Telangana High Court

Dr. B. Anantha Reddy vs M/S. Indu Fortune Fields Villa Owners ... on 19 March, 2025

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2248 of 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner to set

aside the order dated 05.01.2024 passed in SOP SR No.4493 of

2023 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-II

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-Principal Family

Court, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will

be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that in 2020-22, the

petitioner, who is residing in his own villa bearing No.150 at

Indu Fortune Fields Villa, KPHB, Phase-13, Kukatpally,

Hyderabad, served as the president of the Society of respondent

No.1-M/s.Indu Fortune Fields Villa Owners Association (for

short 'Society'), which is registered under the Andhra Pradesh

Societies Registration Act, 2001. Thereafter, in the year 2022, a

new executive committee 2022-2024 was elected and

immediately after taking charge from the old executive committee

of respondent No.1-Society, the newly elected Committee sought

SKS,J CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2248 OF 2024

for written explanation from the past executive committee 2020-

2022 in respect of the Special Audit Reports finding. It is stated

that since the petitioner was in USA at that time, the other past

executive committee members of respondent No.1-Society

submitted written explanation as sought by the new executive

committee 2022-2024. Later, in the Executive General Body

Meeting of respondent No.1-Society held on 31.07.2022, a

resolution was passed debarring the petitioner from assuming

any position of responsibility, elected or nominated in IFFVOA

forever. Hence, the petitioner filed the SOP SR No.4493 of 2023

to declare resolution dated 31.07.2022 passed in the Execution

General Body Meeting of respondent No.1-Society in debarring

the petitioner from assuming any position in respondent No.1-

Society, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and void ab-initio.

4. By the impugned order, the petition filed under Section

23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001, (previously,

Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001) (for short 'the

Act') to declare resolution dated 31.07.2022 as illegal and void

ab-initio, was rejected by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same,

the petitioner filed this revision petition.

SKS,J CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2248 OF 2024

5. Heard Sri Girija Shankar Sharma, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for

respondents. Perused the material available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that

during 2020-2022, since the petitioner, the then president of

respondent No.1-Society, has issued a notice to respondent No.3

and his friend namely, Sai Chintala for illegally operating a

drone camera in the premises of respondent No.1-Society

without any prior permission, respondent Nos.2 to 4 and their

associates, having developed personal grudge over the petitioner,

passed the impugned resolution dated 31.07.2022 with

preplanned sketch only to take vengeance against the petitioner.

He secondly submitted that though the petitioner filed a private

complaint vide CCSR No.195 of 2023 and a suit vide O.S.No.62

of 2024 and SOP SR No.853 of 2024 against the respondents,

the same are rejected/dismissed without appreciating the facts

in proper perspective. He thirdly submitted that the trial Court

has not considered the scope of Section 23 of the Act in proper

perspective. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment

of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in

SKS,J CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2248 OF 2024

C.Vasudeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 1 and

judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.Babu Rao v. District Registrar,

Registration of Societies, Hyderabad and others 2 and

Dayanand Agarwal and others v. Ramesh Agarwal and

another 3 and prayed the Court to allow the Civil Revision

Petition.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

sought to sustain the impugned order passed by the trial Court

stating that the trial Court has rightly rejected SOP SR No.4493

of 2024 after going thoroughly into the facts of the case. In this

regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in DRF

Employees Welfare Society (DRFEWS), Hyderabad and

others v. Swaminathan 4 and judgment of the erstwhile High

Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Khan

Abdul Gaffar Khan Memorial Educational Society, Nellore

District v. District Registrar of Societies, Nellore and

2023 (1) ALD 210 (AP)

2010 (1) ALD 542

2020 (6) ALD 295 (TS)

SKS,J CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2248 OF 2024

others 5 and prayed the Court to dismiss the Civil Revision

Petition.

8. In view of the rival submissions made by both the

parties, this Court has perused the material available on record.

It is apparent that the petitioner, who is also a member of

respondent No.1-Society, served as President of respondent

No.1-Society in 2020-2022. At this juncture, it is apposite to

reproduce the relevant paragraphs from the judgment of the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in C.Vasudeva

Rao (Supra 1) which reads as under:

"24. As the matter pertains to an election dispute relating to the election of office bearers of the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent Association, the dispute squarely falls within the ambit of Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. Section 23 reads thus:

"23. Dispute regarding management - 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 (Central Act 26 of 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."

35. The Court held that the petitioner Association. is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which stood repealed by Section 32 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 and Section 32(2) of the 2001 Act lays down that notwithstanding the repeal of 1860 Act, anything done or action taken under that Act

2007 (6) ALD 709

SKS,J CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2248 OF 2024

shall be deemed to have been done or taken in exercise of the powers conferred by or under the 2001 Act, as if the said Act was in force on the date on which the thing was done or action was taken. Therefore, the Petitioner-Association should be deemed to have been registered under the A.P, Societies Registration Act, 2001. It is held that if the election held for that Society is not in accordance with its bye-laws, person aggrieved by those irregularities has to file a petition, questioning the elections held to its Governing Body. So, any member of the Society, who is aggrieved in respect of the election of the Association, that was conducted, has a right to move the District Court concerned under Section 23 of the 2001 Act, which is an effective remedy provided by the Statute. Further held that when- an effective alternative remedy is available, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment also squarely applies to the present facts of the case."

(Emphasis supplied)

9. The erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh

at Hyderabad in Dayanand Agarwal and others (Supra 3),

held as under:

"...As could be seen, Section 23 entitles any member of the society to file an application in the District Court 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. Under Section 2(h) of the Act the expression 'member' has been defined as under:

"2(h). 'Member' means a person, individual or body corporate, who/which, having been admitted to membership in any society has not registered or ceased to be a member, or been removed from membership, in accordance with the bye-laws of that society."

A reading of the above provision shows that only those persons who are removed from the membership in accordance with the byelaws are not brought within the meaning of "member". Thus on a combined reading of Section 23 and Section 2 (h) it is clear that a member of the society can questionhis removal by invoking the remedy under Section 23 of the Acton the

SKS,J CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2248 OF 2024

ground that his removal was not in accordance with the bye-laws of the society."

(Emphasis Supplied)

10. A plain reading of the above would make it crystal clear

that the dispute, which is arising among members of the society

in respect of the affairs of the Society, which is registered under

the Act, falls within the ambit of Section 23 of the Act.

11. On the aforesaid touchstone, in the instant case, it is

noteworthy that the petitioner served as president of respondent

No.1-Society during the year 2020-2022 and when the petitioner

intends to contest the subsequent elections for various posts in

respondent No.1-Society as per the Notified schedule dated