IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1066 OF 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/09/2008 in WP NO : 11105 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Musti Annapurnamma ... APPELLANT AND The Ayyavarigudem Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, rep., by its Secretary, Ayyavarigudem, Yerrupalem Mandal, Khammam District and two others ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Y. Subrahmanyam Counsel for Respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: Government Pleader for Cooperation The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by order dated 18-09-2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 11105 of 2007, this appeal has been filed by the appellant – legal representative of a person who had borrowed money from respondent No.1 – Society for the purpose of purchase of a tractor. 2. As the husband of the appellant did not repay the amount borrowed by him to respondent No.1, necessary proceedings under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 had been initiated. The amount had been determined and recovery certificate had also been issued. Basing on the same, respondent No. 1 – Society filed E.P No. 267 of 2006 before the Sale Officer-cum- Assistant Registrar and the tractor was seized. The appellant first approached the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Warangal by filing an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal and it was directed that the appellant and her son should approach the respondents for determination of the amount due. The amount was thereafter ascertained and when the amount was sought to be recovered from the appellant, the aforestated writ petition was filed. After hearing the concerned advocates, the learned single Judge had passed an order to the effect that the amount which was due and payable by the husband of the appellant should be recovered only from the properties of the appellant, as were inherited by her from her husband and not from her individual properties. 3. We do not find any substance in the appeal because nothing belonging to the appellant, which had not been inherited by her from her husband is sought to be recovered by respondent No.1. 4. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the amount could not have been recovered from the appellant because she was not a member of respondent No. 1 – Society. 5. The said submission cannot be accepted for the reason that the amount payable by the appellant’s husband had already been determined and respondent No. 1 – Society is to recover the said amount from the appellant from the assets of her husband, which she has inherited. 6. Looking to the above facts, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th August, 2009 ks