ORDER :

1. The petitioner herein had purchased a plot bearing No. 31, admeasuring 5 cents, in survey Nos. 625/1, 625/2, 625/3, 252/7 & 626/8, situated in Rayachoty Grampanchayat, Kadapa District, on 17.10.1989, by way of a registered deed of sale from the 3rd respondent-society. It is the case of the petitioner that he was a member of the 3rd respondent-society and had been allotted this plot on 17.10.1987, much prior to the execution of the deed of sale.

2. In the year 2006, the 2nd respondent approached the 4th respondent-Arbitrator by filing A.R.C. No. 1/2007-08 under Section 61(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act on the ground that the said plot was originally allotted to the 2nd respondent and he should be declared as the owner of the property. The 4th respondent, dismissed this application. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent had approached the Cooperative Tribunal, Warangal by way of C.T.A. No. 39 of 2009. The Tribunal after hearing both sides had remanded the matter to the 4th respondent, for fresh adjudication. The 4th respondent took up the case again as A.R.C. No. 2/2010-11 and dismissed the Arbitration Case by an order dated 22.10.2010. The 2nd respondent again filed an appeal against this order before the Cooperative Tribunal, Warangal and the same was numbered as C.T.A. No. 1 of 2011. This appeal was transferred to the Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad and was renumbered as C.T.A. No. 116 of 2011. The matter was transferred to the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada after the bifurcation of the State and renumbered as O.A. No. 43 of 2014.

3. The Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada allowed the appeal of the 2nd respondent against the petitioner, by way of an order dated 05.10.2015. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition.

4. Before adverting to the respective contentions, it would be necessary to notice a few facts. The 2nd respondent had not challenged the execution of the deed of sale in favour of the petitioner dated 17.10.1989 while the matter was pending before the Arbitrator. However, this relief was sought in C.T.A. No. 1 of 2011. Further, the petitioner had executed a registered deed of gift in favor of his son, who is arrayed as 5th respondent herein. However, this registered deed of gift was not challenged before the Arbitrator but the said deed was challenged in the appeal filed in C.T.A. No. 1 of 2011.

5. The case of the 2nd respondent was that plot No. 31 was originally allotted to the 2nd respondent and he had continued to pay the installments to the 3rd respondent society, as and when he was called upon to pay these installments. He further states that he was transferred out of the area and was working elsewhere in the United State of Andhra Pradesh on account of his job and was unaware of the allotment of the plot to the petitioner and the subsequent deed of sale until the year 2006. He would further submit that the land in which plot No. 31 is situated was the subject matter of litigation with a third party and he had assumed that further installments were not being demanded from him on account of the pending litigation. The Arbitrator had initially dismissed the Arbitration case in A.T.C. No. 1 of 2007-08 against which an appeal has been filed. In the appeal, the Cooperative Tribunal is said to have taken the view that matter of limitation does not bar the present case as the date of knowledge would have to be taken into account. The matter was then remanded to the Arbitrator who dismissed the case again.

6. In the 2nd round of appeals, the Tribunal took the view that there were no proceedings available to show that the allotment of the plot in favour of the 2nd respondent had been cancelled and that the said plot was re-allotted to the petitioner. The Tribunal also held that in view of the earlier finding of the Tribunal relating to the question of limitation, the claim of the 2nd