Case: Mounddin and Ors Vs. Commissioner of Co-operation and Registrar and Co-operative Societies and Ors

Before delving deep into the controversy, raised in this litigation, it is necessary to set out the different Special Leave Petitions filed before us, wherein orders have been challenged by different Appellants which ultimately, as pointed out by us, pertains to the issue relating to the land purchased by the society for providing housing accommodation.  Civil Appeal (@ SLP(C) No. 4679 of 2010) has been filed challenging the Division Bench order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 15.09.2009, passed in Writ Appeal No. 144 of 2007 by which the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the Appellant herein which is the very society, namely, the Voltas Employees Co-operative House Building Society (hereinafter referred to the society). Civil Appeal (@ SLP(C) No. 3105 of 2010) has been filed by three individuals, namely, Shri M. Balaji, Bilquees Sultana and Konda Sureka, who were the Appellants in Writ Appeal No. 809 of 2007 before the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and whose writ appeal was also dismissed by the High Court in its common judgment dated 15.09.2009, along with Writ Appeal No. 144 of 2007.  3. SLP (CC) No. 10023 of 2011 has been preferred by four individuals, namely, Nerella Venkateswarlu, S. Jagadish, Pasupula Anjaneyulu and Shanigarapu Ramesh seeking leave of this Court to file an appeal against the final judgment and order dated 15.09.2009 in Writ Appeal No. 144 of 2007, as well as Writ Appeal (MP) No. 2325 of 2009 in the said writ appeal. The Division Bench while dismissing the Writ Appeal No. 144 of 2007, by its common order, also dismissed the above Miscellaneous Petition No. 2325 of 2009 by which the Petitioners wanted to get themselves impleaded as parties in the Writ appeal.  4. Civil Appeal (@ SLP(C) No. 692 of 2010) has been filed by five persons, namely, Md. Moinuddin, A Narasimha, Md. I. Shareef, Khalander Hussain and R. Shankar, seeking to challenge the common judgment dated 15.09.2009 of the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 798 of 2007, along with Writ Appeal Nos. 144 of 2007 and 809 of 2007.  5. To narrate the facts in brief, the Voltas Employees Co-operative House Building and Construction Society Ltd. was registered on 29.10.1982 under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 7 of 1964. Its address was 4-161, Madhavi Nagar, Firozguda, Hyderabad. Its operations were confined to the municipal limits of Hyderabad. The object of the society is to carry on activities for the benefits of its members in the field of building including buying, selling, hiring, letting and developing land in accordance with the co-operative principles and also to give loans to its members for construction of dwelling houses. Under Bye-Law No. 4, the share capital of the society was to be made up of 5000 shares of ` 100 each. Bye-Law No. 5 prescribes the eligibility of a member. Bye-Law No. 6 deals with the procedure as to how an eligible employee of Voltas can become a member of the society. Bye-Law No. 8 with its Sub-clauses (i) to (iv), prescribes the disqualification for membership. Bye-Law No. 12 prescribes the procedure for withdrawal of the share capital. Bye-Law No. 16 describes as to how a member can be expelled from the society. Bye-Law No. 17 lists out the various sources by which the society can ordinarily obtain funds. Bye-Law No. 22 states the maximum period up to which the Managing Committee can function and the consequences of the proceedings becoming invalid on account of any vacancy or vacancies in the Committee, which remained unfilled. The powers of the Managing Committee has been set out in Bye-Law No. 28 and Sub-clause (d) of Bye-Law No. 28 empowers the Managing Committee to admit members and allot shares. Bye-Law No. 36 describes the powers of the General Body and the manner in which the General body is to be convened. Sub-clause (vi) empowers the General Body to deal with the expulsion of a member. Bye-Law No. 37(b) makes it clear that the General Body Meeting should consist of all the members of the society.  6. Keeping the above said prescriptions in the Bye-Laws, when we proceed to analyze the various facts involved, we find that the society in the first instance had a membership of 28 members at the time of formation of the society in the year 1982, which rose to 43 as on 30.06.1982 and gradually the membership went up to 75 as on 31.03.1997, when 37 members stated to have got admitted in the year 1996. In fact, the whole controversy pertains to the admission of those 37 persons as members whose aspirations to get an allotment in the land originally purchased with the funds provided by the 11 founder members gave scope for this controversial and complicated litigation amongst themselves. In the year 1982, the society purchased a land measuring 1 acre 14 guntas in Survey No. 233 of Thokatta Village. The entire land cost was paid by 11 of the founder members.  7. In one of the statements placed before this Court, discloses that as on 30.06.1984, the advances collected from the members towards the land cost were ` 64,000/- and that the contributors were 33 in number, two of whom stated to have got back the advance deposited by them with the society.  