Karnataka High Court
Siddappa S/O Lagama Pujari vs Lagamavva W/O Maruti Kesaragoppa on 29 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432
RSA No. 100221 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100221 OF 2014 (-)
BETWEEN:
1. SIDDAPPA S/O LAGAMA PUJARI,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAIBAG- 591317,
DIST: BELGAUM.
2. BALAPPA S/O. LAGAMA PUJARI,
AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. RAIBAG,
DIST: BELGAUM.
3. MARUTI S/O. LAGAMA PUJARI,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAIBAG DIST: BELGAUM.
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI 4. YALLAPPA S/O. LAGAMA PUJARI,
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
AGE: 45 YEARS,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA, OCC: AGRICULTURE
DHARWAD BENCH
R/O. RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LAGAMAVVA
W/O MARUTI KESARAGOPPA,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. RAIBAG- 591317,
DIST: BELGAUM.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432
RSA No. 100221 of 2014
HC-KAR
2. BEERAPPA S/O. MARUTI KESARAGOPPA,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAIBAG- 591317,
DIST: BELGAUM.
3. SMT. NAGAVVA
D/O. MARUTI KESARAGOPPA
W/O. MARUTI PUJARI
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KANCHAKARWADI- 591317,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.
4. VITHAL S/O. MARUTI KESARAGOPPA,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. TQ: RAIBAG- 591317,
DIST: BELGAUM.
5. SMT. KASTURI
D/O. MARUTI KESARAGOPPA
W/O. HUVAPPA KARIHOLI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. HUBBARWADI- 591317,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.
6. SMT. SHIVAKKA
D/O. MARUTI KESARAGOPPA
W/O. BEERAPPA GOKAK
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGALKHOD- 591235,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.
7. SMT. SHALAKKA
D/O. MARUTI KESARAGOPPA,
W/O. KAREPPA HALINGALI
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. RAIBAG TO BHIRADI MAIN ROAD,
BHIRADI- 591317,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432
RSA No. 100221 of 2014
HC-KAR
TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELGAUM.
8. SMT. GOURAVVA
W/O. MAYAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. RAIBAG- 591317,
DIST: BELGAUM.
9. SMT. SATYAVVA D/O. MARUTI PUJARI,
W/O. MAHADEV RAMA LATTE,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BUDIHAL- 591317,
TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELGAUM.
10. SURESH S/O. MAYAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. RAIBAG- 591317,
DIST: BELGAUM.
11. SMT. YALLAVVA D/O. MAYAPPA PUJARI,
W/O. AJIT SIDDAPPA MASAGOND,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAIBAG- 591317,
DIST: BELGAUM.
12. BHIMAPPA S/O. MAYAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. PARASANAYAKANAKODI,
TQ: RAIBAG- 591317,
DIST: BELGAUM.
13. NAGAPPA S/O. SINGADI PUJARI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. RAIBAG- 591317,
DIST: BELGAUM.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432
RSA No. 100221 of 2014
HC-KAR
14. RAMA S/O. SHINGADI PUJARI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. RAIBAG- 591317,
DIST: BELGAUM.
15. SATAPPA S/O. SINGADI PUJARI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. RAIBAG- 591317
DIST: BELGAUM.
16. SHIVAJI S/O. PARASHURAM JADHAV,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAIBAG- 591317,
DIST: BELGAUM.
17. VITHOBA S/O. TATOBA JADHAV,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAIBAG- 591317,
DIST: BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA PUROHIT, FOR
SRI. RAHUL R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R15;
R16 & R17 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, IS PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN RA NO. 47/2009 DATED
19.02.2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
RAIBAG AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S. NO.
220/2004 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN)
RAIBAG AND TO DISMISS THE SUIT BEARING O.S. NO.
220/2004 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 21.04.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432
RSA No. 100221 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is the appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2014 in RA No.47/2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag (for short 'First Appellate Court') and the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2009 in OS No. 220/2004 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) Raibag (for short 'trial Court') and to dismiss the suit of plaintiff.
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before trial Court for sake of convenience and clarity.
