Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pelleti Ravindra Reddy , vs The Gudur Lorry Owners Welfare ... on 2 December, 2021
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C. Praveen Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No. 201 of 2020
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
1) The present Writ Petition came to be filed challenging the Award in Lok Adalath Case No. 61 of 2018 passed by the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Gudur, on 21.07.2018, arising out of O.S. No. 253 of 2014 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, as illegal, improper and incorrect.
2) (i) The Petitioner herein claiming himself to be the President of Gudur Lorry Owners Welfare Association, filed the present Writ Petition stating that the Gudur Taluka Lorry Owners Association, purchased a vacant site in its name and registered the same under the Indian Trusts Act, for providing parking space to the lorries of the Gudur Taluka Lorry Owners Association. Though, the property was initially purchased by Gudur Taluka Lorry Owners Association, but, subsequently, the same got merged with the property of the Gudur Lorry Owners Welfare Association ['Association'].
(ii) While things stood thus, the 9th Respondent herein in connivance with Menakuru Venkata Krishnaiah and few others sold away the land of the Association. It is said that 2 the Members of the Association highhandedly broke open the Office premises on 21.10.2010 and took away the documents pertaining to that land. Pursuant to which, a private complaint is said to have been filed, which was referred to Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to registration of a case in Crime No. 153 of 2010. It is further stated that, Menakuru Venkata Krishnaiah along with few others without following the procedure prescribed under law passed a resolution declaring himself as 'President' of the Association, and the said resolution came to be registered in the Office of Registrar at Nellore. Though a complaint was lodged with Sub-Registrar, Nellore, the same was not looked into by the concerned. It is said that, Members of the Association divided the property into plots and without taking permission from the Court, sold away the plots to others thereby causing loss to the Association.
(iii) It is said that, Menakuru Venkata Krishnaiah claiming himself as 'President' of the Association filed O.S. No. 248 of 2011 to declare his right over the property. The Petitioner claims to have applied for certified copy of the plaint and also the interlocutory application filed therein and after noticing the contents therein, filed an application to add him as proposed defendant, so as to bring in light the fraud played by Menakuru Venkata Krishnaiah, by styling himself as President of the Association. The Suit was 3 re-numbered as O.S. No. 253 of 2014. It is averred that, without the knowledge of the Petitioner herein, the Suit was referred to Lok-Adalath and the matter was compromised showing Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 as Plaintiffs and Respondent Nos. 9 to 15 as Defendants. The Award of the Lok Adalath is sought to be challenged on the ground that it came to be obtained by playing fraud and without impleading the Petitioner as party to the proceedings before the Lok Adalath.
3) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly submits that, under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, the Suit itself is not maintainable. It is further urged that the District Court could not have entertained the Suit much less refer it to the Lok Adalath for settlement.
4) A counter came to be filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 disputing the averments made in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition. The 1st Respondent, represented by Menakuru Venkata Krishnaiah, filed the counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 1 to 4 and 6 to
8. He, in his affidavit, states that, he is a President of Gudur Lorry Owners Welfare Association, Gudur, and from 04.02.2011 he is discharging duties as 'President' of the Association. It is further stated that the Petitioner has nothing to do with the Association and he is not even a 4 'Member' of the said Association. He placed on record the Minutes of the General Body Meeting to show that that the Writ Petitioner herein is not even an Office Bearer of the Association.
5) However, a reply came to be filed by the Petitioner disputing the contents of the resolution stating that the same is created for the purpose of the case.
6) Sri. Ch. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the Respondents, reiterated the contents raised in the counter and after referring to the prayer in the Suit, submits that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is, whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the Award passed by the Lok Adalath and whether the said Award was obtained by playing fraud?
8) The main plank of the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that, in view of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, the Suit itself is not maintainable. In order to appreciate the same, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 23 of the Act, which reads as under:
"In the event of any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the 5 provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or may file an application in the District Court concerned and the said Court shall after necessary inquiry pass such order as it may deem fit."
9) A reading of the above provision, inter alia, would show that if there is any dispute amongst the Members of the Society or any matter relating to the affairs of the Society, any Member can either invoke the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act or may file an application before the District Court concerned. In view of the dispute between the parties, the same has been raised before the District Court, by filing a Suit. Hence, it cannot be said that the proceedings initiated are contrary to Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001.