8. Be that as it may, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Housing in a letter dated 25.09.1996, addressed to the President and Secretary of the Society, referred to a representation received from Shri Srinivasa Rao and other, alleging that the Managing Committee in their Meeting refused to enroll them as members of the society. This was referred to the Co-operative Sub-Registrar by the office of the Deputy Registrar. On receipt of the report of the Co-operative Sub-Registrar, in the said communication dated 25.09.1996, the Deputy Registrar indicated to the society that the request of Shri Srinivasa Rao and others, are genuine and that they are eligible to become members of the society and, therefore, they should be admitted as members. The admission of their membership was also directed to be intimated to the office of the Deputy Registrar.  9. In the minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting, stated to have been held on 03.10.1996 at 6 p.m., it was stated that as per the agenda dated 18.09.1996, the matter of admitting the 37 new applicants into the society was thoroughly discussed and unanimously decided to admit them as members. The said minutes, however, state that with the cooperation of new entrants, a suitable piece of land can be purchased for the interested new members and that the 37 members or any other member who wish to share a plot will be accommodated in the land to be purchased as a second venture of the society.  10. By a letter dated 04.10.1996 addressed to the Deputy Registrar, Housing, the society confirmed the above resolution passed admitting the 37 new applicants as members in the Meeting held on 03.10.1996. Subsequently, the General Body Meeting was stated to have been held on 04.04.1997 at 6 p.m. in the societys premises. The agenda: was to ratify the admission of the new members and also to explore the possibilities for a new venture. The resolution relating to ratification was passed and it was ratified. The other issues were discussed in the General Body Meeting. It was deliberated that since the new members did not join at the time when the land was purchased and for purchasing the said land the contribution was made only by the 11 members who continued to be members on the date of the General Body Meeting, they alone will have the right to get allotment in the said lands.  11. By proceedings dated 17.04.1997, a general direction Under Section 4(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Society Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to the Act) was issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, which inter alia contained a direction that no society shall admit any new members to be in waiting in service, except to the extent of maximum of 10% of members provided with the plots at any given time. It was further directed that no member of the society, who is not allotted a house or house site, shall be eligible to vote in the ensuing elections unless he completes one year as a member in the society. The electoral authorities were directed to take into consideration the said aspect while preparing the electoral roll of the members of the society. By virtue of Section 4(2) of the Act, all the co-operative societies were directed to comply with the above directions. Pursuant to the general direction issued on 17.04.1997, the Deputy Registrar came forward with a fresh communication to the society dated 01.12.1998, stating that the instructions issued by its office in its letter dated 25.09.1996, stood withdrawn with immediate effect. Closely followed by that, by a communication dated 20.07.1999, the members who were admitted in the Meeting held on 03.10.1996 were informed that subsequent to their admission, a resolution was passed in the committee Meeting held on 16.07.1999 to expel all the 37 members. The membership fee of ` 100 was also returned in the form of a cheque. The said letter dated 20-7-1999 made a reference to a Writ Petition, namely, W.P. No. 3720 of 1999, filed by Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao, challenging the Deputy Registrars direction dated 1-12-1998, which was stated to have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 13-7-1999.  12. As against the order of the Single Judge dated 13-7-1999, in W.P. No. 3720 of 1999, Srinivasa Rao preferred a Writ Appeal No. 1056 of 1999. The Division bench passed the following order in the said Writ Appeal:  In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the observation of the learned single Judge that the Petitioner has not been adversely affected by the withdrawal of the instructions cannot be sustained as has been demonstrated by the subsequent order passed by the society, which has been placed on record in this appeal. In our considered view and the observations made above, the order dated 20-7-1999 passed during the pendency of the appeal is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. In view of the fact that the membership of the Petitioner-Appellant was cancelled without taking a decision on merits, it is left open to the society to decide with respect to the membership of the Petitioner-Appellant on merits in accordance with law and without taking into consideration the instructions issued by the Deputy Registrar or the Registrar of co-operative Societies and after hearing the Appellant.  The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.  