder and the first defendant was also issued with the sale certificate. The first defendant is in possession of the suit property and the facts are informed to the plaintiff and the first defendant has taken possession of the suit property by paying the revenues and patta has also been transferred in his name. The plaintiff has filed the present suit suppressing the auction proceedings, dismissal of O.S.No.323 of 1995 and dismissal of interlocutory application in I.A.No.1206 of 1995 which attained finality. The plaintiff has filed the present suit suppressing the auction proceedings, dismissal of O.S.No.323 of 1995 and dismissal of interlocutory application in I.A.No.1206 of 1995 which attained finality. To harass the defendants, the present suit was preferred and there is no basis for the suit and the suit cannot be filed under Section 156 of Co-operative Societies Act and the suit was filed questioning the auction held in the year 1994, which is not maintainable and therefore, the suit has to be dismissed with costs. 5. The Second defendant, who is the Secretary to Kalayarkoil Co- operative Land Development Bank Limited, has been examined as D.W.2. In his evidence D.W.2 had stated that the plaintiff has mortgaged the property in question and obtained a sum of Rs. 6,900/- as loan. As he failed to repay the loan, the property has been brought to public auction, after proper intimation to the plaintiff. Thereafter, auction was scheduled to be held on 22.06.1994. However, the same was not conducted on the said date and the same was postponed to 15.07.1994. After prior intimation to the District Collector, the Tahsildar, the Sub Register and also to the plaintiff by means of affixing the notice on the plaintiff's house door and also after Thandora, auction was conducted on 15.07.1994. Four persons were participated in that auction in which the first defendant was declared as successful bidder. Out of the total amount of Rs. 50,000/-, he paid Rs. 30,000/- on the same day and the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid on 12.08.1994. Before confirming the auction in favour of the first defendant, the High Court has stayed the auction proceedings, directing the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 17,000/- within a period of two weeks from 15.07.1994 i.e. the date of auction. Since the said amount was not paid, the auction was confirmed in favour of the first defendant. There is no illegality or irregularity in the auction proceedings and he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. The Trial Court has framed four issues, namely; (i) Whether the auction held on 15.07.1994 is genuine and whether it is legally valid one? (ii) whether is the suit is barred by res judicata? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed in the suit? (iv) to what relief? (v) Whether under Section 156 of Co-operative Societies Act the Civil Court jurisdiction is barred? 7. (ii) whether is the suit is barred by res judicata? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed in the suit? (iv) to what relief? (v) Whether under Section 156 of Co-operative Societies Act the Civil Court jurisdiction is barred? 7. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. On the side of the defendants, two witnesses were examined and 24 documents were marked. 8. On perusal of the pleadings and documents placed by both sides, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. Against the judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred First appeal in A.S.No.45 of 2001. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant/auction purchaser filed the present Second Appeal. 9. The Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in holding that the suit filed was within time from the date of knowledge and whether there is a specific provision under Rules 127 and 128 of Co-operative Societies Act that the auction sale should be objected within 30 days from the date of auction? (ii) When the first respondent did not prefer an appeal to the Registrar to set aside the sale on the ground of Material irregularity of mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale, whether the Court is right in decreeing the suit? (iii) Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit, when the Appellant is lawful purchaser and he is in possession and patta also transferred in his name? And (iv) Whether the Art.62 and 58 of Limitation Act is applicable when there is a specific provision under Revenue Recovery Act, that the Limitation Act is not applicable? 10. The learned counsel for the appellant/first defendant/auction purchaser would mainly argue that when the first respondent/plaintiff committed default in repayment of loan, the auction was conducted and the same is valid and as per Section 69 of the Revenue Act, the auction should be objected within six months from the date of action and the same was not considered by the lower appellate court. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Government Advocate for the third respondent. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Government Advocate for the third respondent. There is no representation for the first respondent/plaintiff. This Court has perused the records regarding the evidence, documents, decree and judgments of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 12. Heard the submissions and perused the evidence and documents placed by both parties before the Courts below. 