Charge on immovable property and prior notice under cooperative law depend on public record entry and the nature of the dispute.

A cooperative society's charge over immovable property was treated as enforceable against third parties only when recorded in the record of rights, because Rule 48(5) treats that entry as notice to the public; a loan application or internal society record was insufficient. Prior notice under Section 164 was held unnecessary where the suit concerned an independent civil right to protect property already purchased, because the dispute did not arise from an act touching the society's business. Filing the suit before two months did not create any estoppel or procedural bar. A suit for perpetual injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act likewise did not require prior notice under Section 164.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 48 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and Rule 48(5) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 are mandatory for a cooperative society to claim protection of a charge over immovable property; (ii) whether notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act was mandatory before filing the suit; (iii) whether service of such notice and filing the suit before expiry of two months created any legal bar; and (iv) whether a suit under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act required prior notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.

Issue (i): Whether Section 48 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and Rule 48(5) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 are mandatory for a cooperative society to claim protection of a charge over immovable property.

Analysis: The charge was treated as effective only when entered in the record of rights, because Rule 48(5) treats such entry as reasonable notice to third parties. A mere application for loan or an entry in the society's own records was held insufficient to establish notice to the public or to protect the society against a prior transferee.

Conclusion: The requirement was held mandatory, and the society could claim protection only from the date of recording of the charge in the record of rights.

Issue (ii): Whether notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act was mandatory before filing the suit.

Analysis: Section 164 applies only to an act touching the business of the society. A suit by a purchaser asserting an independent civil right to protect property already purchased before the mortgage was not treated as a dispute or act touching the society's business. The expression was read in a narrower sense, consistent with the interpretation given to similar language in Section 91.

Conclusion: Prior notice under Section 164 was held not mandatory.

Issue (iii): Whether service of such notice and filing the suit before expiry of two months created any legal bar.

Analysis: Since notice itself was unnecessary, filing the suit before the expiry of two months could not create an estoppel or procedural bar against the plaintiff. An unnecessary notice does not restrict a party from proceeding when the law does not require notice at all.

Conclusion: No estoppel or legal disability arose from filing the suit before expiry of two months.

Issue (iv): Whether a suit under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act required prior notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.

Analysis: The suit was one for perpetual injunction to protect the plaintiff's own property rights, and the plaintiff had no membership or transactional relationship with the society. Such a suit was held outside the scope of Section 164 because it did not concern any act touching the business of the society.

Conclusion: Prior notice under Section 164 was not required for the suit under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff's appeal succeeded, the orders dismissing the suit were set aside, and the society's application was rejected, leaving the suit to be decided on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A prior notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act is required only for proceedings arising from an act touching the business of the society, and a cooperative society's charge over immovable property can be asserted against third parties only upon compliance with Section 48 and Rule 48(5) through recording of the charge in the record of rights.

---