Dismissed

Katanguru Satyanarayana Reddy v. Vikasa Bharathi VidhyaNiketan(Vibhavim)Educational societty

Telangana HC4 Feb 2025CRP/5123/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order by the Principal District Judge, Warangal, which declared petitioners as members of a Society. The Court found the trial court's order was legally sound and the petitioners failed to prove respondent withdrawal from the Society.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; the impugned order is confirmed.

Katanguru Satyanarayana Reddy Vs Vikasa Bharathi… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2025)

I. l l, ii li I I I

[³³⁸⁵¹

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5123 OF 2014

¶9

Petition under Section 1^'15 of Civil Procedure Code against the Order dated 01 .12.2014 Passed in So.O.P.No.1731 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Waranga[.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Katanguru Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. late Sri. Gopal Reddy, Aged about 70 years, Occu Retired. MEO, R/o.H.No.2-6-1126, KLN Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal City.

¶12

l(}*

¶13

Ambati Ramanada Raju, S/o. Jaggam Raju, Age 68 years, Occu Retired. Employee,'R/o.Atmakui Village and-tvlandal, Waringal District.

¶14

.Katanguru Purushotham Reddy, S/o. Madhusudan Reddy, Age 75 years, Occ: Retired MEO, R/o.. H.No.2-6-16218, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, . Warangal City.

¶15

Pulyala Madhusudan Reddy, S/o. Mukunda Reddy, Occ: Retired. MEO, R/o. Post Tharalapally SO Madikonda Warangal.

¶16

Dadi Narsaiah (Died), -

¶17

Katnguru Ramgopal Reddy, Sio. Satyanarayana Reddy, Age 43 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o. H.No.2-6-1126/A, KLN Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal District

¶18

Karru Madhusudan Reddy, S/o. Mallaiah, Age 71 years, Occu Retired Teacher, R/o. H.No.7-1-90, Near Bus sland, Hanamkonda.

¶19

B. Beeram Bugula Reddy, S/o. Hanumantha Reddy, Age 66 years, Occ:Retired. Teacher, R/o. H.No.2-231lB, Nehru Nagar, Madikonda Village, Hanamkonda, Wara ngal.

¶20

P.Kumara swamy, S/o.Mallaiah, Age 70 years, Occ: Retd. MEO, R/o. H.No. 2-6-1183, KLN Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal City.

¶21

l0.Junuthula Adi Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy, Age 65 years, Occ: Retired. MEO, R/o.Atmakur Village and Mandal, Warangal District.

¶22

11.T.Narsimha Rao, S/o. Ramchander, Age 65 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o. Atmakur Village and Mandal, Warangal Diskict.

¶23

l2.Chintireddy Gopal Reddy, S/o. Pratap Reddy, Age 58 years, Occ: Teacher, Rlo 2-9-1471Vikas nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

¶24

l3.Katanguru Venugopal Reddy, S/o Satyanarayana Reddy, Age 46 years, Occ: SWP, R/o. H.No.2-6-1^'12614, KLN Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal City

¶25

¶26

'14. Yamsani Ranrchandar, S/o. Buchaiah, Age 68 years, Occ: Fletired. Teacher, R/o Yellaredriypalli post, Pidicilla MogullapallyMnadal^{WarangalDist.}

¶27

15.Lekkala Rarn Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Age 68^{years;, Occ: Retired.} Teacher, R/o. 2-3-11, Vidyaranagar colony, Opp University^gate

¶28

' Hanamkonder, Warangal.

¶29

'16. Chataraj P.ajraiah, S/o. Rangaiah, age 67 years, Occ: Retired. MEO, Rio.H.No. 2-10-848, banl< colony, Opposite to Forest office, Waddepalli, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

¶30

'17. Smt. Vanga V noda, w/o. Sudarshan Reddy, Age 65 years, Occ: household work, R/o. Kadaverugu village, Bachannapet Mandal, Warangal.

¶31

18.Adi Narasimha Rao, S/o. Venkateshwar Rao, Age 68^years Occ: Advocate, R/o. H.No.1jl-'1 113, Advocates colony, Hanamkonda, Waranllal^City.

¶32

'1g.Atla Madhavilatha, Dio. Sidha Reddy, age 45 years, Occ: l-louse hold, R/o. Excise colon'y, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal city.

