Subhash vs Mallawwa on 24 August, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Subhash vs Mallawwa on 24 August, 2010

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED TH1s THE 24TH DAY 01? AUGUST, 20 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BQp_Ai§jHA*wA.J.::' _ 3

£";i_;:"-;?.A. No.1s4'/gwogg  H
BETWEEN: " H'

Subhash

S/0. Goudappa Ullagaddi _ .

Age: Major, Agriculturist  _  '

R/0. ChikkanandihaV1.1§--.«'   V    :
Ta1:Bai1hongaI  _. .,   " 

Pin--591 115.         Appellant

(By sri.G.s.Ha1~age§§§gé§dfia.;r»,.  H'
AND .  H _ .

1.. Smt.Maiiav{rwa . . g 
W / 0. I€L1drap}5a.,U11agaddi '
 , Age: Major, Agricu1t14risi:
V  1:2 /c'.'~--chi.1;:1<anandiha1'1iL591 1 15
 1? HO: _VBa.i1hor1ga'iV_ __

The Ma1aprabha"co*op
Sugar Favciofy Ltd.,
-- M.K.'Hu'bA1i,.'1'a1: Bailhongai
V '~Be1gau"1:1: 'District

'A  ité Managing

 "Dir§:_ct;3r
.  Pin--591 118.  Respondents

#9 Q, \1 3 share certificate was to be transferred. The plaintiff being the wife of Rudrappa contends that she is entitled to the transfer of the share relating to Malaprabha Cooperative Sugar Factory in her name. The 21" defendant before the trial Courtvgviroiuld however contend. that the share is to be transferred t(.}""l'1l.i-.'7'.'o'V'I71_E§t1't5.-S?_ if since the nomination for transfer of the sarne was_rriade_:inhis"' favour by the said Rudrappa. The trial of the rival contentions has decreed the«.stiit in of plaintiff. In the appeal filed, the loVver»appell'ate re- appreciated. the material availableilion' whileiiiconfirming the judgment of the trial Courts' he I

4. In by both the courts beiovvw the.' is the wife of the deceased In this regard, the only question was by the court was as to Whethergin viewof _'tl1'Ci1'10fY1lI'1c':1tlOI'l made in favour of the 211"

share certificate was to be transferred in his both the courts have appreciated. the fact if "that in fact sworn to an affidavit during his life " 'ii-Ktirrzepand had requested the 131 defendant-Society to transfer Co1_ir't;aftger i"Ea~l.%iiI".g'

5. Incidentally, the question with regard to the jurisdiction had also been raised in the said proceedin._g contending that since 18" defendant is a Co--operati.iie"So'e.ie't§=f___ _ the suit is barred under Section 70 of Societies Act. However, the courts below:.hairel7rightly ir'io"t~i_Cedt if that the dispute is not between the_4Socie'tyiand thgghembeij or between two members, but the dispute' is betiiweein'twoi¥persons who claim to have acquiredijiright for _sie'el:_inig~-changeiiof transfer and therefore, in such a iiisuitﬂi.siimaintainable. This View taken iisimailso justified and therefore, in appreciated the evidence their conclusion have not committed any_ error so for interference in this second appeal. 1. * » ~ V16; .._Acc'o.rd'ir__1gly, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed'. No7f0rd'er as to costs.

Sd/--~ JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court