25 other members who were identically placed like that of Mr. Srinivasa Rao, filed Writ Petition No. 18294 of 1999. A Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court relying upon the Division Bench order dated 2-8-1999 in Writ Appeal No. 1056 of 1999, set aside the proceedings of the Society dated 20-7-1999 and directed them to follow the directions of the Division Bench referred to above.  13. Thereafter, the society issued a show cause notice dated 6-10-1999 to the 37 members, wherein after making reference to the order of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1056 of 1999 dated 2-8-1999 and the order dated 1-9-1999 in Writ Petition No. 18294 of 1999, called upon the members to show cause as to why they should not be expelled in as much no land is available to admit any member to the society. That apart, at the instance of one K. Sivarama Raju and C. Viswam, a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 11268 of 2000 was filed, who claimed to be the founder members. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by order dated (sic) in which reference was made to (sic) order of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1056 of 1999 and the connected Writ Petitions and certain other Miscellaneous petitions filed in that writ petition. Ultimately, the learned Judge observed as under in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment:  It is also urged by Sri Prasad, the learned Counsel for the applicant herein, that there are infirmities in the electoral roll which requires that electoral rolls are rectified. This argument is advanced on the premise that the 37 new members ought not to have formed part of the Electoral College. This contention is misconceived and does not command consideration by this Court. The 37 members, including the writ Petitioners are as on date valid members of the society not having been divested of such membership by any formal proceedings issued in due conformity with law. Be that as it may alleged deficiencies in the electoral roll are not a ground relevant to interdict the democratic process of election to a co-operative society. The contention is accordingly rejected.. Yet another proceeding relating to the launching of prosecution at the instance of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on the basis of the alleged misappropriation of societies funds was initiated and subsequently an order came to be passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Housing Department dated 29-3-2004, in Memo No. 2768/CH1/2003-9. By the said order, the Government while setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies also observed that the existing committee which came into being with the support of the invalid votes of the 37 disputed members, who participated in the elections should be declared as null and void and that the 37 disputed members should be replaced to set right the affairs of the society.  15. The said part of the order dated 29-3-2004 declaring the membership of the 37 persons as invalid was challenged by the society by filing Writ Petition No. 7794 of 2004 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. By order dated 15-12-2006, the learned Single Judge while affirming the order dated 29-3-2004, insofar as it set aside the proceedings of the Registrar dated 15-1-2002 and 25-1-2002, however, held that the findings arrived at by the State Government, insofar as it related to the election of the existing committee members and allotments of plots to the 11 member have to be treated as non est in law, since the First Respondent has gone into the question which was not canvassed before it.  16. In pursuance of the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 1056 of 1999 and Writ Petition No. 18294 of 1999, the Divisional Co-operative Officer, by his order dated 2-4-2004, decided to authorize the Sub-Divisional Co-operative Officer, Secunderabad Mandal, to convene the General Body Meeting of the society to decide the issue of membership. The Divisional Co-operative Officer passed further order on 22-12-2004 and gave further directions authorizing the Sub-Divisional Co-operative Officer, Secunderabad Mandal, to convene the General Body Meeting for deciding the membership in pursuance of the orders of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1056 of 1999 dated 2-8-1999 and the order of the Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 18294 of 1999 dated 1-9-1999. Pursuant to the said direction, the date and time for the General Body Meeting was fixed on 22-5-2005 at 11.30 a.m. Though, as scheduled, the members stated to have assembled on 22-5-2005, the Presiding Officer did not commence the Meeting. Therefore, the Meeting, as directed by the Sub-Divisional Co-operative Officer, did not take place. Nevertheless, 15 of the members stated to have proceeded with the Meeting and passed some resolution adverse to the interest of the 37 members and forwarded the same to the Officers of the Co-operative Society. But, by a communication dated 4-6-2005, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society addressed the society and made it clear that the issue of convening the General Body Meeting was re-examined by the Deputy Registrar and in the light of the order dated 8-11-2000 in Writ Petition No. 11268 of 2000 and the interim order dated 26-4-2004 in Writ Petition No. 7794 of 2004 it was decided not to proceed with the proposed General body Meeting on 22-5-2005. The said communication also revealed that the Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer, who convened the General Body Meeting, explained the said position to the members on 22-5-2005, that there would be no discussion on the agenda and the General Body Meeting would not take place. Ultimately, the so-called resolution claimed to have been passed by 15 of the members was held to be invalid.  