3. Plaintiffs have filed the suit praying for the relief of possession in respect of encroached portion of 16 guntas in Re. Sy.No.556 shown with letter 'A' and encroached portion of 4 acres 14 guntas in Re-survey No.557 shown with letter 'B' in P.T. sheet from the defendants; for Court costs and for such other reliefs.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR
4. The case of plaintiffs before trial Court in nutshell is that the land bearing Re.Sy.No.558 of Raibag is in the ownership of Shivaji Park Tenant Co-operative Farming Society, Raibag. Plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff No. 2 to 6 were members of the said society and as such said society has granted lands to plaintiffs on permanent basis and thus plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of said property since from the date of grant. Plaintiff No.1 is the owner of Re.Sy. No.558, measuring 8 acres 15 guntas and plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 are the owners of re-survey No. 558/2 measuring 8 acres 16 guntas. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are owners of re-survey No.557/B measuring 4 acres 20 guntas of Raibag and defendant Nos.5 and 6 are neighboring owners. Plaintiffs have given an application to ADLR Chikodi for measurement of their lands. Then, ADLR Chikodi at KBC/MR-122/2000-1 dated 24.01.2001 has conducted the survey and fixed the boundaries. At the time of measurement, defendants objected to it and even police officials were present. After conducting the measurement, -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR ADLR, Chikodi submitted P.T. sheet extract. The description of encroached portion is shown with letters 'A' and 'B' in PT Sheet, which is in possession of defendants.
5. Defendant after service of summons has appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement, wherein he has taken contention that the suit is not maintainable in present form. The dispute in present case is in respect of boundaries. As per Section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He denied all other averments made in the plaint and further contended that defendant No.2 has filed OS No.172/2002 for declaration that he is the owner of Re. Sy. No.558, measuring 5 acres situated at Raibag. Originally, the suit schedule property belonged to the Government and Government allotted Re.Sy.No.558 of Raibag in favour of Shivaji Park Tenant Co-operative Farming Society, Raibag. The said society in turn has allotted Re.Sy.No.558 to defendant No.2 and the plaintiffs. After such grant, name of defendant No.2 was entered into -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR record of rights. Since, from the date of allotment, defendant No.2 was in possession of Re.Sy.No.558 measuring 5 acres as per the allotment of the society. He has given application to Village Accountant on 11.08.1995, based on it, M.E. No. 5893 of Raibag was certified in his name as per Order dated 30.09.1995. After getting such grant, defendant No.2 dug bore well in his land allotted by the society and installed IP set bearing number with Reg/IP- 1172. He has availed the power supply from KEB and installed IP set and irrigating his lands at Survey No. 558, Part III of Raibag. He is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of said property. But, plaintiff in collusion with revenue authorities got deleted the name of defendant No.2. Without his consent, plaintiffs have not preferred appeal against certification of ME No. 5893 and it cannot be set aside by any revenue officials. The plaintiff high handedly without the knowledge of defendant No.2 deleted his name from suit properties. Plaintiff in collusion with revenue authority and Survey Department prepared false -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR P.T. sheet showing that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have encroached 4 acres 20 guntas just to grab the share of defendant No. 2. Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in or over the area in possession of defendant No.2 measuring 5 acres. There is no cause of action for plaintiff to file the suit. This Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Court fee paid is not proper. The plaintiff has to pay Court fee on market value of the suit property. The value of suit schedule property is more than ₹ 6,00,000/- and thus the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Hence, prayed for disposal of suit with compensatory costs.
6. The written statement filed by defendant No.1 is adopted by defendant Nos.2 to 4. Defendant No.1 has filed additional written statement contending that the plaintiffs have not amended the plaint as per the amendment sought in amendment application. Survey No.558 of Raibag belongs to Shivaji Park Tenant Co-operative Farming Society, Raibag and it is clearly admitted by plaintiffs in their suit. As per Section 70(1) of the Karnataka Co-
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR operative Societies Act, 1959 the dispute has to be referred to the decision to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and District Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The disputed property belonged to Shivaji Park Tenant Co- operative Farming Society, Raibag and it is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Plaintiffs and defendants are members of the society through their father. When, there is dispute between members, then such dispute shall be referred to Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies or District Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The by-laws of Shivaji Park Tenant Co-operative Farming Society, Raibag reveals that Government has granted the land to the society and in turn, the society has to grant the lands between its members on yearly rent. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is paying rent directly to the Government but they are paying rent through the society. As per by-laws, the lands allotted to members shall be under the management of the society and it is
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR responsibility of the society to look after the lands allotted to members; if there is any dispute then it is to be decided by the management of the society. Thus, as per Section 118 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, this Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Hence, prayed for dismissal of suit with compensatory costs.
