Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 22829
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Smt. S. Neelamma – Appellant
Versus
Kasturi Coop Housing Society Ltd – Respondent
WP/13137/2010
Disputes regarding the genuineness of sale deeds and the authority of their execution fall outside the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Tribunal and must be resolved in civil court under the Specific Relief Act.
Headnote:(A) Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 - Section 76(1) - Writ petitions challenging the order of the Cooperative Tribunal allowing an appeal against the dismissal of an arbitration case regarding the validity of sale deeds executed by a society's secretary - The Tribunal's decision was found to exceed its jurisdiction as the matter relates to property rights, which should be adjudicated in a civil court. (Paras 9-12)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court ruled that disputes regarding the genuineness of sale deeds and the authority of the executor fall outside the 'business of the society' as defined under the Cooperative Societies Act, necessitating recourse to the Specific Relief Act for resolution. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The dispute arose from the validity of sale deeds executed by the secretary of a cooperative society, which were contested by the society on grounds of unauthorized execution and lack of authority. The society's previous arbitration case was dismissed, and a subsequent appeal was allowed by the Tribunal, prompting the current writ petitions. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction, and the issues at hand pertained to property rights that should be resolved in civil court. (Paras 12-14)
Issues: The main issues included the authority of the society's secretary to execute sale deeds and whether the disputes fell within the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Tribunal. (Paras 7-12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the genuineness of sale deeds and the authority of their execution are matters for civil court jurisdiction, not the Cooperative Tribunal, as they do not pertain to the business of the society. (Paras 10-12)
Result: Writ petitions allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order and granting parties liberty to approach civil court. (Paras 13-14)
COMMON ORDER :
Challenge in both these writ petitions is to the order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the Cooperative Tribunal, under section 76(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, in CTA No.12 of 2009. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the Arbitration Case in ARC No.13-99G, and the order dated 28.04.2001 passed by the Arbitrator in the said ARC No.13-99G was set aside.
2. As the subject matter and the grievance in these writ petitions being the same, they are analogously heard and are being disposed of by this Common Order. For the sake of discussion, the facts in WP No.13137 of 2010 are referred to.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per the writ affidavit in WP No.13137 of 2010, are as follows:
The 1 st respondent-Kasturi Cooperative Housing Society is a Society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act in the year 1981, with the 4 th respondent-Ch. Radha Krishna Murthy as the Founder Secretary and K.S. Krishnan as Treasurer. The 1 st respondent-Society entered into an Agreement with the land owners in Survey No.309 in Nagaram Village for purchase of land and an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas was purchased, and the allotment of plots to the member-subscribers happened immediately during 1981-82 itself during the tenure of 4 th respondent as Secretary of the Society. It is stated that the petitioner and 8 th petitioner i.e. S. Malla Reddy were the members of the 1 st respondent-Society as on 20.05.1982 whereas other petitioners purchased plots from the members who have earlier purchased the plots by way of registered sale deeds from Society. In all, the essence of the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were allotted plots and they paid the due amounts for the plots and the plots were registered in their favour.
While so, in the year 1992, the 1 st respondent-Society (represented by T. Narsing Rao, Secretary of the Society), filed an Arbitration Case in ARC No.1/1992 before the 3 rd respondent-Arbitrator, alleging that respondents 2 to 10 in ARC No.1/1992 are not members of the Society and that 4 th respondent-Ch. Radha Krishna Murthy is one of the persons appointed by the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Hyderabad East with a condition to work under the instructions of Divisional Cooperative Officer, and that the 4 th respondent was not empowered to execute any Registered Sale Deeds in respect of various plots in Survey No.309 of Nagaram village, in favour of respondents 2 to 10 on different dates.
The Arbitrator, after due hearing and considering the documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the arbitration case ARC No.1/1992 by order dated 08.09.1992, with an observation that respondents 1 to 10 appear to be in the Senior Group of the Members of the Society by their membership receipts numbers i.e., 32, 34, 38, 49, 50 etc., and therefore apparently they are eligible for allotment of plots. It was also observed that the 4 th respondent-Ch. Radha Krishna Murthy, executed the registered sale deed in respect of different plots in Survey No.309 in favour of respondents 2 to 10 when he was not in office and when there was no management of the Society and therefore the Society may file a criminal case against the 4 th respondent.
Thereafter, after a lapse of 7 years from the dismissal of ARC No.1/1992, the 1 st respondent-Society preferred one more Arbitration Case in ARC No.13/99G against 13 respondents, including the 9 respondents arrayed in ARC No.1/1992. The subject matter and the grievance in the second arbitration case in ARC No.13/99G is same as that of ARC No.1/1992. The relief sought by the 1 st respondent-Society in ARC No.13/99G is to declare the Sale Deeds executed by the 4 th respondent- Ch. Radha Krishna Murthy in favour of other respondents as null and void; and also sought a direction to the respondents to remove the structures built on the plots, and to deliver the possession of plots to the 1 st respondent-Society.
The Arbitrator framed a point for determination – “whether the sale deeds regist