17. There was also Writ Petition filed in W.P. No. 701 of 2003, wherein there was a challenge to an order of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal in C.T.A. No. 160 of 2000, by which the Tribunal set aside an award A.R.C. 3 of 1998 dated 10-3-2002, passed by the (sic) Registrar. The said Writ Petition (sic) be dismissed upholding the order (sic) Tribunal. The sum and substance of the order of the Tribunal was that the so-called allotment of lands, to the promoting members, anticipating the approval of the layout was not valid and, therefore, the resolution passed by the Society allotting the plots to the founder members, subject to the approval of the layout was held to be arbitrary and illegal. The Writ Petition preferred by the so-called founder members was dismissed with an observation that the said order would not preclude the General Body from considering the allotment of plots in favour of the members of the society after the layout is sanctioned by taking into consideration their seniority as per the Bye-Laws concerning allotment of plots.

Court's reasoning:
18. Having noted the development after the emergence of the society and after its registration, as well as the issue relating to the admission of the new members to the society and the various orders passed by the officers of the department of the society, as well as the High Court, before examining the correctness of the orders impugned in these appeals, it will be necessary to note the provisions of the Bye-Laws to ascertain as to the rights of the original members and the members who claim to have been subsequently admitted into the society. There is no controversy that the object of the society is for the benefit of getting housing facility for its members in accordance with the co-operative principles.19. A reading of Bye-Law No. 5 disclose that in order to be eligible to become a member, an individual should be a major, he should be of sound mind, he should not have any house in the city in his name or in the name of his wife or minor children and that he should not be a member of any other house building society in the same area. If the above conditions are satisfied, he would be eligible to become a member.20. Though, the Bye-Laws do not specifically state that such an individual should be an employee of the Voltas Company, since the very society was formed by the employees of Voltas and the name itself makes it clear that the society was formed by the employees of the Voltas for providing housing facility, it is imperative that the individual should be an employee of Voltas. As per Bye-Law No. 6 read along with Bye-Law No. 4, one who seeks to become a Member should be a shareholder and the cost of such share has been fixed at ` 100, made up of 5000 shares, which would form the capital of the society. When an application for admission as a member for allotment of the share is made to the Secretary of the society in the prescribed form, such an application should be disposed of by the Managing Committee, who has been empowered to grant admission and allot shares or refuse the sane. In the event of refusing to allot a share, reasons will have to be adduced. Bye-Law No. 6(b) also states that if no such decision is communicated within the prescribed time, then within 50 days from the date of application for membership, the society shall be deemed to have admitted such applicant as a member on the date of expiration of 60 days from the date of application and the Secretary should give effect to such admission. Once a person is admitted as a member of the society by virtue of Bye-Law No. 7, he will be eligible for the services of the society.21. After the membership of a person into the society is confirmed, his exit from the society can be either by way of disqualification as provided under Bye-Law No. 8, or by way of withdrawal of share capital under Bye-Law No. 12 or by way of an expulsion under Bye-Law No. 16. If the exist of a membership is by way of a disqualification, it should come under any one of the Sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Bye-Law No. 8. If it is by way of withdrawal of share capital, as provided under Bye-Law No. 12, then again the stipulation contained in the said Bye-Law should be fulfilled. If a member is to be expelled, specific procedure has been prescribed under Bye-Law No. 16(1) and in the event of any resolution for expulsion having been passed as prescribed under Bye-Law No. 16(1), such expulsion should have the approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Bye-law No. 16(2). Therefore, an expulsion of a member cannot be claimed to be made by a mere stand taken by the society. There must be an order of approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Society confirming the expulsion resorted to as proscribed under Bye-Law No. 16(1) or otherwise, such an expulsion