10) It is to be noted here that, the Petitioner herein is not a party to the proceedings before the Lok Adalath. No material has been filed before the court to show that he was the President of the Association as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition. On the other hand, the Minutes of the General Body Meeting, dated 30.11.2010, show that the General Body in its meeting resolved that the existing Executive Committee shall be continued for the year 2010- 2011 as well and the list of Officer Bearers including the President is enclosed along with the Resolution. 6
11) Be that as it may, as seen from the record, O.S. No. 253 of 2014 was filed by the Gudur Lorry Owners' Welfare Association, represented by its President Menakuru Venkata Krishnaiah and others against one Desireddy Raghuramireddy and six others. The said Suit was filed to declare the right and title of the Plaintiffs in the plaint schedule properties duly setting aside the Sale Deeds, dated 14.03.2011 vide Document No. 1699/2011, dated 07.03.2011 vide Document Nos. 1700 of 2011, 1701 of 2011 and 1739 of 2011, executed by Defendant No. 1 and 2 in favour of Defendant No. 2 to 7 and restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. The 2nd Respondent in the said Suit, by name, Mogulluru Mohan Rao, was also described as President and Treasurer of Gudur Taluk Lorry Owners Association. From a reading of the prayer, it is very clear that the relief claimed in the Suit was only to protect the property of the Association by cancelling the Sale Deeds executed by the Defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of other defendants.
12) Further, a perusal of the terms of the Award would show that, [a] 7th Respondent agreed to deposit Rs.6,00,000/- to the Plaintiffs; [b] Plaintiffs - Gudur Lorry Owners Welfare Association [Regd. No. 51/1992] are ceased to file any case or do any transactions over the Suit 7 Schedule Properties, and if any Member of the Plaintiff does any transaction, the Plaintiff Association was held wholly responsible; [c] Defendant No. 1 and 2 Association - Gudur Taluk Lorry Owners Association [Regd. No. 82/1975] and any Member of its Association will not file any case or entertain any transaction over the Suit Schedule Properties, and if any Member does any such transaction, the Defendant No. 1 and 2 Association shall be held responsible; [d] if, any case(s) are filed, or transaction(s) done over the Suit Schedule Property either by the Plaintiffs or the Defendants or that, any purchases are done through 7th Respondent, the same stand cancelled by this compromise.
13) From a reading of the above, it is very much clear that the Plaintiffs Association entered into compromise and got the matter referred to Lok Adalath only in the interest of the Association and the allegation that there was 'fraud' on the part of the Plaintiffs is not, prima facie, established. The Award does not anywhere indicate any sale of the property by the Plaintiffs Association. On the other hand, every effort appears to have been made to protect the property of the association. Alleging fraud does not satisfy the requirement of the fraud, so as to set-aside the award. 8
14) The other ground raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that, though, he filed an application before the court for impleading himself, but, without informing him, the matter was referred to Lok Adalath, only with a view to cause monetary loss to him and to the Association by playing fraud on the court. As stated above, mere pleading fraud may not be sufficient without adducing material in support of the same.
15) In Chaluvadi Murali Krishna and another V. District Legal Services Authority, Prakasam District, Ongole, rep. by 1st Additional District Judge-cum- Presiding Judge, Lok Adalat and others, this Court held as under:
"26. Firstly, it is to be noted that the allegations made by the petitioners in this regard are categorically denied by the respondents. There cannot be any dispute that coercion and fraud are facts which lie in the factual arena and the same shall have to be established on the basis of evidence. A mere ipse dixit statement alleging coercion or fraud, however strong it is, cannot find acceptance by a Court of Law, because assertions themselves do not constitute evidence. Further, a fact asserted by a party and denied by its opponent becomes a disputed question of fact and, therefore, the burden lies on the party to prove the said fact, which it has asserted as true."9
16) In the absence of any iota of material being placed before the court establishing fraud by the 1st Respondent Association and having regard to the judgment referred to above, we feel that the request of the Petitioner cannot be entertained.
17) Viewed from any angle, we see no ground and, accordingly, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
18) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR _______________________________ JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI Date: 02.12.2021.
SM...
10
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI W.P. No. 201 of 2020 (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar) Sm Dt. 02.12.2021