7. Defendant No.1 has filed another additional written statement wherein he contended that plaintiff No.1B and 1D have executed document dated 13.12.2000 by putting their LTM & signature respectively with free consent in favour of defendant No.2 stating that he is in peaceful possession since 50 years and they have no objection and they have no right, title over Re-survey No.558/1 of Raibag. Plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time. It is Shivaji Park Tenant Co- operative Farming Society, Raibag is the owner and has given the property to defendant No.2 on lease and lease agreement is with defendant No.2 and based on it, defendant No.2 is in possession of portion of the suit
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR property. Hence prayed that defendant No.2 is in possession of it since 50 years and thus perfected his title by way of adverse possession. Hence, prayed for dismissal of suit with costs.
8. From the above facts, the trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issues:-
Issues
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have encroach the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of suit schedule property form the defendants?
3. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable in view of Sec.61 of Revenue Act [Preliminary Issue]?
Additional Issue:
1. Whether the defendants prove that this court is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this suit as per section 71[1] of Kar. Co. Op. Societies Act?
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR
9. The additional issue was answered in Negative by holding that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to try the suit and then after hearing evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the trial court came to the conclusion that plaintiffs are entitled for possession of suit schedule property from defendants. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, the defendants have filed first appeal before First Appellate Court and in the First Appellate Court, they have filed I.A. No.VI under XLI Rule 27 CPC to permit them to adduce additional evidence. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the suit as well as I.A. No.VI.
10. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants- defendants have filed the present appeal.
11. In this appeal, while admitting the appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed:
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR Substantial questions of law:
i) Whether both the Courts have committed a serious error in overlooking the material evidence placed on record, more particularly, Exs.D2, D3, D9 to D21?
ii) Whether the judgments of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are perverse and illegal on the ground that the maintainability of the suit has been overlooked, more particularly, when the suit was filed for possession without seeking the main relief of declaration?
iii) Whether the first appellate Court has committed as serious error in dismissing the I.A. filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC in spite of sufficient grounds being made out for adducing additional evidence at the first appellate Court?
Addl. Substantial questions of law:
iv) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in confirming the decree passed by the Trial Court, when it is an admitted fact that both the plaintiffs and the defendants are members of a Co-
operative Society and that the dispute pertains to the business of the said Society?
v) Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were justified in decreeing the suit without
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR looking to the resolutions passed by the Society, who was the land owner by relying upon the mutation entries and such other revenue entries that were found in the records? and in view of the same, whether the suit was maintainable?
12. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri.S.C.Neelopanth would submit that the plaintiff has filed the suit for possession of encroached portion in Re.Sy.No.556 and 557 noted as A and B in PT Sheets.
13. It is the contention of defendant that Shivaji Park tenant Co-operative society has cancelled the lease granted in favour of husband of plaintiff No.1 by virtue of Resolution dated 05.02.1995 as per Ex.D.3; as per Ex.D.4, after such cancellation, as father of defendant No.2 is aged his name is deleted and membership to defendant No.2 is given and granted 5 acres 24 guntas in survey No.558/3 to defendant No.2 and it is confirmed as per Ex.D.2 as per Resolution dated 05.06.1995 and based on the resolution of the society, the Assistant Commissioner has deleted the name of husband of defendant No.1 from the record of rights,
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR which is under challenge before Deputy Commissioner wherein Deputy Commissioner allowed it and the same was challenged in the Writ petition No.101618/2015 and in said writ petition, order of Deputy Commissioner is quashed the and thereby the order canceling the name of husband of plaintiff No.1 from record of the rights became intact.