¶33

20.Alapati Samrajyam Wo Dr. A.S V.K.Prasada Rao^{(died) ,aged:} 59^years, R/o.H.No. 481911-A Siddarthanagar, Fathimanagr, Kazipet

¶34

... Petitionets/Respondents

¶35

AND

¶36

5,. '.i

¶37

1 Vikasa Bharatl-ri VidhyaNiketan(VlBHAV|lvl)Educational societty, I\Iadikonda Warangal District represented by Secretary Thokala Papi Reddy, S/o. Narasimha'Reddy, aged about 70 years Occu Retired Employee, R/o. 2-6-1202, KLN Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda.

¶38

2 Thokala Papi Fleddy, S/o. Narsimha Reddy, aged about 70 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. 2-6-1202, KLN Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda.

¶39

) Etta Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy, aged about 72^yeart;, Occ: Retired Employee R.lo 2-7 -1234, Excise Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

¶40

4 Kanukuntla V'adha Rajulu (died), -

¶41

5 lVlanga Jeevan, S/o. Laxminai ayana, aged about 68 years, Or:c: Retired Employee, R,rr: 6-2-6-2-100/2, Jyothi Nagar, Hyderabd road, ..langaon Waranga l.

¶42

Thakkalapalli Furushothamy, S/o. Dharmaiah, aged about 70'years, Occ. Head Master Rlo.1-1-1OOl2, Prashanth nagar, NlT, Hanamkonda, Warangal City

¶43

7 P.Anand Kunrar, S/o. George, Aged about 66 years, Occ: Retired. Employee, Rl o.1 -8-1214, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda Warangal.

¶44

8 Rondla Bhujanga Reddy, S/o. Buchi Reddy, age 69 years, Rlc'. 2-10-297, Waddepalli, l-la namkonda, Warangal District.

¶45

Marri Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Buchi Reddy, Aged about 67 ye;rrs, R/o Raghunathapally. affergadh Mandal, Warangal District.

¶46

Gujja Venkateshwar Rao, S/o- lVladhava Rao, Aged about 52 )/ears,Occ: Teacher. R/o^{'1 .1-841,} sidhartha nagar, Kazipet, Warangal District.

¶47

1^'1. Enugula Devender Reddy, S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy, Aged about ,19 years, Occ Teacher, R/o. Flat No.7, 2nd floor, Laxmi Towers, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

¶48

l2.Thummala Prem Prasad Reddy, S/o. Venkat Ram Narsimha Reddy, Aged a.bout T l years,Occ: Employee, Rlo.2-747, Excise Colony, Hananikonda, Warangal.

¶49

13.,Bheem Reddy Venkat Reddy, Sio. Srinivas Reddy, aged about 52 years,Occ: Employee, Rlo.2-2-518 Nairhnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

¶50

l/lothe Vasumathi, Wo. Papi Reddy, aged about 67 years,Occ: House hold, R/o.4-5-63, behind bus depot road,- Jangaon, Warani;al.

¶51

15-Vanga Laxmi, Wo. Gopal Reddy, Aqed about 63 years, Occ: house hold , R/o-5-2-58 to 60, Prashanth Reaideicy, Apartmerit No. 312, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶52

Gamp_ala {rlurqdha, Wo. Madhava Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ: House hold, R/o.2-6-973, KLN Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda, Warahgal.

¶53

Neelam Kamala, Wo. Radha Krishna, Aged about 63 years, Occ: House hold, R/o.2-10-249, Waddepalli, Hanamkonda, Warangal city.

¶54

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶55

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CRPMP. NO: 6933 OF 2014

¶56

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

¶57

the affidavit filed-in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dt.O1 12.2014 passed in S.O.O.P.No.1731 of 2007 by the Principal Dist Judge, Warangal pending disposal of the above CRP.

¶58

Counsel for the Petitioners :Sri Dadi Radha Krishna

¶59

Counsel for the Respondents: M/s Resu Law Office

¶60

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶61

(..

¶62

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K, SUJANA

¶63

CML REVISION PETITION No.512O OF 2Or4

¶64

ORDER:

¶65

Thi:; revision petition is fi1ed by the revision pr:titioners rvho are r,--spondents in So.Op.No. 1731 of 2007 against the responclentr; herein who hled the said So.Op., under- Section 23 of the.r,ndhra^pradesh Societies Registration Act, .2O01 (for short 'tl're r\ct') in relation to respondent No.1 herein _ Societ5z, with a pravcr to enquire into the disputes thereof, an,:l declare the respron,lents herein as founder members of Societ y and be entitled to ell rights and benehts of Society. The saicl So.Op., was alloq,e.cl uid.e order dated 01.12.2014 by the l)rincipal District JuCge, Warangal, declaring that the petitionr:r Nos.2 to 17 therr:in are members of Sociel5r, who are entitlerd for all rights atrcl ,:enefits of petitioner No. 1 -Societ5r therein, and the claim of resgrondents therein that they are not members of the Societ_v was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, this Civil llevision Petition ;s li led.

