Patna High Court
Mahabir Prasad And Ors. vs Basudeo Narayan on 25 May, 1925
Equivalent citations: 88IND. CAS.671, AIR 1925 PATNA 575
JUDGMENT Das, J.
1. Munshi Nath Sahay was a member of the Kamalpur Barawan Cooperative Society and, as such, he borrowed certain money from the Society on which he was liable to the Society. Be died on the 30th of Poos 1323 F.S. The Society having a claim against Munshi Nath Sahay took proceedings under the Co-operative Societies Act, and the matter was referred to the arbitration of the Registrar of the Society. The Registrar made an award against the present plaintiffs, who are the sons of Munshi Nath Sahay. The plaintiffs now bring the suit out of which this appeal arises for a determination of the question whether the Co-operative Society is entitled to a personal decree against them. The Courts below have differed in opinion, the lower Appellate Court holding that the Society is entitled to such a decree.
2. The Act gives power to the Local Government to frame rules providing, inter alia, that Any dispute touching the business of a Society between members or past members of the Society or persons claiming through a member or past member or between a member or past member or persons so claiming and the Committee or any officer, shall be referred to the Registrar for decision or, if he so directs, to arbitration, and prescribe the mode of appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators and the procedure to be followed in proceedings before the Registrar of such arbitrator or arbitrators and the enforcement of the decisions of the Registrar or the awards of arbitrators.
3. (See Section 43, Sub-section 2(l) of the Co-operative Societies Act). At first sight it would seem unlikely that power should be given to the arbitrator to decide disputes between the Society and strangers to the Society. There is no doubt that the Co-operative Society has complete power to refer any matter in dispute between them and the estate of a deceased member to the arbitration of the Registrar. But there is no power in the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to compel strangers to appear before him unless they are sued as representing the estate of a deceased member. The award of the Registrar is in form an award against the present plaintiffs personally, but in substance it is an award against them as representing the estate of their deceased father. This is conceded by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Society. Now if that be so, clearly there is nothing to object in the award and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of an independent Tribunal.
4. But the decision of the learned Judge in the Court below assumes that the award was against the present plaintiffs personally. If that be the construction of the award, then clearly the arbitrator acted in excess of his authority and the Civil Court has complete jurisdiction to set aside the award. It is now agreed between the parties that whatever the registrar may have done, the award will be treated as an award against the present plaintiffs as representing the estate of Munshi Nath Sahay and that it will be enforceable as against the estate of Mxmshi Nath Sahay in the hands of the present plaintiffs.
5. By consent of parties, therefore, the decree passed by the Court below is thus modified. There will be no order for costs.
Ross, J.
6. I agree.