2011 (2) ALT 515
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO
Dr K. Subbaiah
Versus
C.N. Krishnamacharlu & Another
Appeal Suit No.150 OF 1991 & Transfer A.S.No.1474 OF 2001
Decided On: 29-12-2010
B) A.P. SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 2001, Sections 3 to 9 and 11:- Society is not a juristic person and it cannot own a property. Hence the suit for declaration and recovery of possession filed against the members of society is maintainable, unlike in case of a company. (2003) 8 SCC 413 - Relied on. (Paras 22 and 23)
C) SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860, Sections 5 and 6:- Law does not bar a suit against the trustees of Society who are having control of the property of the society. SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860, Sections 5 and 6
D) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, Section 96:- Right to file an appeal against a decree for declaration and possession does not accrue to D-8 who claimed to have purchased a small piece of the land from the owner of the land which is subject matter of suit and also to D-10 who is merely a trustee of the society against which suit is filed. (Paras 24 to 27)
E) ADVERSE POSSESSION- Defendant No:8 in a suit for and declaration and possession against the society for 67 cents , who claims to be in possession of 11/2 cents from that land on the basis of purchase from the society which the plaintiff claim to be encroachment cannot plead that they perfected their title by adverse possession. Since the defendant failed to prove any one of the three ingredients of adverse possession (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, and (c) his possession was open and undisturbed., defendant cannot claim adverse possession. (Para 31)
F) TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882, Sections 10, 122 and 126:- Where on true construction of a document executed by the predecessors of the plaintiff, it amounts to a mere license without any right to alienation to run a club, it cannot be considered a gift deed.When the club is not run for which the property is licensed, plaintiff can seek reversion of the property back to them. (Para 71)
G) SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, Section 34:- Where the license agreement clearly provides that on cessation of the activities of the club, the land shall revert back to the executor, on sufficient evidence on record that activities of the club, order of the trial court for reversion of the property is confirmed. (Para 72)
INTRODUCTION
1. These two appeals arise out of the same Judgment of the trial Court. A.S.No.150 of 1991 is filed by defendant No.10 and the other transferred appeal is filed by defendants 12 and 13, the legal representatives of defendant No.8, who died during pendency of suit. The appeal filed before the Court of the District Judge, Kadapa stands transferred to this Court. The dispute in these cases is in respect of land admeasuring 0.67 cents in survey No.455 (suit schedule property) in Proddatur town. The persons who were allegedly members of Sundaracharlu Club (the club, for brevity) on the one hand and the first and second generation legal heirs of late Curram Sundaracharlu (CSC) are fighting this three decades long drawn Court battle for the property. In this Judgment, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
PLEADINGS
2. C.S.Narasimhacharlu (CSN), C.S.Krishnamacharlu (CSK) and C.N.Srinivasacharlu (CNS) are sons of CSC. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are sons of CSK and third plaintiff is son of CSN. They instituted the suit registered as O.S.No.69 of 1980 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Proddatur, which was transferred as O.S.No.68 of 1985 to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadapa. It was instituted for declaration of plaintiffs right to the suit schedule property together with open site, constructions, structures and improvements made thereon, to declare the right of the plaintiffs and first defendant to the portion of the suit schedule in occupation of defendant No.8 and for a direction to defendants 12 to 18 to deliver possession of the property. Their case in the plaint is as below.
3. The suit schedule property was originally owned by CSC. He died in 1922, leaving behind his three sons. On 13.05.1938, CSN and CSK executed a registered document in favour of M/s.V.Shankara Rao, B.Bala Narayana Reddy and Ananda Rao, for the purpose of conducting the club in the memory of CSC, i.e., Sundaracharlu Club. The registered deed under which the property was demised was subject to the condition that the property shall be used for the purpose of playing tennis and taking up recreational activities. It was stipulated therein that if for any reason, the club activities are stopped, the property will revert to the donors or their legal heirs. The donees shall have no right of alienation. The property shall be used to run the club in the memory of their father CSC with a view to promote sports, games and goodwill among the public of the town. Four members of legal profession, namely, D.Krishna Rao, V.Shankara Rao, K.Bala Narayana Reddy and Ananda Rao constituted a trust. All of them were tennis players and were running tennis club in the local cotton press compound. As it was not conducive and convenient, they started ‘Sundaracharlu Club’. The trust Board took delivery of the possession and started running the club, which enjoyed good reputation. All respectable elite of the town were its members.
