9911796707
TMI Blog1941 (8) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act of 1932. In terms of Section 51, Clause (1) (b) there being a dispute between the society and a member, the dispute was referred to the Registrar for decision. The Registrar referred the dispute for disposal to an arbitrator under Section 51, Clause (2) (c). The arbitrator gave his decision, which under Section 51, Clause (6) ( ) is final and is not liable to be called in question in any Civil or Revenue Court. Thereafter the society itself purchased the property in execution and subsequently transferred it to the third defendant. The plaintiff's mortgage was executed after the dispute between the first and second defendants was referred to the Registrar under Section 51, Clause (1) (b). 2. The mortgage in favour of the plaintif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Property Act does not include a Registrar or an arbitrator appointed by the Registrar under the provisions of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932. The word 'Court' as mentioned in Section 52 appears to me to be comprehensive enough to include the Registrar or the arbitrator appointed by him under the Act. Reference was made to Section 57-B of the Act (VI of 1932), but that section has no application because it enacts that for certain purposes the Registrar or any person empowered by him in that behalf shall be a Civil Court for the purpose of Article 182 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, which provides for execution of decrees of Civil Courts. The amendment itself was rendered necessary by a decision of Corn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or other proceeding cannot say that he is not bound by the decree or order passed in it. In this case, the proceedings under Section 51 of Madras Act VI of 1932 being a substitute for a suit in the Civil Court, it is obvious that reason requires that the same result would follow. Otherwise there will be no finality to a decision of the arbitrator or the Registrar even though such decision was in a proceeding in which a right to immovable property was specifically raised and decided. A right to immovable property being directly in question, the alienation made in favour of the plaintiff cannot prevail over the rights obtained under the decision of the Registrar. The property was subsequently sold as the plaintiff did not care to redeem or to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
