Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Pelleti Ravindra Reddy , vs The Gudur Lorry Owners Welfare ... on 2 December, 2021

      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

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

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

'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

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.

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

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.

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."

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.