4. In 1945, necessary rules, regulations and bye-laws were framed. Elections were to be held annually for choosing office bearers and members of Managing Committee to look after the administration of the club. After the demise of the members of the trust Board, the club was being managed by elected body till 1974. Thereafter, the dignified character of the club started fading away. The club fell into disrepute and ignominy. The administration fell into the hands of group of persons and thereafter there was no general body meeting to elect the office bearers. No list of persons is maintained and the respective members of the club became helpless to raise their voice. The club went into the hands of people with shady character. It became den for bad characters with criminal conduct. It became a private affair and was not running for the purpose for which the land was donated.
5. The respectable and elite of the town frequently complained to the plaintiffs 1 to 3 as well as law enforcement authoritie
Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India: (2004) 10 SCC 779 = 2004 (5) ALT 1.1 (DN SC). (Para 16)
D.N. Venkatarayappa v State of Karnataka: (1997) 7 SCC 567 = AIR 1997 SC 2930. (Para 31)
Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v. Raj Kumari Sharma: (1996) 8 SCC 128 = AIR 1996 SC 869. (Para 31)
H.S. Vankani v So Gujarat: 2010 (3) SCJ 700 = (2010) 4 SCC 301. (Para 34)
Jyoti Harshad Mehta v. Custodian: (2009) 10 SCC 564. (Para 34)
K.P Mohammed Salim v. CIT: (2008) 11 SCC 573. (Para 34)
CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works: 2007 (5) SCJ 710 = (2007) 11 SCC 126. (Para 34)
M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair v. SoKerala: 2005 (4) SCJ 47 = (2005) 11 SCC 45. (Para 34)
Pratap Singh v. SoJharkhand: (2005) 3 SCC 551. (Para 34)
ANZ Grindlay Bank v. Director of Enforcement: (2004) 6 SCC 531. (Para 34)
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr.
Swantnraj v. State of Maharashtra: (1975) 3 SCC 322. (Para 34)
Puram Singh Sahmi v. Sundari Bhagwandas Kripalani: (1991) 2 SCC 180. (Para 34)
Provash Chandra Dalvi v. Bishwanath Banerjee: 1989 Supp (1) SCC 487 = AIR 1989 SC 1834. (Para 34)
State of UP v. Jai Bir Singh: (2005) 5 SCC 1. (Para 34)
(2008)10 SCC 227 = 2009 (1) SCJ 138 = 2009 (6) ALT 9.1, 9.2
J.Srinivasa Rao v. GoAP: (2006) 12 SCC 607. (Para 34)
Godfray Phillips India Ltd v. State of UP: (2005) 2 SCC 515. (Para 34)
Juthika Mulick v. Mahendra Yashwant Bal: (1995) 1 SCC 560. (Para 34)
Union of India v. Tulsimram Patel: (1985) 3 SCC 398. (Para 34)
Ashok Singh v. Asst. Controller of Estate Duty: (1992) 3 SCC 169. (Para 34)
Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain: AIR 1953 SC 7. (Para 56)
Navneet v. Gokul: AIR 1976 SC 794. (Para 59)
H.Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma: AIR 1959 SC 443. (Para 60)
Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee: AIR 1964 SC 529. (Para 60)
Pinnaka Hanumantha Rao v. Garlapati Dhanalakshmi: 2007 (3) ALT 75. (Para 60)
Ramachandra v Hildra Brite: AIR 1964 SC 1323. (Para 61)
Ram Gopal v. Nand Lal: AIR 1951 SC 139. (Para 62)
Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Bakhtraj Kuer: AIR 1953 SC 7. (Para 62)
Pearey Lal v. Rameshwar Das: AIR 1963 SC 1703. (Para 62)
Bhura v. Kashiram: AIR 1994 SC 1202. (Para 63)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.