13. It is observed that the first defendant/appellant herein is the auction purchaser of the property. The grievance of the plaintiff/1st respondent is that he is not properly served with notice by the second defendant and the publication process was also not adopted by the Co- operative Society in a proper manner and the auction was conducted in a fraudulent manner and also the Co-operative Society colluded with the first defendant and conducted the auction. Hence, he has filed the suit. On the original date of auction, the auction was not held and the postponement of auction to 15.07.1994 was not properly informed by the Society is the grievance of the plaintiff. 14. D.W.2 is the Secretary of the Kalaiyar Kovil Co-operative Society, who has clearly deposed that the procedure and formalities are properly adopted for the recovery of money from the plaintiff and also on failure of the repayment of loan they have taken appropriate procedure in bringing the suit property for auction. 15. It is seen that notice was served on the plaintiff. The publication and the tom-tom were made in the village, where the suit property is situated and the auction on 15.07.1994 was properly proclaimed and it is also evident that on the day of auction i.e., on 15.07.1994, four persons participated in the auction and the first defendant is the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and he has paid Rs. 30,000/- on the same day and the order was also marked as Ex.P19. Only after the non-compliance of the conditional order by the plaintiff, the sale in favour of the first defendant was confirmed and the said document was marked as Ex.D.21 and the suit property was also handed over to the first defendant on 09.12.1994. 16. 30,000/- on the same day and the order was also marked as Ex.P19. Only after the non-compliance of the conditional order by the plaintiff, the sale in favour of the first defendant was confirmed and the said document was marked as Ex.D.21 and the suit property was also handed over to the first defendant on 09.12.1994. 16. The first respondent before this Court is the plaintiff, who deposed regarding the loan amount he obtained, the balance amount, and the auction notice and also stated that the auction by the second respondent and the sale in favour of the first defendant as invalid. During the cross- examination he has stated that he filed writ petition to stay the auction but the conditional order of depositing a sum of Rs. 17,000/- was not complied by him. Further in O.S.No.323 of 1995 he has not disclosed the fact that the possession of the suit property was taken by the first defendant, after the auction. It is also his evidence that against the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.323 of 1995 and against the dismissal of the first appeal, an appeal was preferred and it was also dismissed. 17. On perusal of the evidence, it is observed that patta has been transferred in the name of the first defendant for the suit property and that the plaintiff has not taken part in any action before the revenue authority also. It is also his evidence that he has no proof for the refusal to receive the amount of Rs. 17,000/- by the second defendant. The first defendant has also, in the evidence, deposed that he came to know about the auction in the Bank notification and also in the paper publication. The sale in favour of him was also confirmed only when the plaintiff failed to comply with the conditional order of paying the amount of Rs. 17,000/- to the second defendant. 18. The admission of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that he is fully aware of the purchase by the first defendant and also the service of notice by the Co-operative Society. The auction was also conducted after observing all the formalities and the first respondent also paid Rs. 17,000/- to the second defendant. 18. The admission of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that he is fully aware of the purchase by the first defendant and also the service of notice by the Co-operative Society. The auction was also conducted after observing all the formalities and the first respondent also paid Rs. 30,000/- on the date itself and only on non-compliance of the appellant in paying the amount as per the direction in the writ petition the sale was confirmed in favour of the first defendant. 19. The plaintiff/1st respondent filed the suit for the relief of declaration declaring the sale conducted by the 2nd defendant on 15.7.1994 is null and void and based on the sale, neither the defendant, nor his men should not interfere or encumber the property and sought for the relief of permanent injunction. 20. The first defendant/appellant is the purchaser of the suit property and who has paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the sale amount. On a Writ petition filed by the plaintiff/1st respondent regarding the sale of the Society, conditional order was passed for payment of Rs. 17,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff/1st respondent within two weeks. As per the condition, the plaintiff Arumugam has not paid any amount to the 2nd respondent Society. Hence the 2nd respondent Society conducted auction and the appellant/1st defendant took the property in auction and the sale certificate was also issued to him. The said fact of auction conducted by the Society and the sale confirmation and possession of the property by the appellant/1st defendant was also conveyed to the plaintiff. Hence it is observed that the enjoyment of the property by the defendant was very much known to the plaintiff. Patta has also been transferred in the name of defendant and the related revenue were also paid by the appellant/1st defendant and these facts are very much