Co-operative Societies – Charge on immovable property of Member borrowing loan – Society to get charge recorded in record of rights: Maharashtra Co-op Societies Act, 1961, section 48.

The appellant plaintiff purchased, admeasuring 2 acres by registered sale deed dated 19-04-2002 from Raju Gopikisan Rathi. Before purchasing the property, he had ascertained, by all known methods, the saleable interest of the vendor. He had verified 7/12 extract when he purchased the land in the year 2001-02 but there was no charge mentioned in the said 7/12 extract. The vendor Raju Gopikisan Rathi on 17-06-2002, i.e. after the execution of sale deed in favour of appellant, mortgaged the said property with respondent No.1 Credit Co-op. Society, which granted him loan by mortgage of the said property without verifying whether he had sold the property to the appellant. Raju Rathi was member of respondent No.1 Credit Co-op. Society since he obtained the loan but the appellant had no concern with the said society. Obviously, because he had purchased it even before it was mortgaged. The appellant plaintiff issued a notice on 27-08-2012 u/s.164 of the MCS Act and filed suit on 10-09-2012, i.e. before the expiry of two months period for perpetual injunction u/s. 38 of the Specific Relief Act against respondent No. 1 Society and claimed injunction against Society for attachment of suit property. Respondent No. 1 Society, i.e. defendant No.1 therein, filed an application with a prayer to dismiss the suit for non compliance of section 164 of the MCS Act. The application was heard and the trial Judge allowed the said application and dismissed the suit.

The Hon’ble Court observed that it is thus clear from the above facts that the mortgage was made two months after the sale deed was executed and actually mutuated on 25- 11-2003 in the revenue records. Therefore, the appellant was not at all aware about the future course of action which Raju Rathi had decided to adopt after execution of sale deed. He is, therefore, at all not concerned with the mortgage made with the respondent No. 1 Credit Society. What is relevant is the entry of charge and the date thereof in the revenue record of the Govt. and not in the office of the society. At any rate, mere filing of application for loan on 14-12-2001 cannot be said to be charge u/s. 48 and Rule 48(5) of the Act and the Rules.

A careful reading of section 48 of the MCS Act and Rule 48 of the Rules framed thereunder, establishes that for knowledge to the people at large about the charge over immovable property or for claiming protection of section 48 of the Act, it would be mandatory for the society to get the charge on immovable property created or recorded in the record of rights maintained by the village officers of the village where the property is situated. Sub-rule 5 clearly says that if such charge is shown in the record of rights the same shall be treated as a reasonable notice of such charge created u/s. 48. Therefore, unless and until there is compliance of these two provisions, namely section 48 and Rule 48(5), the people at large cannot be expected to know about the charge, if any, on immovable property. In other words, if a society wants to claim protection or benefit of section 48 of the MCS Act, the same can be obtained only from the date the charge is actually recorded in the record of rights and not otherwise. I hold that provisions of section 48 and Rule 48(5) are mandatory in nature for a cooperative society if a cooperative society wants to claim benefit/protection of the said provisions.

It is well settled legal position of interpretation that when a similar expression is used in different places in a statute, it carries the same meaning unless contrary intention is disclosed. The institution of the suit claiming perpetual injunction to protect the civil right of the appellant qua the suit property cannot be said to be either an `act’ touching the business of the society even for that matter, `dispute’ touching the business of the society. It must always be construed that the `act’ touching the business of the society means `legal’ act for attracting the provision of section 164 of the Act. The act of the society in mortgaging the suit property which was already sold to the appellant who was not even a member of the society cannot fall in the definition of section 164 of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 164 will have no application in addition because the plaintiff wants to exercise his independent civil right.

The Respondent No. 1 Society is unnecessarily harassing the appellant/plaintiff without even bothering to look that the fault clearly lay with the respondent No. 1 Society in not taking the search report in respect of execution of sale deed in favour of the appellant on 19-04-2002 as against the charge being recorded in the revenue records on the suit property on 25-11-2003 for the first time. The respondent No.1 society is not at all justified in harassing the appellant when he has innocently and bona fidely and with all care, caution and circumspection purchased the suit property. Respondent No.1 should be saddled with exemplary costs payable to the appellant in the sum of Rs.10,000/-.