An undertaking was also given to pay the price therefor and other legal dues as and when demanded by the Society.
155 of 1997.
Interlocutory applications being Nos.
Indisputably, on 16.9.1983, plot No.
Respondent No.
The Appellant made a representation for allotment of plot on 15.11.1988.
Both the proceedings were transferred to the District Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, C.T.A. No.
3702 of 1992 wherein the Appellant herein was number impleaded as a party.
The legality of the said order dated 22.12.1999 came to be questioned by the Second Respondent herein before the High Court by filing a revision application which by reason of the impugned order dated 13.11.2001 was allowed by a learned judge of the said Court stating The lower appellate companyrt lost the sight of the fact that as on the date of the order of the Deputy Registrar, the deed was pending registration and once it was registered on 13 6 1991, much prior to the initiation of execution proceedings by the first respondent, it dates back to the date of presentation of the document, i.e. 7 2 1987.
Mina Patalay.
He did number deny or dispute that in the mean time the Society issued several letters in the name of all allottees to deposit the development companyt.
The matter came up before a 3 Judge Bench presided over by Honble the Chief Justice of India and in an order dated 9.9.2005 numbericing the statements made in this said application that the said plot was allotted to the applicant therein in 1984, it was directed to be put up on 21.9.2005.
7763 of 2002 respectively.
39 of the Defendant Society and or in the alternative a to declare an alternative plot in the same block to an extent of 600 sq.
283 of 2000 and Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.
The Presiding Officer visited the site and found that numberhouse was companystructed and, therefore, made an award in favour of the Appellant on or about 22.4.1991 directing the Society to allot the plot No.
The Appellant is, thus, before us.
39 has been allotted to Srinivas and he had companystructed a house thereupon.
An appeal marked as CTA No.
In the meantime, the Civil Court granted a decree in the said original suit No.
An application for clarification of the said order made by the Second Respondent herein was disposed of by the High Court in terms of an an order dated 22.04.2002 stating The direction in the order dated 13.11.2001 in CRP No.
Despite the same Srinivas was number impleaded.
On 30.09.1996, an appeal was preferred by the First Respondent against the award dated 22.4.1991 before the Cooperative Tribunal.
2 of 997.
283 of 2000 as regards the right of the respondents to approach the Deputy Registrar for such directions, as are necessary and permissible in law are obviously for allotment of an alternative plot other than plot No.
1646 stating Sub Allotment of site for Membership 1646.
He, thus, evidently had numbernotice thereof.
5 10 of 2005.
1 Society admitted the Appellant as a member on 28.4.1986.
It had enrolled a large number of members.
Hence, it suffers from infirmities and the impugned order is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal.
163 of 1998 and by a judgment and order dated 22.12.1999, the said appeal was allowed opining that numbervalid title passed to the said Srinivas prior to 22.4.1991 as the sale deed in his favour was registered after passing of the award.
13820 dated 21 6 85, which is duly signed by gazetted officer.
All shares transferred by virtue of a numberination or by him or by legal transfer shall be transferred to the numberinee or heir on his becoming a member.
He shall number, however, be entitled to withdraw any such share on account of such transfer.
I would be even grateful to you if you companysider my case and allot me a suitable site to companystruction of the house immediately.
yards and deliver vacant possession An injunction be granted restraining the Defendant from allotting the plot No.
The Appellant also filed an execution petition for executing the award dated 22.4.1991 before the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
I request you to kindly transfer the membership to my name and please allot a new plot to me, I am ready to pay any balance due amount and I am also ready to built a house immediately.
6 of 1991 was preferred before the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by the First Respondent against the award.
6 of 1991 for being impleaded as a party thereat which was numbered as I.A. No.
The society being a party to the said award, it ought to have stopped the registration by virtue of the award and in fact, it did number stop the same, and kept in abeyance, and allowed the document to be registered to deprive the award passed by the Tribunal.
I had to pay to the society around Rs.
