HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1293 OF 2009 Dated: 17-11-2009 Between: B. (Vagolu) Mary Parimala ... APPELLANT AND The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Guntur, Guntur District and two others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1293 OF 2009 JUDGEMENT: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 26-06-2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 12464 of 2009, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner whose property has been attached under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The facts, in a nutshell, which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under: The property of the appellant had been attached because there was an allegation against her husband that he had misappropriated the funds of respondent No.2 – Society. The appellant had filed a claim petition before respondent No.1 stating that she was working as a nurse and was having her income and from her income she had purchased the property in question. Thereby, she had emphatically stated that the property belonging to her, which had been attached, was not purchased from the income or property of her husband. The said claim petition had been rejected and, therefore, an appeal had been filed by the appellant and it has been submitted that the said appeal is to be heard today. In the meantime, stay had been granted on a condition that she should deposit 50% of the amount. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant had filed the aforestated petition and the said petition had been dismissed. 3. Looking to the appellant’s plea that the property had been purchased by her from her own income and as prima facie that appears to be correct and as the appeal is to be finally heard today, in our opinion, it would be just and proper to restrain the respondent – authorities from dealing with the property in question and at the same time, we also direct the appellant not to dispose or create any right in respect of the property in question in favour of any third party. The aforesated arrangement shall continue till the appeal filed under Section 76 of the Act, which is pending before the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal is finally disposed of. 4. In view of the above order, the order passed by respondent No.1 with regard to giving direction to deposit 50% of the amount stands modified. 5. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. 6. As a sequel to disposal of the appeal, WAMP No. 2698 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of as infructous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17-11-2009 ks