Thimmaraju Satyanarayana Rao, the plaintiff in O.S.No.317 of 1977 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Chirala, had preferred the present second appeal.

2. The following substantial questions of law were raised in the present second appeal.

a) Whether the judgment of the appellate court is not vitiated for not framing points for determination on relative case of the parties.

b) Whether the appellate court not erred in law in disposing of the appeal without deciding I.A.No.65/96 filed to receive additional evidence contrary to Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

c) Whether the courts below have not committed error in law by holding that the civil courts jurisdiction is ousted as hit by Sec.61 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, contrary to Sec.121 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act.

d) Whether the findings of the trial court on issues 3 and 4 are not inconsistent to each others to vitiate the judgment and decree.

e) Whether the courts below are not wrong in misconstruing Sec.61 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act to hold that the suit relief comes under it.

f) Whether the trial Court has not exceeded in its jurisdiction in recasting the issues on 18.6.91 after the entire trial is over.

3. The counsel on record made elaborate submissions touching the merits and demerits of the matter. Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff, submits that the second respondent died and all the legal representatives were brought on record and, though it is shown as the appeal having been abated as against R-4 and R-5, the estate of the deceased R-2 is well represented since all other legal representatives continue to be on record. The counsel also had taken this Court through the application, which was filed for reception of additional evidence, and had pointed out the order, which was made by the appellate Court, dismissing the said application as having become infructuous after the disposal of the appeal. The counsel also would point out that this approach adopted by the appellate Court cannot be sustained. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on THE PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD., BOMBAY v. KABIRUNNISA (AIR 1991 SC 91). The counsel also while further elaborating the submissions would point out that when findings had been recorded relating to the lack of jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit other findings touching the merits and demerits need not be gone into. The learned counsel would also point out to certain findings which had been recorded by the appellate Court and also would further contend that at para-8 the appellate Court framed the following point for consideration.

“Whether the findings of the learned District Munsif are correct?”

The learned counsel would submit that as can be seen from the list of documents filed for reception of the additional evidence it would be just and proper to make an order of remand.

4. The learned counsel representing the respondents resisted the same on the ground that concurrent findings had been recorded and also on the ground that positive findings had been recorded on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

5. Heard the counsel.

6. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in O.S.No.317 of 1977 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Chirala.

7. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of the sale deed dt.2.4.77 executed by D-1 in favour of D-2 and another sale deed on the even date executed by D-2 in favour of D-3 with reference to the suit schedule property as null and void and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction in the vacant site in plot No.292 of the Society and for costs.

8. It was pleaded in the plaint that the first defendant was a cooperative society, formed for acquiring site for allotment of the house sites for the members and the plaintiff, D-2 members of the said society. It is further stated th