14. The plaintiff has filed the suit on 18.10.2004 only for recovery of encroached portion i.e. recovery of possession. The suit of plaintiff was decreed by trial court, which is challenged before first appellate court wherein the judgment and decree of trial Court was confirmed.
15. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of possession without praying for declaration of his right over the suit schedule property in question. Defendant is allotted with the lands as per resolution and thus, he is not trespasser to it. Furthermore, both husband of plaintiff and defendants claiming right over suit schedule properties, based on the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR allotment by the society in question. It is the business of society to allot lands to landless agriculturalists for farming. Hence, as per Section 70 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, the present suit is not maintainable before Civil Court. Under Section 70(1) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and it shall entertain only by the Registrar of Societies.
16. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following citations:
1. AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 746 in the case of M/s Anita Enterprises and Another Vs. Belfer Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., and others.
2. Judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.Chandrashekar Vs. The Manager, The Comptrollers office Co-operative Bank(LIC Employees' Bank), Bangalore and another in RFA No.1109/2008.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR
3. ILR 1992 KAR 3567 in the case of Narasegowda Vs. HMT Employees House Building Co- operative Society Ltd.,
17. Learned counsel for respondents Sri.Raghavendra Puruhit on behalf of Sri.Rahul R. counsel would submit that the suit against defendants is maintainable in law because plaintiff is claiming possession of suit schedule properties contending that defendants are trespassers and prayed for possession of encroached portion. Hence, jurisdiction of Civil Court is not ousted.
18. Learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that this Sy. No.558 was allotted to plaintiffs and it is in possession of plaintiffs. He has produced RTCs, Mutations entries and other documents to show that plaintiffs are in possession of suit schedule properties. However, defendants in collusion with revenue officials concocted some revenue entries. When survey was conducted, the encroachment by defendants is established.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR Considering these aspects, the trial Court decreed the suit which is confirmed by First Appellate Court. The Shivaji Park tenant Co-operative society need not be impleaded as party in this suit because it is defendant who has encroached the property and land was only allotted by the society. Hence, prayed for dismissal of appeal with costs.
19. Having heard the arguments of both sides and upon perusal of the appeal papers as well as the records of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, finding of this Court on the above substantial questions of law and additional substantial questions of law is as follows for the following:
REASONS:
Regarding Additional Substantial question of law No. iv:-
20. As per the case of plaintiffs, the description of suit schedule properties is the portion of encroached area of
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR 16 guntas out of Re. Sy. No. 556 and the encroached 4 acre 14 guntas, out of Re Sy.No.557 of Raibag. Thus, plaintiffs have filed suit claiming possession of encroached portion of Re. Sy. No.556 and Re.Sy.No.557. However, admittedly, plaintiffs have not produced the RTCs of Re. Sy. No.556 and Re.Sy.No.557. In the further pleadings, plaintiffs contended that Plaintiff No.1 is the owner of Survey No.558/1 and plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 are owners of Survey No.558/2. They are not claiming to be the owners of Survey Nos.556 or 557, but claiming for possession of the encroached portion in Re-survey No.556 and Re-survey No.557. However, they have produced all the documents and evidence pertaining to Re-survey No. 558. Plaintiffs contended that Shivaji park tenant Co-operative Farming Society, Raibag is the owner of Re-survey No.558. Plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 were members of said society and as such said society has granted lands to plaintiffs on permanent basis.
21. Plaintiffs based on ADLR survey have contended that defendants have encroached with the lands of
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR plaintiffs. i.e., the owners of survey No.556 has encroached 16 guntas which is shown with letter 'A' in P.T. sheet and the owners of Re-survey No.557 have encroached the 4 acres 14 guntas which is shown with letter 'P' in the P. T. sheet and thus claimed possession of these properties from defendants. Thus, even though plaintiffs have stated that Survey Nos.556 and 557 are suit schedule properties virtually the suit schedule property is Re-survey No. 558 and not Re.Sy.Nos.556 or 557. But the trial court decreed the suit granting relief to plaintiffs as they prayed in the plaint i.e., in respect of Re. Sy. No.556 and Re.Sy.No.557.
22. As discussed above, the alleged encroached portion is in Re-survey No.558/1 & 2 and not in Re. Sy. No.556 and Re.Sy.No.557. Hence, apparently, the trial court and first appellate courts have not looked into the documents and prayer in the plaint with details and description of suit schedule properties.
