LexTHE RECOVERY OFFICER, LAKHIMPUR AND ORS. versus SMT. RAVINDRA KAUR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE RECOVERY OFFICER, LAKHIMPUR AND ORS. A v. SMT. RA VIND RA KAUR AND ORS. DECEMBER 4, 1996 (N.P. SINGH AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] B U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 : Sections 39 and 91-lnterpretation of-Proviso to Section 39-Ap- ~~ ~ c Co-operative Society-Members-Loan obtained from Society for seeds and manure-Default-Recovery proceedings initiated for enforcing the statutory charge under Section 39(a) read with Section 91-Challenge by members contending that proceedings under Section 91 against their lands were illegal as their lands were not subject matter of any charge under Section D 39---High Court quashed the recovery proceedings holding that sale of the lands belonging to the members could not be effected unless the concemed societies obtained decrees of cowt of competent jurisdiction as required by the proviso to Section 39-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held, only clause (a) of Section 39 would get attracted on the facts of the present E case-Clause( a) creates a statutory charge on the crops or produce of the land which result out of the utilisation of the seeds or manure loan which is said to have been taken by the concerned member-Therefore, the charge attaches to the produce of the land and not on the land itself out of which the said produce is realised-Proviso to Section 39 would encompass in its fold all other properties of the indebted member provided there is a decree in favour F of the society-As the lands of the writ-petitioners were not the subject-matter of any charge under Section 39, there was no occasion for Recovery Officer to proceed under Section 91 for enforcement of such non-existing charge on the lands-Till the society obtained executable decrees on the basis of the loan amounts there would arise no occasion for the society to get attachment and G sale of other uncharged property of the judgment-debtor by resort to the proviso to Section 39-The High Court was justified in quashing the steps tcken by the appellants for sale of the lands belonging to the respondents. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3238-40 ~~ H 529 530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [W96] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. A From the Judgn;ent and Order dated 15.2.79 of the Allahabad High Court in W .P. No.1108 of 1976. Ranjit Kumar for the Appellants. S.K. Jain, A.P. Dhamija and Pradeep Aggarwal for the Respondents. B The following Order of the Court was delivered : tn these appeals Recovery Officer functioning under the U.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1965 and others have brought in challenge the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Luck- e now Bench in different writ petitions moved by the contesting respondents. \he High Court allowed the writ petitions of the contesting respondents concerned and quashed the recovery proceedings initiated against them in so far as they related to the execution order under Section 91 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the D Act') by attachment and sale of the lands of the contesting respondents. It is Ml in dispute between the parties that the original writ petitioners being members of the co-operative societies concerned had taken loans for seeds and manure etc. form these societies functioning under the Act. When the contesting respondents did not repay the loans, the co-operative· societies which advanced the loans sought to. enforce the statutory charge on the E properties of the writ petitioners as created by Section 39(a) of the Act. Recovery proceedings for enforcing the said charge were initiated under Section 91 read with Section 39(a) by the appellant Recovery Officer. The contesting respondent writ petitioners moved the High Court challenging these recoveries. It was contended before the High Court by the contesting F writ petitioners-lonees that as the loans were taken for procuring seeds and manure etc. charge under Section 39(a) attached to the crops produced in the lands of the contesting respondents by utilising seeds and manure procured out . of the loan amounts but the said charge did not fasten on the other properties and the lands of the W.rit petitioners and, therefore, G proceedings under Section 91 against the lands of the writ petitioners were illegal and liable to be quashed. The High Court accepted the said conten- tion and allowed the writ petitions by holding, on construction of Section 39 read with Section 91 of the A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.