1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3215 OF 2010

TERAPALLI DYVASAHATA KUMAR Appellant(s)

VERSUS

S.M.KANTHA RAJU (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

R.F. NARIMAN, J.

1)

The present appeal arises out of a judgment of the Andhra

Pradesh High Court dated 19.09.2006, in which it has construed

Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act,

2001, as referring only to the Principal District Court of the

place where the society is registered. The correctness of

this judgment is assailed before us by learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2)

Sometime in June, 2004, the appellant filed a petition

under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration

Act, 2001 in which it asked for the following reliefs:

“(a)

For a declaration that none of the respondents,

their men or agents have any legal right

whatsoever to call, hold or organize the annual

convention of the members of CBCNC (No.16/48-49)

or conduct elections for the office bearers of

CBCNC (No.16/48-49) or its various boards, at

any place including at Kakinada or Visakhapatnam

under any notification or in pursuance of the

Digitally signed by

R.NATARAJAN

Date: 2017.08.21

16:34:34 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

notifications/pamphlets already passed/issued or

proposed to be passed or issued either by

themselves or through their nominees, privies

etc;

(b)

For a consequential relief for permanent

injunction restraining the respondents their men

and agents, from proclaiming or projecting as

Office bearers of CBCNC (No.16/48-49) or from

organizing the annual convention of the members

of the CBCNC (No.16/48-49) or election of office

bearers of CBCNC (No.16/48-49) members or its

various boards at any place including at

Kakinada or Visakhapatnam under any notification

or in pursuance of the notifications/pamphlets

already passed/issued or proposed to be passed

or issued either by themselves or through their

nominees, privies etc:

(c)

To appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the

purpose of holding an annual convention for all

the members of the CBCNC (No.16/48-49), either

in the month of January 2004 or immediately

thereafter, as per the constitution and bye-laws

of the CBCNC (No.16/48-49), and entrust the

administration and management of all assets of

CBCNC (No.16/48-49) to the office bearers so

elected in the said elections, who shall be the

rightful body to represent the CBCNC

(No.16/48-49);

(d)

For Costs; and

(e)

For such other relief or reliefs as your

Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.”

3)

A preliminary objection was raised by means of an I.A.

being I.A. No. 234 of 2004 in which it was contended that the

3

petition filed at Visakhapatnam was filed in the wrong Court

and hence was without jurisdiction.

4)

The learned District Judge, by his judgment dated

17.01.2005, first observed that the expression “District

Court” was not defined by the 2001 Act, and that this being

so, he opined:

“Now, the law is well settled that when the special

enactment did not specify the limits territorial

jurisdiction of any Court prescribed under the said

Act to entertain the litigation, the general

provisions of C.P.C., regarding the said

territorial jurisdiction, can be take into

consideration. As can be seen from the A.P.

Societies Act, it has not ousted the application of

C.P.C., specifically. Therefore, when the Act is

silent regarding the limits of territorial

jurisdiction, and when the Act did not oust C.P.C.,

specifically, undoubtedly, the provisions of

C.P.C., can be taken into consideration to decide

the territorial jurisdiction of District Court

concerned as envisaged U/sec.23 of the Act. Sec.20

C.P.C., e