known to the plaintiff 21. Hence it is observed that the enjoyment of the property by the defendant was very much known to the plaintiff. Patta has also been transferred in the name of defendant and the related revenue were also paid by the appellant/1st defendant and these facts are very much known to the plaintiff 21. Section 128 of Cooperative Societies Act reads as follows; Application to set aside sale on ground of irregularity of fraud (1) At any time within thirty days from the date of the sale of immovable property, the decree-holder or any person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of the assets or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Registrar to set aside the sale, on the ground of a material irregularity or mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting it; As per section 128 of Cooperative Societies Act, he has to file objection within 30 days before the concerned authority, but he has not preferred any auction under section 128 of Cooperative Society's Act. The plaintiff has not preferred any application objecting the auction sale within 30 days from the date of auction. 22. Even in the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that he has noticed the publication given by the Society regarding sale and he also approached the second defendant Society. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that only to divert the plaintiff, the 1st and 2nd defendant collided together and fabricated the documents that the auction has been conducted on 15.7.1997 and the 2nd defendant refused to receive the amount of Rs. 17,000/- from the plaintiff. 23. It is also observed that already the plaintiff has filed a suit in OS.323 of 1995 against the defendant Veeranasamy and the same was dismissed and the appeal preferred by him in A.S.No.5 of 1996 was also dismissed and the CRP filed by the plaintiff in CRP. No. 175 of 1997 was also dismissed. Hence, in view of the provision under section 157 of the Cooperative Societies Act, if really the plaintiff is aggrieved with the procedure of the sale, he should have very well approach the concerned Forum, but he has approached the Civil Court belatedly. 24. It is also observed that the notice regarding the date of auction was affixed in the plaintiff's house and also in the Society. 24. It is also observed that the notice regarding the date of auction was affixed in the plaintiff's house and also in the Society. Ex.B.2 is the transfer of patta in the name of the defendant and Ex.B.3 is the order of the Tahsildar and already revenue receipts were filed by the defendant in OS.323 of 1995 and they are exhibits B4 and B6. It is also observed from Ex.B.7, wherein, the plaintiff has accepted that he was properly informed about the sale. It is also admitted by him that the auction was postponed to 15.7.1994, i.e., proved by Ex.B.7. Section 59 of the Revenue Recovery Act reads as follows; "Nothing contained in this Act shall be held to prevent parties deeming themselves aggrieved by any proceedings under this Act, except as herein before provided, from applying to the Civil Courts for redress provided that Civil Courts shall not take cognizance of any suit instituted by such parties for any such cause of action; unless such suit shall be instituted within six months from the time at which the cause of action arose." The plaintiff should have approached the Civil Court within six months from the time on which the cause of action arose, but he has not murmured anything in the suit filed by him in OS.323 of 1995. 25. It is argued by the appellant that already the 1st respondent preferred a suit in O.S.No.323 of 1995 claiming relief of injunction against this appellant without revealing the fact of auction and the said suit was also dismissed and further the auction taken by this appellant was also confirmed by the document which was issued by the Joint Registrar of the Society and the same was also marked as document in the said suit in O.S.No.323 of 1995 filed by the 1st respondent as Ex.B.1. 26. Subsequent to that auction, the patta was also transferred in the name of the appellant and from that date onwards, the appellant herein is paying all the revenue charges to the Government and those documents were also filed in the suit in O.S.No.323 of 1995. The 1st respondent has also admitted the fact that he received the notice informing him that the amount already paid by him will be refunded to him which was affixed in the door of his house. The 1st respondent has also admitted the fact that he received the notice informing him that the amount already paid by him will be refunded to him which was affixed in the door of his house. He has also admitted the fact that the sale was adjourned to 15.7.1994. As per the conditional order passed in W.P.No.12160 of 1994, the 1st respondent has not paid the amount within two weeks and hence the sale was confirmed in favour of the appellant. 27. The 2nd respondent who is the Secretary of the Co-operative Society has also clearly deposed before the Court that all the procedures with regard to the sale proceedings were followed by the Society regarding the fact of affixing of notice in the respondent house and the notice regarding the sale also was served on the 1st respondent by affixing the same in his house and it is also published in the Official Gazette and also by beating Tom Tom in the concerned place. 