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR
23. Furthermore, the suit is not maintainable in law because, the dispute is between members of the Society regarding business of the society. In this regard, in the cross-examination, P.W.1 categorically deposed and admitted that Re.Sy.No.558 belonged to Government and it was allotted to Shivaji Park Tenant Co-operative Farming Society, Raibag and said society is owner of the said survey number.
24. According to P.W.1, his grandfather was one of the members of the society and after death of his grandfather; his father became its member; father of defendant No.2 was also member of said society. He further admitted that if any member of the society died, then any one family member of said members will become member of the society. Likewise after death of father of the Defendant Nos.1 to 4, they have made defendant No.2 as member of the society. However, after the death of father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5, none of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 were made as member of said society.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR
25. As per Ex. D3, the father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4- Maruthi Satteppa Kesaragoppa was not cultivating 2 acres 31 guntas in Survey No.558/2 as per allotment of said property and thus his name was deleted from the allotment list and lands bearing Re. Survey No.558/3 measuring 5 acres 24 guntas were allotted to Balappa Lagamanna Poojeri i.e., defendant No.2 as per Order dated 05.06.1995 as per Ex.D2. Thus, these documents clearly and categorically establish that the lands which were granted in favour of Maruthi Satteppa Kesaragoppa were taken back by the society and re-granted to defendant No.2 in the year 1995. If Maruthi Satteppa Kesaragoppa or plaintiffs are aggrieved by it then they have to challenge the same with the society.
26. The Bye-law of Shivaji Park Tenants Co-operative Farming Society Ltd. is produced. The objects of the society are narrated in this as follows:-
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR OBJECTS "a) To purchase or take on lease lands for cultivation and allied purposes.
b) To prevent the fragmentation of bolding and to encourage their consolidation for the promotion of efficient farming.
c) To purchase, erect and repair residential buildings, cattle sheds, and Godowns for use of members and for storage of farm produced.
d) To make arrangements for protection of crops.
e) To arrange for supply of credit, seed, manure and (Costly) agricultural supplements and to arrange for marketing of farm produce.
f) To arrange for joint purchase of farming requirements of members and joint processing and sale of farm produce.
g) To arrange for the storage of the farm produce and the agricultural requisite and domestic requirements of the society and its members.
h) To undertake cattle breeding dairy development and other subsidiary or cottage
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR industries with a view to increase the income of the farm and that of the members of the society.
i) To raise funds on the security of land crops and other moveable and immoveable assets of the society for purpose of land improvement, purchase of machinery and cultivation expenses etc., for making loan to members (for agricultural operation and) to encourage subsidiary occupations amongst the members.
j) To arrange for expert advice and spread of agricultural education among members.
k) To undertake or encourage works of land improvement.
l) To undertake all other activities calculated to promote the development of agriculture and self-help and to raise the income and standard of living and to encourage thrift and co- operation among the members with particular application to farming."
27. Thus, the object of the society is to purchase or take the property on lease for cultivation and to allot them to its members; to encourage joint purchase of farming requirements of members; to encourage works of land
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR improvement. Thus, the main business of the society is to purchase and allot the lands to farmers and to see that there shall be development of lands.
28. According to plaint averments, father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 and plaintiff No.1 were members of the society. Likewise father of defendant No.2 was also member and afterwards defendant No.2 became member of the society in the place of his father. Thus, the dispute is between members of the society in respect of business of the society and thus it attracts Section 70 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
29. Section 70 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 is extracted below:-
70. Disputes which may be referred to Registrar for decision.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management, or the business of a co-operative society7[XXX] arises,--
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR
(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 employee of the society, or
(c) between the society or its board and any past board, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs, or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased employee of the society, or
(d) between the society and any other co- operative society, or a credit agency.
