Disposed

Y.Ganeswara Rao, v. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Telangana HC13 Nov 2014WA/614/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Cooperative Society to refund Rs.3,60,000 to the appellants. In exchange, the Society must clear the 3rd respondent's dues and provide vacant possession of the property to the 3rd respondent within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Refund of Rs.3,60,000 to appellants; Society to clear 3rd respondent's dues and deliver vacant possession within four weeks; Title to continue for 3rd respondent.

Y.Ganeswara Rao, Vs The Deputy Registrar of… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

W.A. No.614 OF 2008

¶3

PC: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt)

¶4

Heard Mrs.Bobba Vijay Lakshmi, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and Mr. P.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶5

The appeal is directed against the order dated 07.12.2006 in writ petition No.18403 of 2004. The 3^rd respondent in the appeal filed O.A. No.125 of 2004 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal against the confirmation of sale of house property by Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Rajahmundry and subsequent registration of sale deed on 13.02.2004 as illegal and without authority. The instant prayer made before the Tribunal by the 3^rd respondent challenges the confirmation of sale of property in favour of 1^st appellant and consequent execution of sale deed dated 13.02.2004. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for all the parties, we are satisfied that for disposal of the present appeal, the controversy in fact between the parties need not be adverted to, suffice to note that on 24.08.2004 the Tribunal set aside the sale of house property held on 17.12.2003, confirmation of sale on 07.02.2004 and the registered sale deed dated 13.02.2004. The Rajahmundry Cooperative Building Society Limited presently represented by Liquidator was directed to accept the FDRs and adjust the realized amount towards loan amount of 3^rd respondent and restore possession of schedule house to 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent was granted further time of six months to pay the balance of amount due under the loan account. Through the order dated 07.12.2006, the learned Single Judge after perusing the material available on record dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the appeal.

¶6

Mrs.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that having regard to the finding of fact recorded in the order impugned in the writ appeal and the order dated 24.08.2004 in O.A. No.125 of 2004, she is satisfied if this Court considers directing the 2^nd respondent to return Rs.3,60,000/- paid by the 1^st appellant at the time of conduct of Court auction and appellants 2 to 4 being the L.Rs of 1^st appellant, are prepared to deliver vacant possession of subject property to the 2^nd respondent on receipt of Rs.3,60,000/-. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, admits that the 3^rd respondent has paid Rs.15,00,000/- and odd and still some amount is due from the 3^rd respondent and the Official Liquidator has no objection to redeliver the possession to 3^rd respondent if balance amount due under loan account is cleared by the 3^rd respondent.

¶7

On the other hand, Mr. P.Narasimha Rao, submits that the 2^nd respondent has not given due credit to the amount covered by FDRs and Rs.15,00,000/- and odd paid by the 3^rd respondent. If proper credit to all the amounts is given by 2^nd respondent and if any sum still is due and payable to the 2^nd respondent, it is stated that the 3^rd respondent has no objection to pay the balance amount to 2^nd respondent. In view of the limited submissions, we are satisfied that the ends of justice are met by disposing of the writ appeal with the following directions:

¶8

(i) The 2^nd respondent is directed to pay/refund by way of Demand Draft a sum of Rs.3,60,000/-(Rupees three lakhs sixty thousand only), drawn in the name of Y.Papayamma wife of late Y.Ganeshwara Rao(1^st appellant) which is paid for the joint benefit of appellants 3 and 4 as well. A proper acknowledgement or discharge from appellants 2 to 4 be taken while handing over the Demand Draft

¶9

to appellants 2 to 4. Though the Demand Draft stands in the name of 2^nd appellant, it is made clear that the amount is for the benefit of all the appellants. On receipt of said amount, the appellants are directed to handover vacant possession of subject property within two weeks therefrom to 2^nd respondent.

¶10

In the meantime, the 2^nd respondent is directed to take account of outstanding of 3^rd respondent, give credit to all the amounts received from 3^rd respondent including encashment of FDRs and after due credit to all amounts if amount is still due and payable by the 3^rd respondent, the same may be intimated to 3^rd respondent. Upon such intimation, the 3^rd respondent is directed to pay the amount shown in the intimation without prejudice to his rights and contentions against such demands and upon such payment, the 2^nd respondent delivers forthwith vacant possession of the subject house to 3^rd respondent and parties undertake all incidental and consequential steps required for continuation of title in favour of 3^rd respondent. The entire exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of.

¶12

________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ___________________ S.V.BHATT, J

¶13

Date: 05.08.2015 Stp

Y.Ganeswara Rao, v. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Ganeswara Rao, v. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinta Ramaiah.and Another Vs PRL.SECTY.REVENUE(ENDOWMENTS)DEPT.AND4 Oth

Nagothu Ramesh Naidu, Vs The District Collector

P. Chandramanikyam Vs The Government Andhra Pradesh

Prathipati Vasantha Rao, Vs Lakshmisetti Venkateswara Rao

Gavini Srinivasulu, Vs The State Election Commission

Society Against Corruption (Regd No. 77/2013) Vs The State of Telangana. represented by its Principal