28. On the date of auction on 15.07.1994, the appellant was declared as the highest bidder who quoted the bid amount as Rs. 50,000/- and out of Rs. 50,000/- he paid Rs. 30,000/- on the date of auction and the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid on 12.08.1994. As per the conditional stay granted in W.P. No. 12160 of 1994, since the 1st respondent has not paid the amount of Rs. 17,000/-, the 2nd respondent informed the 3rd respondent, viz., the Deputy Registrar of the Society has issued the sale certificate confirming the sale in favour of him by way of Ex.B.21. Against the issuance of sale certificate, the 1st respondent has not preferred any appeal before the Cooperative Society within 30 days. Hence, it is the argument by the appellant that he has not preferred the appeal within the prescribed time period before the Cooperative Society. 29. Regarding the lawful possession of the appellant, after confirmation of sale in favour of the appellant and ever since the date of sale, the appellant became the lawful purchaser of the suit property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and in respect of suit property, he was issued with patta, pursuant to which, he is also paying the revenue charges. Even the 1st respondent was served with notice regarding the refund of amount which he had already paid. Even the 1st respondent was served with notice regarding the refund of amount which he had already paid. Thus the first respondent was very well aware of the facts relating to the confirmation of sale, transfer of patta and even the notice which was served on the 1st respondent regarding refund of the amount. Therefore in the considered view of this Court, the auction was conducted in a proper manner and the first appellate court went wrong in arriving at the finding that the appellant is not a lawful purchaser of the suit property. Thus the finding of the first appellate court is not proper. 30. The admission of the 1st respondent regarding all the facts clearly proved that the appellant is the lawful purchaser and the earlier suit filed by him in O.S.No.323 of 1995 was already dismissed and his subsequent appeal was also dismissed. 31. The 1st appellant has not objected the confirmation of sale by way of filing any objection before the Cooperative Society within a period of 30 days from the date of sale. If there is any irregularity found by the 1st respondent, he could have very well approached the proper forum in time, but without approaching the Society, the 1st respondent has initiated a suit in O.S.No.323 of 1995 whereas, pursuant to which, number of legal proceedings have taken place. Even in the earlier suit initiated by the 1st respondent also, the entire proceedings relating to sale, auction, transfer of patta, etc, was dealt with. In the earlier suit filed by the 1st respondent, he has admitted the service of notice, publication regarding the sale auction in the Official Gazette and notice by way of beating Tom Tom in the concerned place. 32. All proceedings are over in the year 1994 itself, but the earlier suit was filed by the 1st respondent in the year 1995 praying for a declaration and injunction against the appellant and after a lapse of four years, the present suit was filed. Even at the earliest point of time, when he is aggrieved with the irregularity of the sale, he could have filed appeal before the concerned authorities, but, without doing so, the 1st respondent has filed the suit in the year 1999 on the same cause of action. Even at the earliest point of time, when he is aggrieved with the irregularity of the sale, he could have filed appeal before the concerned authorities, but, without doing so, the 1st respondent has filed the suit in the year 1999 on the same cause of action. Therefore, it is clear that the 1st respondent has filed the present suit based on the same cause of action that has arisen in the previous suit O.S.No.323 of 1995 which was already decided against him. The 1st respondent cannot file a suit in the year 1999 based on the same issue and hence even on the said ground also, the present suit is barred by res judicata. 33. Further, after the lapse of more then 4 years from the date of proclamation of sale of properties, the 1st respondent cannot file a Civil Suit challenging the sale of the suit properties by filing the present suit. Therefore, it is clear that the 1st respondent who is fully aware of the entire proceedings has preferred the suit very belatedly. In the considered opinion of this Court, once again, the 1st respondent has filed the present suit for the same cause of action after a lapse of 4 years which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 34. On the side of the appellant, it is argued by quoting the case law in the case of Harur Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Vs. Minor Agalya and Others, (2007) 1 MLJ 299 , wherein, this Court has held that the action was taken under the provisions of section 120 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act to recover the money and therefore, the suit is barred under section 156 of TNCS Act. 35. In view of the above said arguments and discussions, the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly and in the result, the Second Appeal is allowed. 36. In fine, (i) the Second Appeal is allowed; (ii) the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.45 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Court in A.S.No.45 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivaganga is set aside; (iii) the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2000 passed in O.S.No.165 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sivaganga is confirmed. (iv) No costs. (iv) No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any is closed.