¶66

¶67

¶68

SKS, J CRP.No.5l23 of 2014

¶69

Heard Sri D.Radhakrishna, learned counsel^for petitioners/ respondents, and Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for respondents/petitioners.

¶70

,f'

¶71

karned counsel for petitioners submitted^that resignation of respondents as founder members^{of the Society} is. a crucial fact that was overlooked by the trial^Court,and emphasized that the respondents' own actions,^{as evidenced} by Exhibits B.5 to 20 and 8.28, demonstrate^{their intentionto} relinquiph their membership and involvement^{with the Society} and the same was not appreciated by^{the trial Court. He} contended that the^judgment in^{O.S.No.382 of 2OO1 dated} 17.10.2006, and the public notice^{dated31.7.2OO7, published} in Eenadu District Edition, uide^{Exs.B.4, B.5, and 28 to B.30,} and would unequivocally^{establishthat the respondents had} resigned from the Society. He lamented^{that the saidevidence} was sufhcient for the trial Court to^{declare that the} respondents had resigned^from the^{Society's membership and} the trial Court ought^{to have} dismissed^{the So.O.P.,in limine.}

¶72

Learned counsel for the^{petitioners had incessantly} contended that^{the Society was already being representedby}

¶73

¶74

SXS, J Czur.N( .5I23 of 2014

¶75

its Sec:ret.eLry, and that the same was recognize,l in the proceerling,s of O.S. No. 382 of 2001. As such, he slrecihcally contenrlerl that the respondents have no locus .standi to represent the Society, and that the trial Courr ougl. t to have dismissecl t-he said So.O.P., on this ground alone. He averred that the r,:ial Court erred in not applying the doctrjne of res judicata l;resed on the judgment and decree prrssed in O.S.No 382 of 20O1. He divulged that the respondents failed to entel tLr: witness box, except for Respondent No. 11, who is no longer a Member, and that the tri:rl Court had mechanica.lly passed impugned order without apprecrating the evidence. Therefore, while advocating that the ord,:r under revisior: is liable to be set aside, and that the said So.O.p., ought ro have been dismissed due to the oven uhelming evidence placed by the petitioners, he prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order dated OI . -.2.2Ol4.

¶76

On tlre other hand, the learned counsel appe,lring for responden.t s;, vehemently opposed the submissions trrade by learned counsel for petitioners and contended that there were no illegzrlr1-ie s in the impugned order ald that the trial Court

¶77

¶78

SKS, J CRP.No.5123^of20l4

¶79

has righfly allowed the same. In support of his contention, he reiterated the averments made by them before the trial Court and placed emphasis on the provisions of Section 23 of the Act which says, 'In th.e euent of any dispute aising among tLrc Committee or the members of tLte societg, in respect of ang matter relating to the affairs of the societg, ony member of the society mag proceed uith the dispute under the proui-sions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 199d. ln addition, he lamented that the petitioners cannot claim the res^judicata and alleged withdrawal of parties from the Society is notⁱⁿ accordance with law, as there are no bye-laws to^{pay any} amount. Therefore, prayed thls Court to dismiss the^revision petition, stating that the same lacks merits.

¶80

Having regard to the rival submissions made and^on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the respondents filed So.OP.No. 1731 of 2OO7 against^the petitioners, praying to declare the respondent Nos.2 to 17 as founder Members of Society. The points framed by the trial Court for determination are extracted below:

¶81

¶82

SKS, J CRP.No. ;123 of 2014

¶83

1 . Whether the petitioners 2 to 17 rr:mained members of the l"t petitioner licciety and if, they had withdrawn being ttr:mbers, pursuant to an alleged rnr:diation and arbitration, ended in an a[eged award. dated 4.1O.1997, giving up t.h,:ir membership, withdrawing from the -l " petitioner-Society, in favour of the rr:spondents?

¶84

Whether this petition is barred by the prlnciples of 'res-judicata', in vieq, of rlecree and judgment, in O.S.998/ 1998, on the hle of learned Principal Senior Civil .ludge, Waralgal?

¶85

[] . Whether the petitioners are entitled for cleclaration that they are the members of thr: 1 petitioner-Society, entitled for all the rights and benefits, from the 1 petitioner fiociety, against the respondents 1 to 19?