Such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Civil or Labour or Revenue Court or Industrial Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely:--
(a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not;
(b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor, as a result of the default of the principal debtor whether such debt or demand is admitted or not;
(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of a President, Vice-President or any office-bearer or Member of board of the society;
(d) any dispute between a co-operative society and its employees or past employees or heirs or legal representatives of a deceased employee, including a dispute regarding the terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a co-operative society notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947);
(e) a claim by a co-operative society for any deficiency caused in the assets of the co-operative society by a member, past member, deceased member or deceased officer, past agent or deceased agent or by any servant, past servant or deceased servant or by its board, past or present whether such loss be admitted or not.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.
30. In this regard, learned counsel for respondent has relied on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRP No.73 of 2021 dated 04.11.2025 between Mysuru District Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited Vs. M/s Nimishamba Enterprises by its Partner wherein at paragraph Nos.12 to 14 it is held as follows:-
" 12. As could be seen from the above provision, only specified suits are barred before the Civil Court as is enumerated in Section 118 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act.
13. In the case on hand, there is no inter se dispute nor the dispute with regard to the membership or otherwise of the member of the co-operative society and the society.
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR
14. All that the plaintiff is seeking is to protect his possession in respect of the suit property for which he holds the leasehold rights."
31. In the aforesaid case, suit is filed only for the relief of permanent injunction and defendant has taken the contention that suit was not maintainable and at that juncture the above finding came into picture that only plaintiff is protecting his possession and does the suit is maintainable in law. However, that is not the situation in present case. As could be seen earlier, plaintiff is claiming possession of suit schedule property based on allotment to plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 whereas defendants are claiming that the same property is allotted to defendant No.2 by deleting the name of father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 as he was not cultivating those properties. Hence, the co-operative society has to decide whether it has granted the property in question to plaintiff or to defendant No.2 and it cannot be decided in a civil suit.
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR
32. In the case of M/s Anita Enterprises and another cited supra, the learned counsel for the appellant relies on paragraph Nos 35 and 36, which are extracted below:
"35. The last question that falls for decision is as to whether the Society was required to first obtain adjudication from a competent civil court by filing a properly constituted suit for a declaration that relationship of landlord and tenant was not duly created and, therefore, the induction of a person by the member as tenant was invalid, the same being in infraction of mandatory provisions of Section 29(2) of the Societies Act before raising a dispute under Section 91 of the Societies Act or the said question could be gone into in a proceeding under Section 91 of the Societies Act before the Cooperative Court where a dispute touching upon the business of the society can be raised by the parties and in deciding the said dispute was it permissible for the Court to go into the said question. It is true that ordinarily in case of a transaction like the present one which is voidable and not void, if an aggrieved party intends to avoid the same it is required to obtain a decree from a competent civil court by filing a properly constituted suit. But in a case like the present one, if a
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR party is first asked to obtain a decree from a competent civil court and only thereafter raise a dispute which is undisputedly touching upon the business of the society under Section 91 of the Societies Act, the same would frustrate the provisions of Section 91 and the intention of the Legislature in incorporating a cheap and expeditious remedy by referring the same to a court constituted under the Societies Act instead of throwing a party to cumbersome procedure of moving a civil court.
36. The dispute raised in the present case, undoubtedly, touches upon business of the Society which is a condition precedent for the applicability of Section 91 of the Societies Act. The business of tenant co-partnership housing society is, after purchasing plots and constructing houses/flats thereon, to allot the same to its members for their self occupation and for a period of one year they can not part with possession of the same in favour of anybody and on expiry of the said period can transfer the same in favour of member of the society or to a person whose application for membership has been accepted by the society or to a person whose appeal under Section 23 of the Societies Act has been allowed by the Registrar or to a person who is deemed to be a member under sub-Section (1A) of Section 23 of the Societies Act. It is part of business of the Society to
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR see that the house/flat allotted to a member remains in his occupation or in occupation of any other member and if any non-member intends a transfer in his favour, like the present one, he is required to obtain previous consent in writing either of the Society or its Managing Committee and in the event of consent being accorded, the Society shall admit him as a nominal member in which eventuality only the transfer can be made in his favour. In the present case, under Section 91 of the Societies Act, the Society was well within its right to get a dispute adjudicated as to whether the member had, by inducting the tenants in the flat, who were non-members, made a transfer in contravention of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Societies Act. Thus the question regarding legality or otherwise of the creation of tenancy right by the member in favour of the appellants, which amounts to transfer of interest of a member in the property of the Society, can be decided by raising a dispute before the Cooperative Court."
