IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST (21st) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.219 of 2011 Between: Smt. Anjana … Petitioner And: The Hon’ble Cooperative Tribunal & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.219 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 11.02.2010 in CTA No.26 of 2009 on the file of the Cooperative Tribunal, Warangal camp at Hyderabad, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein under Section 76(1) of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, was dismissed, confirming the order of the Sales Officer-Assistant Registrar in Claim Petition No.1 of 2007 in EP No.1 of 2007. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed claim petition under Rule 52 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules 1964 before the Sales Officer- 2nd respondent herein, claiming E.P. schedule plot is a joint property, purchased with joint funds by the members of the joint family and she is having 1/5th share therein. The 2nd respondent herein-Sales Officer, issued auction notice on 21.05.2007 proposing to hold public auction of the schedule plot on 30.05.2007 in execution of the decree for realization of Rs.54,49,786.25 and interest due from M/s Lakshmi Sugars-4th respondent herein. The 4th respondent herein is a partnership firm and respondents 5 to 8 are partners, who obtained loan from 3rd respondent bank on mortgage of the schedule plot. The Bank through the 2nd respondent Sales Officer proceeded to recover the amount by sale of the mortgaged property. The petitioner herein is the daughter of respondents 5 and 7 and she claims 1/5th share in the schedule plot. The 2nd respondent-Sales Officer held that the schedule property was purchased by the father of the petitioner in 1966 i.e., 10 years prior to birth of the claim petitioner and no evidence was produced by the claim petitioner to show that the property was purchased with joint family funds and the claimant’s father mortgaged the property in favour of the bank in his individual capacity and the claimant has not made any objection at the time of mortgage and the claimant failed to establish that she was having 1/5th share in the schedule property and dismissed the claim petition. 4. The petitioner contended before the Tribunal that the Sales Officer failed to follow the mandate of Rule 52 sub rule (21) (a) of the Cooperative Societies Rules, which runs as follows: “Rule 52 sub rule (21)(a) – where any claims is preferred or any objection is made to the attachment of any property under this rule on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the officer shall investigate the claim or objection and dispose it of on the merit”. Proviso to the above rule states that ‘no such investigation shall be made when the sale officer considers that the claim or objection is frivolous’. 5. According to the claimant, the property belongs to the joint family and it was purchased for a consideration of Rs.410/- with joint family funds and that she is having 1/5th share therein. She has not adduced any evidence before the 2nd respondent to show that her father and paternal grand father constituted a joint family and they migrated to Hyderabad in 1960 from Rajasthan for doing business and that there is a joint family business and from out of the income of the said business, the schedule plot was purchased. On the other hand, the sale deed under which, the claimant’s father purchased the scheduled plot from Hyderabad Allwyn Employees Cooperative Housing Society, showed that his occupation was ‘service’. In the absence of any evidence showing the existence of the joint family or joint family business or joint family funds, the claim of the petitioner that the schedule property was purchased from out of the joint family funds and that she is having 1/5th share, remains baseless and unsubstantiated. 6. Admittedly, the claimant has not filed any suit demanding partition or claiming any share in the property. The claim made by the petitioner without there being any material in support thereof is certainly frivolous claim, falling within the ambit of the proviso, which states that no investigation as required under Rule 52 sub rule (21)(a) shall be made in such cases. Clause (c) of sub rule (21) states that where claim or objection is preferred that party against whom an order is made may institute a suit within six months from the date of order to establish the right. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any such suit pursuant to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent-Sales Officer. The investigation under Rule 52 sub rule (21)(a) is contemplated when a claim is preferred or objection is made to the attachment of any property. In the present case, admittedly, there is no attachment effected over the schedule property and the schedule property attached under mortgage to the bank was being brought to sale in execution of the decree. 7. In the circumstances, the rejection of the claim by the 2nd respondent-Sales Officer and confirmation of the same by the first respondent-Tribunal do not therefore call for any interference. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 21.09.2011 bss