of membership claimed by the society cannot be valid.22. One other provision in the Bye-Law to be noted is the term of the Managing Committee, which has been prescribed under Bye-Law No. 22. It states that such term shall be for a period of 3 years and that any proceedings of the Managing Committee should be invalidated on account of any vacancy or vacancies of the Committee, which may remain unfilled. Under the said Bye-Law, it is stipulated that all the members of the committee would vacate their office on the expiry of the term of the office of the committee. These are all the salient features in the Bye-Laws. Apart from the above specific provisions, under Bye-Law No. 36, it is stated that the ultimate authority in all matters relating to the administration of the society, shall vest in the General Body. Even an expulsion of a member is one of the specific powers to be exercised only by the General Body.23. Keeping the abovesaid prescription in the Bye-Law, when we examine the emergence of the society and the subsequent events, it is not in dispute that at the time of formation of the society, the founder members were 28 in number in the year 1981. A list of members, as from the year 1981-82 onwards, disclose that as on 30-6-1982, the membership went up to 43, which remained constant, though there was a slight increase in the membership up to 56 sometime in the year 1988. As on 31-3-1997, the total number of members were 75. Be that as it may, when the society purchased the land admeasuring 1 acre 14 guntas in Survey No. 233 to Thokatta Village in the year 1982, it is stated that the cost of the land was incurred by 11 of the members of the society, namely, M. Balakrishnan, K. Sivarama Raju, V. Sivaramakrishna. P.S. Sastry, N. Suryaprakush Rao, K. Bhaktavatsalam. T.S. Benerjee, T.N. Shankar, C. Viswam, U. Talapathi and K.G.K. Murthy. It is also mentioned in one other statement that the land cost was collected from the other members in the year 1983-84, as per which statement the total investment was in a sum of ` 64,000/-.26. From the above proceedings, it must be stated that the admission of the 37 members to the society was a concluded issue as on the date of the General Body, namely, 4-4-1997. However, the offices of the Co-operative Department took a sudden u-turn in the year 1998, when the Deputy Registrar issued a communication to the society on 1-12-1998, stating that the instructions issued by it in its letter dated 25-9-1996 was to be treated as withdrawn based on the proceedings of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies dated 17-4-1997. It will have to be stated that the said stand of the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies is not permissible in law and we do not find any support for such a stand either based on any Statutory Provision or any other rule or regulation. That apart, when based on the said communication dated 1-12-1998, the society wanted to withdraw the membership of the 37 persons, the issue went before the High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 3720 of 1999, which was rejected by the learned Singh Judge in Writ Appeal No. 1056 of 1999, the proceedings of the society dated 20-7-1999, withdrawing the membership, was set aside with the observation that it is open to the society to decide one way or the other with respect to the membership of one of the 37 members. The said conclusion was followed in respect of 25 other persons among the 37 members when their Writ Petition in W.P. No. 18294 of 1999 was decided by order dated 1-9-1999, wherein in the conclusion in Writ Appeal No. 1056 of 1999 was followed.27. Though, the society wanted to initiate proceedings by issuing show cause notice on 6-10-1999, the fact remains that the said show cause notice was not pursued. On the other hand, in Writ Petition No. 11268 of 2011 by order dated 18-11-2000, the High Court virtually declared that the 37 members, including the writ Petitioners, had become valid members as on the date of the order as society not having divested of such membership in any formal proceedings in due conformity with the law. It was stated in the said order that any alleged deficiencies in the electoral roll cannot be a relevant ground to interdict the democratic process of elections to a cooperative society and the contention that the 37 new members cannot form part of the Electoral College was rejected. It must be pointed out that the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 18-11-2000 passed in W.P. No. 11268 of 2011 was not varied at any point of time in any subsequent proceedings, either in an appeal or by any other valid order passed by the society. In fact, subsequently, while dealing with an issue relating to the prosecution of the members for alleged misappropriation when the State Government passed an order on 29-3-2004, it was innocuously stated that the disputed membership of 37 persons cannot be accepted, as their membership was not valid. The said order was challenged in a separate writ petition in W.P. No. 7794 of 2004 and the said part of the order was also set aside by the High Court in the order dated 15-12-2006. Here again it must be stated that the said order in W.P. No. 7794 of 2004 has become final and conclusive as the same was not challenged in the manner known to law. The said writ petition was filed by the society itself. The