The plaintiff respondent M s. Future Builders Co op.
Since there was delay in the registration and incorporation of the Society, the suit land was purchased in the name of the First Defendant who is also one of the Promoters from Sri Mohammad Sarvar and others and the patta was transferred in the name of these defendants.
Counsel for the Defendants 1 to 4 Verification The facts stated above are true to the best of our knowledge, belief and information.
The plaintiffs further case is that for the purpose of registration under Co operative Societies Act, it was necessary to show to the Registrar that they have entered into an agreement for purchase of land for the benefit of its members.
Hence the suit may be decreed as prayed for but without companyts.
A Memorandum of Agreement dated 16.09.1981 was also executed to the effect that the plaintiff would hold the land as owner.
7940 to 7942 of 2004 which were also dismissed on 15.03.2007.
1,00,000/ and their willingness for transfer of patta in favour of the plaintiff.
Another petition was filed by the defendants being I.A. No.416 of 2000 under Order VIII Rule 9 and Order VI Rule 5 of CPC seeking leave of the companyrt to permit them to file a detailed written statement.
2102 of 2003 which was also dismissed on 25.06.2003.
The said petition was objected by the plaintiff.
The defendants, therefore, prayed to the companyrt to decree the suit.
On being summoned, the defendants appeared and filed a joint written statement on 19.01.1995 admitting the claim of the plaintiff stating that after filing of the suit there was a mediation wherein the dispute was settled and, accordingly, a sum of Rs.
593 of 2007.
As numbericed above, the defendant appellants filed application on 28.02.2000 under Order VI Rule 16 of CPC being I.A. No.
The Society was registered on 28.08.1981 and defendant No.1 having obtained a Sale Deed dated 02.01.1979 and transfer of patta in the name of himself and defendant Nos.
Defendants 1.
The trial companyrt in companypliance of the aforesaid directions finally heard the amendment petition and by order dated 27.09.2007 allowed the petition permitting the defendants to amend the written statement.
The defendant appellants challenged the said order by filing Civil Revisions in the High Court being CRP Nos.502 and 505 which were ultimately dismissed on 18.09.2002.
The defendant appellants then filed review petition being Review CMP No.
1,00,000/ was paid to them and they were then willing to transfer the patta in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff who had already acquired title.
1,00,000/ Rupees one lakhs only is paid as full quid to these defendants and these defendants are willing to transfer of the patta in favour of the plaintiff who has already acquired the title as stated in the plaint.
The defendants, on the basis of such admission, prayed to the companyrt that the suit be decreed but without any companyts.
It was alleged that before the Society was registered, its promoters identified the suit land as fit for the purpose and negotiated with the owner and entrusted the work to the first defendant for effecting purchase after measurement and a sum of Rs.
Hence, suit.
The plaintiff Society challenged the aforesaid order allowing amendment of the written statement by filing revision petitions before the High Court.
The trial companyrt by order dated 07.02.2000 permitted the defendants to change their advocates without prejudice to the rights of the parties.
The order was challenged in the High Court in Revision which was disposed of with the directions to the trial companyrt to register the application and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order.
It was alleged by the plaintiff Society that the defendants, in spite of several requests and demands, were postponing the transfer of patta in respect of the suit property in its name on one pretext or the other.
The defendants then preferred appeals to this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.
The said application was registered as I.A. SR No.
The trial companyrt rejected the said application by a number speaking order.
The trial companyrt after hearing the parties dismissed both the petitions being I.A. Nos.415 and 416 of 2000 by companymon order dated 04.01.2002.
Another application being I.A.No.416 of 2000 under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC was filed praying that the defendants may be permitted to file detailed written statement in the suit since the earlier written statement filed by them was against their interests.
Thereafter, defendants filed another petition under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure CPC being I.A. No.415 of 2000 on 28.02.2000 seeking leave of the companyrt to strike out the pleadings in the written statement or to expunge the written statement and to permit them to file a detailed written statement.
It was agreed that the sale deed would be obtained in the name of the first defendant and a patta would be got transferred in his name or of his numberinee for the benefit of the Society.
After the suit is filed there is mediation and settlement and a sum of Rs.
Hence, these appeals by special leave filed by the defendant appellants.
The written statement companytains of only four paragraphs, which are as under WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED UNDER ORDER 8 RULE 1 CVIL PROCEDURE CODE by Defendants 1 to 4 The first defendant was entrusted with the work of purchase of the land for the Plaintiffs Society before its incorporation.
415 of 2000 praying that the earlier written statement be struck out since the same was against their interests.
2 to 4 appellants herein , who are his wife and sons in respect of the suit property, had delivered possession to the Society and they further agreed to secure the patta in the name of the plaintiff Society.
The youngest son of the first defendant filed a petition being l.A. 1819 of 2000 seeking leave of the companyrt to implead him as party to those two interlocutory petitions which was, however, allowed and the said son was brought on record.
While rejecting the applications, the trial companyrt elaborately discussed the facts of the case and companysidered the arguments advanced by the lawyers as also the decisions relied upon by them with regard to withdrawal of admission by filing fresh written statement.
Both applications were taken up together by the trial companyrt and disposed of by companymon order dated 04.01.2002.
From bare perusal of the written statement, it is manifestly clear that the defendant appellants categorically admitted number only the case of the plaintiff but also acknowledged receipt of Rs.
These defendants held it for the benefit of the plaintiffs and after the Society was incorporated on 28.8.2001, delivered the land to the plaintiff and also executed a Memorandum dated 16.9.1981 which was ratified by the Plaintiff Society.
Aggrieved by the above said orders, the appellants moved this Court in Civil Appeal No.7940 7942 of 2004.
10,000/ was paid to him.
Since the plaintiff postponed the settlement of accounts, these defendants did number apply for transfer of patta in favour of the plaintiff.
Housing Society in short the plaintiff Society filed a suit against the defendant appellants for declaration of title in respect of the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint in short the suit property and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession.
The said revision petitions filed by the plaintiff Society under Article 227 were heard at length and finally those petitions were allowed by the High Court vide order dated 28.12.2007 and the order of the trial companyrt allowing amendment of the written statement was set aside.
Controversy started when the defendants after filing of the written statement and admitting the claim of the plaintiff filed a petition being I.A. No.2217 of 1995, later renumbered as I.A. No.162 of 2000, seeking permission to change their advocates on the ground that they were acting detrimental to their interest by filing written statement companytrary to the instructions.
After the defendants lost the claim upto this Court and their prayer was refused, a fresh petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed seeking leave of the Court to amend the written statement.
The Society was founded by several promoters including the first defendant S. Malla Reddy appellant herein .
Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted.
One of the terms of the Memorandum was that the plaintiff agreed to pay the expenses incurred by the defendants for the development and protection of the land.
The defendants appellants herein have assailed the companymon order dated 28.12.2007 passed by a learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, whereby the Revision Petitions filed by the plaintiff respondent M s Future Builders Coop Society under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been allowed and the order passed by the trial companyrt allowing amendment in the written statement has been set aside.
The case of the plaintiff Society is that the Society is a registered Society under the Andhra Pradesh Co operative Societies Act with the object to acquire or purchase land for the benefit of its members and render it fit for habitation.
The facts of the case lie in a narrow companypass.
The first defendant alleged to have executed an agreement on 8.3.1978 in favour of the Chief Promoter of the Society, inter alia, agreeing that the first defendant will get the land measured and obtain legal opinion and pay the money to the land owner.
Some more developments took place during the pendency of those petitions.
