IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of a registered conveyance deed precludes the Society from claiming any rights to the plot, and principles of res judicata apply to prevent re-litigation of the same issues.

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. Bharath Chandra Madas, learned counsel appears for Mr. Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1422 of 2013/respondent No.3 in the writ petition.

Mr. Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appears for the appellant Society in W.A.No.1661 of 2013/respondent No.4 in the writ petition. Mr. R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. M. Pratheek Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1422 of 2013/petitioner in the writ petition. Mr. A. Dheeraj, learned counsel appears for Mr. D. Jaipal Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.12 and 14 in W.A.Nos.1422 and 1661 of 2013 respectively.

2. W.A.No.1422 of 2013 has been filed by a Member of Kalyan Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter called, ‘the Society’), whereas W.A.No.1661 of 2013 has been filed by the Society. Both the appeals emanate from an order dated 24.06.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8304 of 2008. Therefore, the appeals were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition, for the facility of reference.

4. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals in nutshell are that the petitioner was admitted as member of the Society on 27.01.1988. Thereafter, he was allotted a plot, namely plot bearing No.59 measuring 493.3 square meters situate in survey Nos.52, 138, 139 and part of survey No.137, Yousufguda, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred as ‘the subject plot’). A registered sale deed was executed in his favour on 28.01.1988 by the respondent Nos.5 and 6. The petitioner obtained permission for construction on 29.03.1989 from the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad.

5. The Society issued a notice on 24.11.2000 to the petitioner proposing to cancel the sale deed executed in his favour by the Society. The petitioner thereupon filed O.S.No.6951 of 2000 before the Second Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking a declaration that the said notice dated 24.11.2000 is illegal. The aforesaid suit was decreed on 30.07.2003 ex parte. Thereafter, an application was filed to set aside the ex parte decree, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 07.04.2006. The said order was set aside vide order dated 11.06.2009 by a Bench of this Court in C.R.P.No.3894 of 2006. The suit was restored to file and was eventually dismissed on 03.11.2009.

6. One Mr. V.G.K.Prasad, the husband of respondent No.3 initiated a proceeding under Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), namely A.R.C.No.38 of 2000 before the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Charminar, Hyderabad against the petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 to 6 seeking a declaration that the allotment and registration of plot No.59 in favour of the petitioner is illegal. A direction was also sought to the Society to re-allot it in his favour. The claim in the proceeding was inter alia made on the ground that the respondent No.3 is his wife, who was a member of the Society. It was averred that his wife transferred the membership to him in the year 2000. It was also averred that the petitioner, even though he was a minor on the date of admission as a member to the society, was illegally admitted as such by respondent Nos.5 and 6, which is contrary to bye-law No.4 of the bye-laws of the Society. It was pleaded that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were not holding the post of President and Secretary of the Society at the relevant time and even though a sale deed in respect of plot in question namely Plot No.59 was existing in favour of respondent No.8, the same was sold to the petitioner.

7. By an award dated 25.04.2002 passed by the Divisional Cooperative Officer, the aforesaid A.R.C., was dismissed. The claim of the husband of respondent No.3 was rejected inter alia on the ground that the transfer of membership by his wife in his favour