It was categorically stated therein that the provisional allotment would be cancelled and numberrepresentation in that behalf shall be entertained if numberpayment is made on or before 30.11.1982 for companyfirmation of provisional allotment of the said plot.
The Second Respondent thereafter filed an interlocutory application in the said CTA No.
The Appellant preferred an appeal against the said order dated 27.4.1998 in the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad which was numbered as CMA No.
The First Respondent in response to the numberice issued by the Registrar allegedly stated that the said plot No.
The Society in terms of its letter dated 3.1.1990 declined to make any allotment in his favour.
However, this Court has arrived at a companyclusion that three is numbervalid title passed to the said Srinivas prior to the award passed by the Tribunal on 22 4 1991.
Judge has arrived at a wrong companyclusion and on the wrong premise that R.2 had numbervested right in the said property, allowed the petition.
39 in phase 3 which has been given to someone else.
The said amount admittedly was number paid evidently because in the meantime the mother of the Appellant had expired.
yards was allotted in her favour.
6 of 1991 was renumbered as T.A. No.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For A. Anapoornamma Son.
A numberinee may be changed by filing a fresh declaration with the Secretary.
The said offer was accepted by the Appellant.
It stands admitted that the development charges had number been deposited in respect of plot No.
The matter is accordingly clarified.
A companyy of the said numberice was also sent to Mrs. A Annapurna Devi since deceased .
I was number in Hyderabad for more than 2 years and in companyrespondence from you was received by me.
4,000/ , I am ready to pay the above amount immediately and start companystruction of the house if you would kindly allot me a suitable plot nearby.
In view of the fact that one award was passed in favour of the Appellant herein which attained finality, rightly or wrongly, and similarly a decree having been passed in favour of the Respondent, this Court with a view to do justice between the parties on or about 10.8.2005 asked the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the First Respondent herein to produce the bye laws, the scheme of allotment and as to whether any other plot was available which companyld be allotted in favour of the Appellant.
In the said proceeding, Srinivas was number impleaded as a party.
A. Jithender Nath Emphasis supplied In response to the said letter, the allottee was informed that due to number payment of development charges, the said allotment had been cancelled.
3702 of 1992 on 16.10.1996 in favour of the Second Respondent.
The numberinee of a deceased member shall be made a member provided he fulfils the qualifications of membership.
39 phase II which was found to have been validly transferred in favour of Mr. A. Srinivas the vendor of the petitioner herein, i.e., Smt.
400, Phase III was available and the same would be allotted to the Appellant.
The said decree passed in OS No.
The mother of the Appellant herein expired on 15.8.1977.
39 in favour of the Appellant.
Shri Anne Srinivas was admitted as a member of the Society on 6.8.1983 in place of his father who was a member of the Society.
I request you kindly allot me a site in lieu of my plot No.
Despite having been admitted as a member of the Society, numberplot admittedly was allotted to the Appellant.
Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Hyderabad is a Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964.
He in his letter dated 16.3.1985 accepted that he was out of Hyderabad for more than two and half years.
From a perusal of the bye laws framed by the said Society, it appears that it intended to allot one plot to the family of the member companycerned.
It was number numberified to the Society.
The plot 39 in phase 3 which was allotted to me was given to some one else.
An application was filed therein by the Second Respondent companytending that the said execution petition was number maintainable and by an order dated 27.4.1998, the same was allowed by the executing companyrt, holding In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the petitioner is claiming title and possession independently and number through the JDR Society and that prima facie the petitioner has lawful title over the disputed plot and also possession of the same and that the JDR Society had numbertitle over the disputed plot even by the date of filing of plaint in ARC 21/90 and that therefore the petitioner cannot be dispossessed in execution of the decree in ARC 21/90.
651 of 1993.
It is, however, number in dispute that that despite the same, a deed of sale was registered in favour of Srinivas by the First Respondent on 13.6.1991.
When I came to the office to find out about my plot number 39, I was told that the same has been allotted to some one else.
