THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23658 of 2007 Dated 03rd February, 2011 Between: D.Usha Rani …Petitioner And The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Miryalaguda Division, Nalgonda District and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Ms.D.Radhika For Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for respondents: GP for Cooperation The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents to delete the petitioner’s agricultural land admeasuring Acs.10.04 guntas in Survey Nos.1/A, 54/A, 54/F, 70/A, 70/1, 111/D, 119/B, 185/F, 185/A, 184, 67/A, 67/D, 68 and 183/B of Chilukamarri Village, P.A.Pally Mandal, Nalgonda District from the auction to be held on 15.11.2007 or any other subsequent date in pursuance of sale proceedings, dated 28.09.2007, of respondent No.1. The petitioner sought for a consequential declaration that the action of the respondents in not considering her explanation, dated 24.10.2007, is illegal. I have heard Ms.D.Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for the respondents. The brother of the petitioner, by name, Sri D.Purushottam Reddy, was the Secretary of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Thummadam, Nalgonda District. During his tenure as Secretary, he indulged in misappropriation of the Society’s funds. A surcharge order under Section 60 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 was passed against him. As he failed to pay the surcharge amount, an execution petition was filed and the above-mentioned property was notified for sale. At this stage, the petitioner filed the present writ petition by claiming that the former Secretary, who is no other than her brother, executed a registered gift settlement deed in her favour on 16.02.2004 and that therefore, she being the owner of the property, the same cannot be sold. She has further pleaded that she has given a representation on 24.10.2007 to respondent No.1 to delete this property, but no action in this regard was taken. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1, wherein it is inter alia stated that the property in question was attached in an earlier execution petition i.e., E.P.No.14 of 2004 and that after the said attachment was made, the former Secretary has executed the gift deed in favour of the petitioner only to deprive the creditor of recovery of money. It is also stated that the petitioner’s representation, dated 24.10.2007, was rejected through a written communication sent to her through a certificate of posting. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that being the unmarried daughter at the relevant time, the petitioner was given the property in question by way of registered gift settlement deed and that therefore, she has become the lawful owner of the property, which cannot be sold in execution of surcharge order passed against her brother. The learned Government Pleader for Cooperation opposing this contention submitted that as the property was already under attachment, execution of registered gift settlement deed by the former Secretary is not valid in law and that therefore, the registered gift settlement deed is non est and unenforceable. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel. The fact that the extent of Acs.10.04 guntas was attached in E.P.No.14 of 2004, as averred in the counter affidavit of respondent No.1, is not controverted by the petitioner. Therefore, when the property was under attachment, any document conveying the property in favour of a third party cannot be treated as valid in the eye of law. The former Secretary has obviously with a view to defraud the society resorted to executing the gift settlement deed in favour of the petitioner. A perusal of the contents of the said settlement deed does not support the stand of the petitioner that in the family settlement, the property fell to her share and that therefore, the gift settlement deed was executed. It is recited in the said deed that the former Secretary being the brother of the petitioner has been executing the said settlement deed on account of natural love and affection he has for his sister. Nowhere in the settlement deed is there any reference to the family partition. These facts clearly show that with a view to screen the property, the former Secretary has executed the gift settlement deed in favour of the petitioner. Furthermore, the averment of respondent No.1 that the petitioner’s representation was rejected is not denied by the petitioner by way of a reply affidavit. The petitioner has not taken any steps to question the said rejection order. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 07.11.2007, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.30814 of 2007, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.30814 of 2007 and W.V.M.P.No.318 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03rd February, 2011 VGB