S. Natarajan, J. - (1.) These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned District Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai in O. P. 6 to 9, 16 to 19, 21 to 24 of 1961 under S. 49(2) of the Madras Co -operative Societies Act VI of 1932. In all the appeals, the respondent, viz, the Manamadura Co -operative Urban Bank Ltd, represented by its Secretary is the appellant. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, Mr. Parasaran, learned counsel for the respondents in some of the appeals raised a preliminary objection stating that as against the order of the learned District Judge of Ramanathapuram, the respondent therein ought to have filed regular appeals under S. 96 and O. 41, C.P.C. Mr. R. Gopalaswami Iyengar, learned counsel for the appellant, countered the objection of Mr. Parasaran by the argument that, having regard to the subject -matter of the appeal and the provisions of the Madras Co -operative Societies Act, the appellant was not obliged to file regular appeals and was entitled to file civil miscellaneous appeals. As the preliminary objection is concerned with the very maintainability of the civil miscellaneous appeals, it has become necessary to determine this question first before hearing the appeal on merits. To appreciate the arguments of both sides on this aspect of the matter, a brief reference to the facts are necessary. The respondents herein were formerly office -bearers in the appellant bank. In the audit report for the year 1951 -52, of the appellant bank, the auditor pointed out several irregularities and frauds resulting in loss to the appellant bank. The special officer appointed for the appellant bank made four claims before the Deputy Registrar of Co -operative Societies Sivaganga, against the former President, the former Secretary, the former Treasurer, the directors and some of the employees of the bank who were impleaded as defendants. As against the employees of the bank, the proceedings were conducted under S. 51 of the Madras Co -operative Societies Act VI of 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), while the proceedings against the former office bearers and the directors were conducted under S. 49 of the Act. A total sum of Rs. 23477 -45 was involved in the four claims made before the Deputy Registrar. It was alleged in the plaints that the Bank was put to loss to the above extent due to the frauds and misdeeds of the employees and the former office -bearers. In each case the Deputy Registrar passed two separate awards for the same amount, one jointly against the office -bearers, viz, the former President, the former Secretary and the former Treasurer and another against two of the employees of the bank, viz., the former Head Clerk and the former Clerk -cum -cashier.
(2.) Aggrieved by the awards, the former office -bearers preferred O. P. Nos. 6 to 9 of 1969, 16 to 19 of 1961 and 21 to 24 of 1961 to the District Court, Ramanathapuram, under S. 49 (2) of the Act. During the pendency of the proceedings, the former President, Seshadri Iyengar died and his legal representatives moved the court and brought themselves on record. On a consideration of the matter, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the former office -bearers cannot be said to have been guilty of breach of trust in relation to the society within the meaning of S. 49 of the Act and consequently, they were not liable for the loss sustained by the bank on account of the frauds and misappropriations committed by the head clerk and the cashier. In that view, the learned District Judge allowed the petitions filed by the former office -bearers and set aside the awards passed against them in the four arbitration references. It is to canvass the correctness of the order of the learned District Judge, the respondent in the proceedings before the learned District Judge has preferred these appeals.
(3.) Before considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel as to whether the civil miscellaneous appeals are maintainable or not, it would be worthwhile making reference to S. 49, sub sec. (1) and (2) of the Act (VI of 1932): sub -s. (1) and (2) of S. 49 are as follows - - 49. Surcharge: - - (1) Where in the course of an audit under S. 37 or an inquiry under S. 38 or an inspection under S.39 or the winding up of a society it appears that any person who has taken part in the organisation or management of the society or any past or present officer of the society has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property or been guilty of breach of trust in relation to the society the Registrar may of his own motion or on the application of the committee or liquidator or of any creditor or contributory examine into the conduct of such person or officer and make an order requiring him to repay or restore the many or property or any part thereof with interest at such rate as the Registrar thinks just or to contribute such sum to the assets of the society by way of compensation in respect of the misappropriation fraudulent retainer or breach of trust as the Registrar thinks just. (2) The order of the Registrar under sub -s. (1) shall be final unless it is set aside by the District Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the headquarters of the society are situated or if the headquarters of the society are situated in the city of Madras, by the City Civil Court, or application made by the party aggrieved within three months of the date of receipt of the order by him. It is thus seen that the order of the Registrar under sub -s. (1) of S. 49 of the Act shall become final unless it is set aside by the appropriate court referred to in sub -s. (2) having jurisdiction over the area in which the headquarters of the Society are situated. The Act itself does not provide for any appeal as against the order of the District Court or the City Civil Court passed under S. 49(2) of the Act. It is now, however, well settled that where a legal right is in dispute and the ordinary courts of the country are seized of such a dispute, the courts are governed by the ordinary rules of procedure applicable thereto and an appeal would lie, if authorised by such rules, notwithstanding that the legal right claimed arises under a special statute which does not in terms confer a right of appeal.;