net result was that by virtue of the orders passed in W.P. No. 11268 of 2000 dated 18-11-2000 and the order dated 15-12-2006 in W.P. No. 7794 of 2004, the validity of membership of these 37 persons was beyond the pale of controversy.28. One other factor which has also to be noted is that belatedly, an attempt was made by the department in a proceeding dated 2-4-2004, to deal with the validity of membership of these 37 person by directing one of its officers, namely, the Sub-Divisional Co-operative Officer to call for a General Body Meeting of the society and decide the issue relating to the membership. Pursuant to the said proceeding, though a General Body Meeting was called for by the said officer and a date was also fixed as 22-5-2005, the said Meeting was not convened, since the proceedings of the Deputy Registrar dated 4-6-2005 made it clear the that the Sub-Divisional Co-operative Officer who convened the General Body Meeting, explained to the members on 22-5-2005 and made it clear that there would not be any discussion on the agenda, namely, about the validity of the admission of the 37 members and that there was no General Body Meeting as proposed to be convened. Therefore, as pointed out by use earlier, the admission of the 37 members based on the Meeting dated 3-10-1996, can no longer be in controversy as it was a concluded issue.29. Even while holding so, it must be noted that if at all the membership of the 37 persons were to be cancelled, the same could have been done by applying any of the relevant provisions in the Bye-Law, namely, on the ground of eligibility as provided under By-Law No. 5 or by way of disqualification as provided under Bye-Law No. 8 or by withdrawal of share capital as provided under Bye-Law No. 12 or by way of an expulsion as stipulated in Bye-law No. 16. As far as the eligibility criteria is concerned, it was not pointed out before us that any of the 37 members lacked such eligibility as stipulated in Bye-Law No. 5. It was also not pointed out before us in the form of any acceptable material that any of the 37 members suffered disqualification as provided under Bye-Law No. 8. As far as application of Bye-Law No. 12 is concerned, it must be stated that out of 37 members, 10 have accepted their refund of share capital and as on date, only 27 out of the 37 remain, who returned the cheques issued by the society during the year 1999, along with proceeding dated 20-7-1999.30. When we come to the expulsion of membership, it is not the case of either the society or any of the rival claimants that any such proceeding for such expulsion, as stipulated under Bye-Law No. 16, was carried out and that such proceeding was also approved by the Registrar. In such circumstances, in the absence of any such valid order of approval by the Registrar relating to the expulsion of the newly added members, there is no question of the remaining 27 members having ceased to be the members of the society.31. Keeping the above factors in mind, relating to the 37 members, now 27, the only other question which remains to be considered is as to the entitlement of the members of the society for a housing accommodation in the land admeasuring 1 acre 14 guntas in Survey No. 233 of Thokatta Village. When we consider the said issue, the claim of the so-called 11 founder members is that the entire value of the land was borne by them and, therefore, they are exclusively entitled to the distribution of the land amongst themselves. Such a claim was distinctly mentioned in the General Body Meeting of the society held on 4-4-1997.32. Though, such a stand was expressed by the Chair in the General Body Meeting, no definite conclusion to that effect was arrived at in the General Body Meeting. Besides such a claim made by the so called 11 founder members, it must be stated that such a claim will have to be tested on the anvil of the provisions contained in the Bye-Laws. For this purpose, when we examine the provisions in the Bye-Laws, the object clause in Bye-Law No. 2 states that the object of the society is to carry on for the benefit of its members, the trade of building and of buying, selling, hiring, letting and developing land in accordance with the co-operative principles, apart from giving loans to members for construction of new dwelling houses. Therefore, the object is very explicit to the effect that it is for the benefit of the members and it should be in accordance with the co-operative principles. Bye-Law No. 4 prescribes the total share capital to be made up to 5000 shares of ` 100 each, the other source of fund can be as prescribed in Bye-Law No. 17. Bye-Law No. 17 under the head Funds states that the society will ordinarily obtain funds from 10 sources, namely, share capital from the members, loan from the Government, deposits from members, entrance and other fees, AP Cooperative Housing Societys Federation Ltd., Scheduled and Nationalised Banks, BDA, LIC, Hadco and Voltas Ltd. There is no information as to whether any fund was gathered from any other source, except the share capital from the members and the funds invested by such of those members who initially formed the society and by those members who subsequently joined the society. In fact, pursuant to a direction of this Court in the order dated 4-9-2012, to one of the queries, which was directed to be answered by the Registrar, it has come to light