Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The respondents above named have taken up a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the suit itself. It has been contended in written objections filed by the respondents that the suit was filed by the appellant-original plaintiff for specific performance in respect of an agricultural land owned and possessed by the respondents. That the suit was filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch and the same was dismissed. It is ftirther contended that looking to the plaint itself, it becomes evident that the appellant-plaintiff Society was simply a proposed Co-operative Society at the time of filing of the suit and at the time of the agreement to sale. That the appellant-original plaintiff society was not a registered society at relevant point of time. It is ftirther contended that a suit by an unregistered Co-operative Society was not maintainable, and therefore, when the suit by an unregistered Co-operative Society was not maintainable, the appeal would also be not maintainable, and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed on the aforesaid technical legal aspect alone.

5. The facts are not much in dispute. It seems that the aforesaid plea was not raised by the respondents above named before the trial Court when they filed written statement. Therefore, no issue was framed by the trial Court. It is also not much in dispute that the aforesaid issue does not appear to have been raised when the appeal was admitted. These facts are not seriously in dispute before me. At the same time, the aforesaid aspect of the case is not a question of fact. On the contrary, it is an admitted position and admitted question of fact. The plaintiff has tendered oral evidence of Devidas Patel at Exh. 57 before the trial Court and there he has made it clear in the examination-in-chief that he is the Chief Promoter of the proposed Shivalaya Co-operative Housing Society. This means that even when the suit was filed and evidence was adduced, the appellant-original plaintiff was yet not registered as a Cooperative Society. Therefore, the fact that an agreement was entered into by an unregistered Co-operative Society and the fact that the suit was filed by an unregistered Co-operative Housing Society are not disputed questions of fact. Therefore, simply because such plea was not raised before the trial Court at the time of submission of written statement and simply because there was no issue framed by the trial Court on the aforesaid aspect of the case, it cannot be said that the aforesaid technical objection cannot be raised for the first time in this First Appeal.

The above provision makes it clear that a Co-operative Society acquires status of a corporate body or an artificial person only on its registration. It can get power to acquire, hold and dispose of property to enter into contracts, to institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings only after its registration and not before registration. Therefore, the appellant, not being either a living person nor being an artificial person like a duly registered Co-operative Society, could not legally hold or acquire property and could also not enter into contract. Hence, the disputed agreement of purchase of the disputed property in favour of an unregistered Co-operative Society like the appellant original plaintiff, would be illegal, against the statutory provisions of Section 37 of the said Act and hence not enforceable in a Court of law. Similarly, the appellant not being a living or an artificial person like a duly registered partnership firm, could not legally institute a civil suit before the trial Court for getting a decree for specific performance of an agreement of purchase of suit property in favour of an unregistered Co-operative Society since the civil proceedings could legally be instituted either by a living person or by an artificial person or a legal entity. The appellant is neither of these categories. Therefore, the suit so filed by such an appellant is, not and was not maintainable.

In view of the above quoted binding decision of the Division Bench, I am of the view that the agreement for sale executed by Late Maharaja Shri Indravijaysinhji in favour of the petitioners who are members of the proposed Vijay Co-operative Housing Society is a nullity and creates no right in favour of the petitioners."

9. The aforesaid aspect of the case and the aforesaid observations of this Court make it clear that the proposed Co-operative Society, not being duly registered Co-operative Society, could not enforce a contract in favour of an unregistered Co-operative Society. So it is clear that an unregistered Co-operative Society cannot enter into contract and in the same way, but it cannot file a suit for getting the contract enforced or performed in favour of an unregistered Co-operative Society. In the aforesaid decision, the Court has considered the provisions of Section 37 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The Court is further considered the provisions made in Rule 3 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965.