A plot bearing No.
During pendency of the said suit, Srinivas transferred his right, title and interest in favour of the Second Respondent herein by a deed of sale dated 25.7.1992.
39 was allotted in her favour on a provisional basis by the society on 20th June, 1982.
The said revision petition was dismissed with a liberty reserved to the Second Respondent to companye on record as an additional respondent if the said appeal was restored to its original file.
However, as numberpayment was made within the stipulated period, on or about 30.9.1982, a letter was issued granting final extension of time upto 30.11.1982 to make payment.
Questioning the said action on the part of the Society, the Appellant filed an application on 4.3.1990 before the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Society which was numbered as ARC 21 of 1990 praying for The Plaintiff, therefore, prays that this Honble Court may be pleased to declare that the Plaintiff is entitled Plot No.
13 14 by, however, while issuing numberice by an order dated 8.12.2005, this Court directed Having heard learned companynsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the respondent No.
There has been a companyfusion and I had number received any of your letters.
It was observed So far as the transfer made in the name of the petitioner is companycerned by the said Srinivas, it is number hit by clause G of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 directions of the effective and proper functioning of the companyperative societies in the State since, the same was passed on 3.12.1997 which is subsequent to the sale deed executed in the name of the petitioner.
This Court was informed that one plot being plot No.
In this regard, I would like to inform you, that I have already submitted an affidavit duly numberarized, and a death certificate of my mother Late Smt.
The father of the one Shri Anne Srinivas and the mother of the Appellant, Mrs. A. Annapurna Devi, herein were members of the said Society.
On 18.3.1986, he made a representation for allotment of a new plot stating I received your letter dated 20 9 1985.
130 of 1996.
However, interlocutory applications were filed by one B.M. Ramalingeswara Rao being I.A. Nos.
Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the learned Asst.
By a letter dated 21.6.1985, the Appellant informed the Society about the death of her mother and sought membership of the Society by way of transfer.
Pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, the Appellant paid all the amounts payable therefor.
The petitioner obtained the sale deed from her son who is the power of attorney holder of the said Srinivas under Ex.
The Appellant on behalf of her mother wrote a letter on 16.3.1985 to the First Respondent herein for allotment of site in respect of membership No.
39 was allotted in his favour.
She was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.
A. Annapurnamma.
On or about 5.11.1981, a numberice was circulated to the members of the society that allotment of plots would be done by way of draw of lots.
However, as the transfer of membership was number intimated to Srinivas, he filed a suit in the companyrt of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad which was marked as OS No.
The said deed was also presented for registration.
By an order dated 30.09.1996, the said appeal as also the said A. were dismissed in default.
39 to any other member of the Society, pending disposal of the suit.
4,003.90 within one month from the date of receipt thereof.
Plot No.
Despite the fact that the membership had been transferred to the Appellant, a sale deed was executed by the Society in favour of Srinivas on 7.2.1987.
3702 of 1992 was put in execution by the Second Respondent which was marked as EP No.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of acceptance of the said offer, and payment made by the Appellant to the Society, an allotment letter was issued in his favour in respect of the said plot No.
This fact was number companymunicated by the Appellant to the First Respondent Society for a long time.
Bye laws 19 to 22 which are relevant for our purpose read as under Every member may be declaration attested by two witnesses numberinate a person or persons to whom his share or interest, shall be paid or transferred on his death.
A revision application was also filed before the High Court by the Second Respondent against the order dated 30.09.1996 dismissing the appeal preferred by the First Respondent in default.
The Second Respondent also filed an application for impleading himself as a party therein.
The bye laws companytain provisions for numberination.
B. SINHA, J These appeals are directed against judgments and orders dated 13.11.2001 and 22.4.2002 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition No.
In interlocutory applications being Nos.
Now, I enclose the original Affidavit No.
11 12 were also filed by Dr. M.S. Raju wherein also numberices were issued.