33. In the above case, Sec.91 of Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act (24 of 1961) was interpreted. Section 70 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 is analogues to said provision.
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR
34. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.1109/2008 between K.Chandrashekar Vs. The Manager, The Comptrollers office Co-operative Bank(LIC Employees' Bank), Bangalore and another, wherein at paragraph Nos.15 and 17 it is held as under:-
"15. In the instant case a specific defence was set up by the first defendant-bank that it is a Co- operativeBank registered under the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as K.C.S Act, for brevity) and a machinery is provided under the Act for redressal of grievances of its members namely, to adjudicate the dispute raised under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, which mandates that, if there is any dispute between a Cooperative society (which includes Co-operative bank) and the member or vice- versa such disputes are to be raised before Registrar of Co-operative Societies and have to be adjudicated as per provisions of said Act. It was also contended that in the event of a suit being instituted by member against a Co-operative society it should have been preceded with issuance of a notice which is required to be issued under Section 125 of the Act. Section 118 of K.C.S Act
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR bars the jurisdiction of the Civil, Labour or Revenue Courts or Industrial Tribunal to the extent K.C.S Acts provides for. Section 118 of K.C.S. Act reads as under:
"118. Bar of jurisdiction of Courts: - (1) Save as provided in this Act, no [Civil, Labour or Revenue Court or Industrial Tribunal] shall have any jurisdiction in respect of, --
(a) the registration of a co-operative society or bye-laws or of an amendment of a bye-law;
(b) the removal of a committee [or member thereof]
(c) any dispute required under Section 70 to be referred to the Registrar for the recovery of moneys under Section 100;
(d) any matter concerning the winding up and the dissolution of a cooperative society.
(2) While co-operative society is being wound up, no suit or other legal proceedings relating to the business of such society shall be proceeded with, or instituted against, the Liquidator as such or against the society or any member thereof, except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose.
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR (3) Save as provided in this Act, no order, decision or award made under this Act shall be questioned in any Court on any ground whatsoever."
17. It is the contention of Sri.Paras Jain learned counsel appearing for appellant that Section 70 is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case at all and as such bar created under Section 118 of K.C.S Act would not be attracted at all. He would press into service the words used in Sub Section (1) of Section 70, which is to the effect "business of a co-operative society" to contend that it would not mean and include a dispute relating to the one in question whereunder the plaintiff has absolutely denied the execution of loan papers or having stood as surety to the loan papers or having stood as surety to the loan transaction between second defendant and first defendant bank and as such it cannot be construed as a dispute to be adjudicated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 70. It is an undisputed fact that plaintiff is a member of first defendant Co-operative Bank, under Clause (a) of Sub Section (2) of Section 70 defendant No.1 bank for recovery of its debt or demand due from a member or its nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member whether such debt is admitted or denied can be enforced by raising a dispute under Section 70 of K.C.S Act.
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR
35. In the case of Narasegowda Vs. HMT Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., cited supra, reliance is placed on paragraph Nos.11 and 12, which are extracted below:
"11. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, invited the attention of this Court to a Decision of the Supreme Court in THE ALLAHABAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE LTD. v. HANUMAN DUTT TEWARI2 The Supreme Court in the said case has, among other things, observed as under:
"The expression ''business of the society'' has been construed by several decisions of this Court. In Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Dalichand Jugraj Jain (1969) 1 SCR 887: (AIR 1969 SC 1320) it was pointed out "the word ''business'' has been used in a narrower sense and it means the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the society which the society is authorised to enter into under the Act and the Rules and its bye-laws." In Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. vs Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh (1970) I SCR 205: (AIR 1970 SC
245), it is said "but the meaning given to the expression ''touching the business of the society'',
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR in our opinion, makes it very doubtful whether a dispute in respect of alteration of conditions of service can be held to be covered by this expression. Since the word ''business'' is equated with the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the society, and since it has been held that it would be difficult to subscribe to the proposition that whatever the society does or is necessarily required to do for the purpose of carrying out its objects, such as laying down the conditions of service of its employees, can be said to be a part of its business, it would appear that a dispute relating to conditions of service of the workmen employed by the society cannot be held to be a dispute touching the business of the society."
