The jurisdiction to cancel registered sale deeds under Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act lies with civil courts, not the Cooperative Tribunal.

ORDER :

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 16.11.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 7716 of 2016, the 2nd respondent in the said writ petition preferred this intra court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. The said writ petition was filed challenging the orders dated 05.10.2015 passed by Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada, Krishna District in O.A. No.43 of 2014, whereby the sale deed executed by NGO's Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Rayachoti (respondent no.5 herein) in favour of respondent no.1 herein was declared as null and void and the same was set aside and consequently the gift deed executed by respondent no.1 in favour of respondent no.3 was declared as not valid and void in law and further the NGO's Cooperative House Building Society was directed to register the subject plot in favour of the appellant herein and also to deliver the plot by removing the constructions, if any. Vide impugned orders the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside the orders impugned in the said writ petition.

3. For clarity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status in this writ appeal.

4. The facts leading to filing of this writ appeal, in brief, are that, respondent no.1 purchased the subject property from respondent no.5- society under registered sale deed dated 17.10.1987 and in the year 2006, the appellant filed ARC No. 1/2007-08 under Section 61(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act alleging that the plot sold to respondent no.1 was originally allotted to him and that he should be declared as the owner of the property and the said petition was dismissed by respondent no.6-Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of cooperative society. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred appeal vide CTA No. 39 of 2009 before the Cooperative Tribunal, Warangal. The Tribunal remanded the matter to respondent no.6 for fresh adjudication and accordingly the Arbitrator took up the case as ARC No. 2/2010-11 and again dismissed the case by order dated 22.10.2010. Assailing the same, the appellant preferred appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal, Warangal vide CTA No. 1 of 2011, which latter was transferred to Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad and renumbered as CTA No. 116 of 2011 and the same was later transferred to Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada consequent to bifurcation of the state and the same was renumbered as O.A. No.43 of 2014. The said O.A. was allowed by the Cooperative Tribunal vide orders dated 05.10.2015. Challenging the said orders, the respondent no.1 filed writ petition and consequent to his death, his two sons came on record as Legal Representatives of their deceased father as petitioner nos. 2 and 3. The learned single Judge allowed the said writ petition vide impugned orders and those orders were called in question in this writ appeal.

5. Heard Sri K.Raghunatha Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.

6. Sri K.Raghunatha Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, while reiterating the grounds of appeal would contend that since the subject dispute is in between the members of the society and is in relation to constitution, Management and business of the Society, the same can be referred to Registrar as per Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and therefore, the Arbitrator and the Cooperative Tribunal have jurisdiction to set aside the registered sale deed fraudulently obtained by respondent no.1 and so also the consequential registered gift deed executed by him in favour of respondent no.3. However, the learned single Judge went wrong in placing reliance on the decisions relied on for respondent nos.1 to 3 for allowing the writ petition, notwithstanding the fact that the subject matter therein was regarding land of the respective Societies and that too not in relation to the dispute touching the constitution, management or