that the contribution for the sale deed was ` 48,000/- though as per cash book the consideration paid was shown as ` 2,60,000/-. That apart, a list was annexed along with the answer to another query by way of Annexure 2, which disclose that the contribution in a sum of ` 3,06,795/- came to be made by 34 members of the society, on different dates between 24-8-1982 and 30-4-1982.33. To yet another query made by this Court by way of Annexure 4, it is disclosed that contributions were also made after 30-4-1982, i.e., between 11-10-1982 and 30-11-1989, in different sums ranging from ` 5000/- to ` 39,000/-, though may of the members got back their investments by way of refund, while some of the members continue to retain such investments. To yet another query by way of Annexure 6, the Registrar has disclosed that as many as 34 members who sought such membership after 25-9-1996, have invested sums ranging from ` 1500/- to ` 2,40,000/-, in all a sum of ` 17,48,569/-. For the said sum the break-up of the expenses has also been disclosed in the annexure. De hors the question whether such investments made and the expenses incurred is to be scrutinized and the veracity of such expenses incurred by the society are to be accepted or not the fact emerges that the founder members, as well as those who subsequently came to be admitted as members, have invested large sums by way of deposits into the society. The question for consideration, therefore, is how to treat those sums, once it was brought into the funds of the society.34. In this context, Bye-Law No. 17 assumes significance. It will have to be stated that whatever maybe the intention of the members of the society, while making various deposits into the accounts of the society, since, the funds of the society can be regulated only as per the Bye-laws of the society whatever sum invested by the members of the society, can be either towards the share capital, which cannot exceed 5000 shares of ` 100 each or by way of deposits by the members as provided under Bye-Law No. 17. Since, the membership has been confirmed based on the shares acquired by each of the individuals, whatever other sum brought into the accounts of the society, can only be taken as the deposits of the members. Therefore, the amount deposited by the individual members of the society can be utilized only to meet the cost of the land originally purchased nearly 1 acre and 14 guntas in Survey No. 233 of Thokatta Village or for any future investment to be made in any other lands to be purchased or to be used for advancing any loan for the purpose of construction of building by the members. In other words, the individual members cannot seek to claim that because the purchase of land in Survey No. 233 was from and out of the amount advanced by them to the society, the land so purchased should be held to exclusively belong to those members. Such a claim of individual members cannot be accepted. In fact, such a claim would run counter to the cooperative principles, which is the object of the society when it came to be formed.35. Once the land in Survey No. 233 in an extent of 1 acre and 14 guntas in Thokatta Village was purchased by the society, the property vests in the society. Therefore, it is for the society to consider how to deal with the said land in accordance with the co-operative principles and the objects with which the society was formed as mentioned in the Bye-Laws. It is not for the individual members to claim in what manner the land should be dealt with for the purpose of distribution amongst its members. At the risk of repetition, it will have to be stated that the members, who contributed their funds to the society, have no exclusive right to claim any share in the property on the ground that they made the investments for the purchase of the land. The said claim of the members both founder members and those who came to be subsequently admitted in the society, therefore, stands rejected.36. Therefore, to put it in clear and unambiguous terms, all those investments made either by the founder members or by the subsequent members other than those relating to the share capital, can only be taken as their deposits forming part of the funds of the society. The society is, therefore, bound to account for such deposits made by the members from the relevant dates and whatever prevailing interest in the market should accrue to such deposits and depending upon the volition of the member, it is for the society to take a decision either for refund of the sum so deposited after a fixed period or for using the same to meet the cost of the land in the event of its ultimate distribution to its various members.38. We find that such a conclusion and direction made by the learned Single Judge in the said order in Writ Petition No. 701 of 2003, is not only the only course but the appropriate course to be followed by the society. In our considered view, any other attempt to deal with the land already purchased by the society, will not only run counter to the cooperative principles but will only create further complications and result in utter chaos and confusion. Therefore, neither the founder members nor those who were subsequently inducted/admitted as members, can claim any preference or right of allotment in any particular manner, other than the manner in which the learned judge has directed in the said order.