A careful perusal of the Decision of the Supreme Court would go to show that the said Case was one where the question for consideration was as to whether the retrenchment of the official concerned was an item falling within the meaning of the expression ''business of the society''. The Supreme Court with reference to its earlier Decisions has ruled that having regard to the fact that the expression ''business'' in Section 70 of the Act is used in narrower connotation, the
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR said item of retrenchment cannot fall within the compass of the expression ''business'' used in the relevant Co-operative Societies Act. In that view of the matter, the Supreme Court observed that the matter in the said Case was not hit by the mischief of the relevant provisions of the said Act. In my opinion, the observation made by the Supreme Court in the said Case would not at all apply to the facts of the instant case. It is necessary to point out here that in the instant case the very business of the society is the business of purchase of the property and the business of allotment of the property. In the instant case, the plaintiff had challenged the cancellation of allotment said to have been made in the first instance in his favour and allotment of the same in favour of defendant-
2. In my view, it is clear that the dispute now raised by the plaintiff would squarely fall within the compass of a dispute falling under the provisions of Section 70 of the Act. I may point out here that the ratio laid down in the Decision of the Division Bench of this Court referred to earlier will apply on all fours to this case and it is, therefore, not necessary to dilate on this aspect. It will suffice if it is held that Section 70 would apply to the facts of this case. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that having regard to the fact
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR that the present suit is one for specific performance and for other reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff, the suit of this nature will have to be filed in the Civil Court only. I do not agree with the submission made by Sri Gangireddy, learned Counsel for the appellant It is necessary to point out here that the powers of the Registrar under Section 70 of the Act are circumscribed by the provisions of the Act. Whenever the dispute touching upon the business of the Society arises for consideration that dispute will have to be referred to the Registrar of Co- operative Societies. It is necessary to remember that the award passed by the Registrar can be executed in the same manner as a decree of a Civil Court. Under these circumstances, I am not impressed by the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the fact that a suit in question is one for specific performance will make any difference to the issue.
12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the view that the present suit is barred by the provisions of Section 118 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Once when it is held that the dispute like the one which has presented itself for consideration is a dispute falling under the provisions of Section 70 of the Act, it would follow as a matter of logical corollary that the provisions of Section 118 of
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR the Act would operate as a bar to the Civil Court to decide the same. Incidentally, the suit would attract the provisions of Section 125 of the Act also. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the suit is barred by law, that is to say, by reason of Section 118 R/W Section 70 of the Act. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly."
36. On careful perusal of the provisions of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and the principles noted in the above citations, it is very clear that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the members of society in respect of business of the society.
37. As discussed above, the dispute rose in the present case undoubtedly touches the business of the Society. Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 provides a mandatory dispute resolution mechanism. It mandates that any dispute touching the constitution, management, or business of a co-operative society must be referred to the Registrar of Co-operative
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR Societies for adjudication, rather than directly to a Civil Court.
38. The business of Shivaji Park Tenant Co-operative Farming Society, Raibag is to purchase or to take lease lands for cultivation and to allot to its members for their self occupation and for implementing those lands.
39. As discussed earlier, the business of the Shivaji Park Tenant Co-operative Farming Society, Raibag is allotting agricultural properties to its members. Said allotment and cancellation of said allotment is under challenge in this case which is between the members and legal representatives of members. Hence, definitely, as per Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
40. However, trial Court and First Appellate Courts have not verified this point of law in proper perspective and
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR wrongly come to the conclusion that Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit which is erroneous.
41. Accordingly, additional substantial question of law No.iv is answered in Negative.
42. When it is decided that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, discussion on all other substantial questions of law would not arise. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and First Appellate Court is without jurisdiction and thus, requires to be set aside.
43. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC is allowed.
The judgment and decree passed in RA No.47/2009 dated 19.02.2014 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag and judgment and
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6432 RSA No. 100221 of 2014 HC-KAR decree passed in OS No.220/2004 dated 06.07.2009 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) Raibag are set aside as Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Draw decree accordingly.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE HMB CT-GTB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19