SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 14288

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G.RADHA RANI, J
defendant No.4 – Appellant
Versus
original plaintiff (his legal representatives as respondents 5 to 7) – Respondent
C.C.C.A.Nos.121 & 122 of 2008



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, Sri B.Adinarayana, Sri Mayur Mundra, Sri L.Ravi Chander
For the Respondents: Sri S.Malla Rao

The cancellation of a registered sale deed requires legal proceedings, and unregulated cancellation is invalid; time spent pursuing a Writ Petition can be excluded from limitation calculations.

Headnote:(A) AP Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 - Sections 61 and 126 - Disputes relating to the allotment and cancellation of property plots - Suit for declaration and injunction dismissed on grounds of non-compliance with statutory notice requirements and limitation period - Trial court found plaintiff to have a valid sale deed conferring title, but the society unilaterally cancelled the deed without proper legal proceedings, thus violating principles of law. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 34, 56)

(B) Title and Possession - The registered sale deed confers ownership and cannot be cancelled unilaterally; a party holding a registered sale deed has legal rights until a court invalidates it. (Paras 56, 57)

(C) Limitation - Time taken in pursuing a Writ Petition can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if done in good faith and due diligence. (Paras 42, 44)

Table of Content
1. ownership and entitlement related to property allotment (Para 4)
2. defendants' argument regarding plaintiff's ineligibility for plot allocation (Para 5)
3. issues surrounding statutory notice under co-operative societies act (Para 6)
4. jurisdiction of civil courts versus registrar's role (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
5. section 14 of limitation act applicability (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
6. unilateral cancellation of registered sale deeds invalid without court order (Para 44 , 45 , 46)
7. plaintiff's entitlement to property based on registered deed (Para 57)

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI C.C.C.A.Nos.121 & 122 of 2008

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Both these appeals are arising out of the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2008 passed in O.S.No.410 of 2004 by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. C.C.C.A.121 of 2008 is filed by defendant No.4 and C.C.C.A.122 of 2008 is filed by defendants 1 to

3. The respondent No.1 in both the appeals is the original plaintiff. Since the respondent No.1 – plaintiff died, his legal representatives are brought on record as respondents 5 to 7 in C.C.C.A.No.121 of 2008 and as respondents 3 to 5 in C.C.C.A.No.122 of 2008.

3. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court as plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4.

4. The suit O.S.No.410 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration of title and consequential injunction in respect of the suit schedule plot bearing No.15 (described as 15A & 15B) in M/s.Vijaya Co- operative House Building Society (for short “Society”) admeasuring 600 square yards in Survey Nos.125 and 126 of Yousufguda Village, in Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad and for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants or anyone claiming through them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land and to restrain the defendants or anyone claiming through them from transferring or conveying or encumbering the suit schedule property in any manner. The suit was originally filed against defendants 1 to 3. Subsequently, Vijaya Co-operative House Building Society – defendant no.4 was added as a party as per the orders in I.A.No.291 of 2005 dated 27.07.2005. The plaintiff was a Government Servant. As per the case of the plaintiff, M/s.Vijaya Co-operative House Building Society (defendant No.4) approached the Government of Andhra Pradesh requesting the Government to alienate an extent of Ac.77-14 cents of land situated in Survey Nos.125 and 126 situated at Yousufguda Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District. The Government of Andhra Pradesh acceded to the request of defendant No.4 - Society and after receiving an amount of Rs.15,47,000/- executed a sale deed dated 13.04.1994 in favor of the Society. After purchase of the land under the sale deed, the Society approached the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (for short “MCH”) seeking a layout sanction and the MCH accorded sanction of layout to the Society. The defendant No.4 Society came into existence only to see that the Members of the Legislative Assembly (for short “MLAs) as well as the Members of Parliament (for short “MPs”) were allotted house plots for construction of houses. After allotting and registering house plots to the MLAs and MPs, the Society found that there were some excess plots. The Society having regard to the assistance given by the plaintiff in getting all the clearances including the sale deed as well as the layout sanction, requested him to become a member of the Society and impressed upon the plaintiff that in the event if the plaintiff become a member of the Society, it would alienate an extent of 600 square yards of land from some of the plots that remained unsold. The said facility was also extended to similarly situated persons like that of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff became member of the Society by paying a share capital and admission fee. Pursuant thereto, the Society having received a total consideration of R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top