Karnataka High Court
Shri.H S Padmanabh C/O N B Gurappanavar vs Samaj Parivartana Samudaya(Sps) on 14 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16662
RFA No. 100004 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100004 OF 2016 (MON-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. H. S. PADMANABH
C/O N. B. GURAPPANAVAR
GANIGAR ONI, DODDAPETE
AGE:40 YEARS,
OCC:NIL
R/O:RANEBENNUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. K. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA (SPS)
RANEBENNUR REP BY ITS
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MALAGALADINNI
SRI. S. R. HIREMATH,
AGE:70 YEARS
R/O: DHARWAD.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 2. SRI. C.B.GEORGE
KARNATAKA
C/O STONE BRIDGE KALDGERI ROAD,
BHANASHANKARI NAGAR,
AGE:71 YEARS,
OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O:DHARWAD.
3. SRI.R.D.SHYBANNANAVAR ARALIKATTI,
TQ:HUBBALLI,
AGE:42 YEARS
OCC:NIL,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16662
RFA No. 100004 of 2016
R/O:ARALIKATTI.
4. SHANKAR S ANGADI SATYAPPANAVAR,
CHALA NEAR TOLANAKA
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
R/O: DHARWAD.
5. LOKESH L. GOUDA
C/O N.K.PATIL KUDALASANGAM
ROTARY SCHOOL ROAD,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
AGE:52 YEARS,
OCC: PVT.JOB
R/O: RANEBENNUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M KANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R-2 DECEASED;
APPEAL AGAINST R-4 AND R-5 DISMISSED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CIVIIL
PROCUDURE CODE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.10.2015 IN
O.S.NO.15/2008 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANEBENNUR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL DISMISSED SUIT OF
PLAINTIFF WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16662
RFA No. 100004 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is arising from the decree for recovery of
money. Defendant No.1 is the appellant. The suit is filed
by a society registered under the Karnataka Societies
Registration Act. The suit is filed against defendant No.1-
accountant, defendant No.2-former secretary, defendants
No.3 to 5-the employees of the said society.
2. The action is initiated based on enquiry report
submitted by an Enquiry Officer, appointed by the Society
to look into the allegation of misappropriation. The Enquiry
Officer after conducting the enquiry has submitted a report
stating that all the defendants are jointly and severally
liable to pay the amount of Rs.10,51,417/-, which is said
to have been misappropriated.
3. Basing on the said report, suit is filed against 5
defendants referred to above. All the defendants filed
written statement. Except defendant No.1, rest of the
defendants contested the suit by cross-examining the
plaintiff and they have also led evidence in support of their
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16662
defence. The defendants also took a stand that suit is not
maintainable in view of bar under Section 70 of the
Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act.
4. The trial Court held that Karnataka Cooperative
Societies Act has no application to the facts of the case
and rejected the said defence relating to the jurisdiction.
The trial Court is also held that plaintiff has established the
claim against defendant No.1 in part and claim against
rest of the defendants is not established. Accordingly, suit
is decreed in part directing defendant No.1 to pay
Rs.3,51,417/- to the plaintiff's society along with interest
@ 12% per annum from the date of suit, till the
realization.
5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned decree,
defendant No.1 is in appeal before this Court.
6. Sri. Santosh Malligwad, learned counsel
appearing for defendant No.1-appellant would contend
that the Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit in view
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16662
of the bar contained under Section 70 of the Karnataka
Cooperative Societies Act, as such, the suit ought to have
been dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
7. It is also his contention that claim made by the
society is not established as the enquiry report is not
proved in the manner known to law, and solely relying on
the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Court has come to
the erroneous conclusion that defendant No.1 is
responsible for the alleged misappropriation. In the
alternative, he would also contend that report of the
Enquiry Officer would disclose that all the defendants are
jointly and severally responsible for the act and omissions,
as such, the suit could not have been dismissed against
rest of the defendants.
8. Referring to the evidence, he would also
contend that in the circumstance brought out in the
documents placed before the Court, it is impossible for
defendant No.1 alone to carryout transactions, which are
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16662
referred to in the plaint and the trial Court is not justified
in dismissing the suit against rest of the defendants.
9. Learned counsel appearing for plaintiff/
respondent No.1 would contend that the allegation against
defendant No.1 is duly established. Defendant No.1
though filed written statement, did not contest the suit
and did not lead his evidence and the enquiry report would
clearly indicate that defendant No.1 is responsible for the
acts and omissions, which resulted in financial loss to the
society.
10. It is also contended that plaintiff's society is
registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act
and not under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act
and Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act
has no application to the facts of the case. Thus, learned
counsel would urge that appeal be dismissed.
11. This Court has considered the contentions raise
at the bar. The following points arise for consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16662
1. Whether the Trial Court had the
jurisdiction to decide the suit?"
2. Whether the trial Court is justified in
passing the decree for recovery of
Rs.3,51,417/- along with interest @
12% p.a. ?
12. The records would clearly indicate that
plaintiff's society is registered under the Karnataka
Societies Registration Act. The said society is not a co-
operative society. The defence based on Section 70 of the
Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, is not available to
the defendants for the simple reason that plaintiff's society
is not governed by the provisions of Karnataka
Cooperative Societies Act. The plaintiff's society is
governed by the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. The
Karnataka Societies Registration Act, does not impose any
bar to entertain a suit of this nature.
13. This being the position, the contention relating
to jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a suit has to be
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16662
rejected and same has been rightly rejected by the trial
Court.
14. As far as the other contentions of defendant
No.1/appellant is concerned, it is noticed that defendant
No.1 though filed written statement, has not led any
evidence. He has not cross-examined the plaintiff. He has
not assailed the documents produced on behalf of the
plaintiff.
15. It is also relevant to note that plaintiff apart
from producing 196 documents, has also examined the
Enquiry Officer, who has conducted audit and who has
reported that society has incurred a loss of Rs.10,51,417/-
on account of acts and omissions on the part of the
defendants.
16. It is also noticed that before the Enquiry Officer,
defendant No.1 has admitted the liability to pay the
amount. And during the pendency of the suit,
Rs.2,00,000/- is paid by defendant No.1. When the case
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16662
was posted for judgment, plaintiff's society has produced
one more document i.e., Demand Draft for Rs.5,00,000/-,
which is the payment made on behalf of 1st defendant by
one of his relative namely Nagaraj S.Hudewar. Thus,
plaintiff's society was received Rs.7,00,000/-. Since, the
claim was Rs.10,51,417/-, after deducting Rs.7,00,000/-
for balance amount of Rs.3,51,417/-, a decree is passed
along with interest @ 12% p.a. After considering the
materials on record, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court.
Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
The appellant/defendant No.1 shall pay
Rs.3,51,417/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
from the date of the suit i.e., 11.04.2008 till realization.
No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
AM/ CT:ANB
