THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SAMBASI VA RAO NAI DU

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff of OS.No.6951 of 2000 on the file of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in AS.No.26 of 2010 which he preferred against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the above referred original suit by which the suit was dismissed, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘C.P.C.’) with a prayer to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and first appellate Court and sought for declaration to declare the show cause notice dated 24-11-2000 issued by the respondent Society as it was unilaterally issued without following due process of law consequently to cancel the sale deed as illegal beyond the competence and also for a perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent from canceling the sale deed Document No.154/1988 executed in his favour.

2. As could be seen from the averments made by the appellant in the original plaint filed before the trial Court, it was claimed that he is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.59 in the lay out made by respondent society out of Survey Nos.52, 137, 138 and 139 at Yousufguda, Hyderabad. The appellant has claimed that the respondent which is a registered society under the provisions of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act acquired land to an extent of Ac.34.19 gts from the above referred survey numbers and converted the same into House plots. Out of the said plots, the respondent society conveyed Plot No.59 in favour of the appellant herein under a registered sale deed dated 28-01-1998 and he was put in possession of the Plot. The appellant has further pleaded in the plaint that originally the said Plot was allotted to one C.R.Rajagopalan, subsequently, he has surrendered the same to the society with a request to transfer the same in favour of the present appellant and accordingly, the society allotted the Plot to the appellant.

3. The appellant further pleaded before the trial Court that he has obtained permission for construction of a House from the concerned authorities and completed the construction of the House to which electricity, water and telephone connections was provided. The appellant has further contended that subsequently on 24-11-2000, a notice that was issued by the respondent herein was served on the appellant calling upon him to show cause why sale deed executed in his favour could not be cancelled on the ground of certain irregularities in allotment. The appellant has claimed such a notice was issued with ulterior motives and due to internal disputes of the management of the society. The appellant having claimed that he has constructed a house and after a lapse of twelve years, the allotment of the Plot cannot be cancelled, consequently, sought for the above referred relief’s against the respondent.

4. The respondent having appeared before the trial Court, filed a written statement disputing the material averments made by the appellant and further contended that the suit itself was not maintainable before the trial Court as the same was hit by Section 61 and 121 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. The respondent further claimed that the ownership obtained by the appellant herein was in collusion with some other members of the society. Therefore, sale deed executed in favour of the appellant herein was not valid. The sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant by the respondent represented by Mr. B.Veera Swamy and Mr. Adi Seshaiah as if, they are authorized signatories of the society but without any power and authorization. They are not office bearers of the society. Therefore, the sale deed itself is invalid and respondent sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Based on the above referred contentions and in view of the other claims raised by the respondent vide written statement, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff