THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO.4819 OF 2009 29th DECEMBER, 2009 BETWEEN: THE LOKAYATA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED….. PETITIONER AND ARUN KUMAR GAIN AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO.4819 OF 2009 O R D E R: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 13- 8-2009 passed in O.S.No.338 of 2006 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, CCC, at Secunderabad, whereby and where under the learned Senior Civil Judge held that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in the suit. 2. Arun Kumar Gain and Barun Kumar Gain-R1 and R2 are plaintiffs in the suit. They purchased plot No.44 in Venture III, Survey No.136 admeasuring 226 square yards or 222.96 square meters situated at Lothkunta village, Phase III, Secunderabad under a registered sale deed dated 6.10.1999 from Ms.Parul Nath, daughter of Late N.C.Nath. Their vendor purchased the plot under a registered sale deed dated 19.8.1998 from M/s Lokayata Cooperative Housing Society Limited represented by its President B.S.Venkat Swamy. Sri.V.R.Jayaprakash- D1 attempted to interfere with their possession. They filed the suit for declaration of title and also for grant of perpetual injunction. M/s Lokayata Cooperative Housing Society Limited came to be impleaded as D2 in the suit. D2 filed a written statement contending that the sale deed executed in favour of the vendor of the plaintiffs came to be cancelled under a deed of cancellation dated 13.7.2006. D1 filed written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiffs. Further details in the written statement filed by D1 and D2 are not required to be elaborated since the issue required to be adjudicated is only with regard to maintainability of the suit. The trial Court settled the following issues: 1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of their title to the suit schedule property? 2) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to consequential permanent injunction? 3) To what relief? An additional issue came to be framed on 14.7.2009 i.e. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? D2 contended before the trial court that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable in view of S.61 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. In a way D2 contended that the dispute involved in the suit is required to be adjudicated by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Whereas the plaintiffs contended before the trial Court that the dispute is between the two purchasers of the Society. The said dispute is required to be resolved by the civil court. The trial Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, held the additional issue in favour of the plaintiffs by judgment dated 13.8.2009. The finding recorded on the additional issue is assailed in this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/D2 submits that as per S.61 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 any dispute touching the management or the business of the society shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and as such the disputes involved in the suit squarely comes within the ambit of S.61 and in which case the suit filed by the plaintiffs in civil court is not maintainable and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed. A further submission has been made that if it is the case of the plaintiffs of there being no relief sought for against the petitioner herein-D2, the very continuation of proceedings in suit against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the dispute is with regard to title between the two private parties and therefore the same is required to be adjudicated by civil court. He would also contend that the trial court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and held the issue in favour of the plaintiff and the same is not required to be interfered by this court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Before dwelling deep on the rival contentions of the parties, I deem it appropriate to refer the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs in the suit and they are: “ Therefore, it is prayed that the Honourable Court may be pleased to pass the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants jointly and severally: a) declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of plot No.44 in Venture III, in Survey No.136 admeasuring 266 square yards or 222.96 square meters, situated at Lothkunta Village, Phase III, Secunderabad Cantonment with compound wall, bounded by North: Open land, South: Plot No.45, East: 40 feet wide road and West: Society land. b) Grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1, his agents, attorneys, representatives, followers, workers, henchmen etc from interfering with the peaceful physical possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property i.e., plot No.44 in Venture III, in Survey No.136 admeasuring 266 square yards or 222.96 square meters, situated at Lothkunta village, Phase III, Secunderabad Cantonment, with compound wall, bounded by North: Open land, South: Plot No.45, East: 40 feet wide road and West: society land. c) Award costs of the suit; and d) Pass such other order or orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 7. It is the specific plea of the plaintiffs that their vendor purchased plot No.44 from the petitioner-society under a registered sale deed dated 19-9-1998 and they purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 6-10-1999. The plaintiffs averred in the plaint that their vendor approached the Registrar of A.P. Cooperative Societies and raised the dispute u/s 63 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. The arbitrator seemed to have adjudicated the issue in favour of the vendor of the plaintiffs. The relevant portion of the plaint needs to be noted and it is thus: “ …The defendant No.1 also brought documents to manifest that the plot No.44 belongs to him and not the plaintiffs. On making necessary enquiries it was revealed that the defendant No.1 was originally allotted plot No.44 of the society layout but the defendant nO.1 did not opted for the said piece of land as it was a well area. The society therefore allotted plot No.165 to the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 has already constructed the building on the said plot and is in physical possession of the said piece of land even till today. As per the byelaws of the M/s Lokayata Cooperative Housing Society Limited a member can won and possess only one single plot. As the defendant No.1 was already holding the sale deed and had interfered with the physical possession after the allotment of suit schedule property of the vendor of the plaintiffs Ms.Parul Nath, she had approached the Registrar of Cooperative societies and had raised dispute under Section 63 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. An arbitrator was accordingly appointed in Arbitration Case No.84 of 1993 and an award was passed under Section 62 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, under which the defendant No.2 herein was directed to register the sale deed in respect of Plot No.44. It is based on the direction under the award in case No.84 of 1983, the sale deed bearing documents No.1363 of 1998, dated 19.8.1998 was executed by the society in favour of the vendor of the plaintiffs. A copy of the award in Arbitration Case NO.84 of 1993, dated 31.3.1994 is filed herewith and marked as Document No.14. It is further submitted that the allotment of plot No.44 to the defendant No.1 herein was cancelled after he opted for reallotment of plot No.165 of the layout and the defendant No.1 therefore do not have any right to claim any right over the suit schedule property on the strength of the sale deed which was initially executed for allotment of plot No.44 to the defendant No.1. The claim of defendant No.1 on the strength of the original sale deed in respect of plot No.44 which was cancelled by the defendant No.2 society is illegal and amounted to committing the offence punishable under penal code.” 8. D2 in the written statement did not dispute the fact that Arbitration Case NO.84 of 1993 ended in favour of the vendor of the plaintiffs. The plea of D2 in the written statement is the person who represented the case before the arbitrator on behalf of the society was not competent. Had the said person was not competent, the petitioner-society ought to have taken necessary steps to set aside the award passed by the arbitrator. Virtually the dispute in the present suit is between the plaintiffs and D1 and it cannot be constituted as a business dispute between the petitioner-society and its members and therefore the provisions of A.P. Cooperative societies Act cannot be pressed into service to oust the jurisdiction of civil court. It is a matter of record that the vendor of the plaintiffs invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as provided under section 61 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act and ultimately proceedings went in her favour, in which case driving the plaintiffs again to choose the same forum is not contemplated under the provisions of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. The trial court considered this aspect in right perspective and held that the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute involved in the suit between the parties. I do not see any flaw in the order passed by the trial court. 9. Accordingly, this revision fails and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 29th December, 2009. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO.4819 OF 2009 29th DECEMBER, 2009