¶86

zf . To what relieP"

¶87

Adnrittedly, the Society is a non profitable and nontrading so,:i,:ty which is unaided by the Government and has certain assets in the nature of immovable properties. As per paragraph l\o.3 of the plaint averments, the Societ5r was formed wi1-h certain aims and objectives, uiz-a-uiz to promote

¶88

¶89

SKS, J CRP.No.5l23^{of 2()14}

¶90

fine moral and cultural traditions^{of secular India through} education; to organize and^{promotethe study of Science,} Humanit5r, and Fine Arts;^{to train and prepare str-rdentsto} excel in their chosen helds; to^{establish study circles,} discussion groups, iibraries,^{and branches acrossAndhra} Pradesh; and to establish^{schoolsand educational institutions} to progressively realizn the^{societ5r'sobjectives' It is also not} in dispute that the teachers,^{whoare working in Government} or aided institutions,^{cannot be Members of the Society, as per} instructi'ons of Secretary,^{Director ofEducation of the} Government, as admitted^{by RW.2as well'}

¶91

The bye-laws of^{the Societlr provide for four categories of} members, i.e., founder^{members,honorarymembers,} subscribing members,^{and life members'The respondent} Nos.2 to 12 were^{foundermembers,while the remainingwere} at least members^{of the Society.The petitionerNos' 1 to 19} are also founder^{members.The control of society was taken} over by^{petitionerNo.1 with effectfrom March1998'Notably,} the bye-laws^{do not providefor the removal of Members,} except for^{filling vacanciesas per Article 13.}

¶92

¶93

¶94

SKS, J lRP.No.5 t23 of 2014

¶95

¶96

TtLe llrime^{contentionof the learned counselfor the} petitioners t hat the respondents claimed that the^{1 rye-laws} allow for tl--.e removal of founder Members on^gro -rnds^of misconducl, but this claim was disputed^{by ti-re petitioners.} However, ;:e titioner No.¹ / Rw. 1 admitted^{that there was no} provisio:-r lb: removal of Founder Members in^{the bye-laws.} He also stated that the disputes arose between^{tu'o gloups in} the Soci,:ty due to decline in student^strength, misappropri.ation of funds, and other issues.^{Furr-her, he} failed tc,provide any records to support these claims. It^is noted that lhe Society was defunct and had leased out^its premises to another educational institution. In addit:on, it^is also noted that when there is no^provision in any of^{the bye-} laws fo: rcmoval of Founder Member in the society, the version ,rf pe:titioners cannot be admitted to be true.

¶97

Furthr:r, the reliance of^petitioners on the dor:uments such as, Oxs.B6 to B14, Exs.B15 to Ex.B20, Ex.B28. Ex.B31 to Ex.B.10, Ifx.B4l, Ex.815 to^Ex.82O, and Ex.828 tt:^trx.830 to prove that respondent Nos.2 to 17 $ithdrew^their membership from the Society is questionable as the respondents alleged that these documents were fa'irricated,

¶98

¶99

SKS, J CRP.No.5123 of2014

¶100

¶101

and their signatures were obtained on blank^{papers, as such,} the same raises serious doubts about the authenticity^{of these} documents. Furthermore, the claim of the petitioners^that they paid Rs.80,000/- to each of the respondents^as compensation or refund of their contributions^isnot supported by aly evidence. RW1, RW2, and^RW3gave conflicting statements about the nature of^{the payment and} the accounts maintained by the^{Society.RW1 stated that the} amount was paid as compensation, while^{RW2 and RW3} claimed it was a refund of contributions.^{However, they failed} to produce any accounts or records^{to support their claim' It} is noted that the respondents denied^receivingany compensation or refund and^{alleged that the petitioners} fabricated the documents to take over^theSociety's management. The failure of^{petitioners to producethe original} Award, accounts, and other^{relevant documents raisesdoubts} over contentions made on their^part. It^{is a} .^{fact that no} accounts or records^{of the payments made for withdrawalof} membership, were^maintained.

¶102

Additionally,^RWl, RW2,^{and RW3failed to provideany} credible evidence to^support their^{claim that the petitioners}

¶103

¶104

SKS, J (lRP.No.5 23 of 2014

¶105

\l,ithdrew therir membership from the Society. Their te.;timony lvas inconsistent, and they failed to produce any docur nentary evidence to support their claim. The respondents, on tlre other hand, prodr.u:ed evidence to show that they were still Members of the Society and had not withdrawn their memlrership. Ultimately, lhe contention of petitioners ttrat ther respondents withdreu' their membership from the Society is not su tported by credible e'ridence.

¶106

¶107

Further, with regard to the jurisdiction, the respondents argued befirr,: the District Court that the trial Court t ecision cannot be used to block their current petition and corLtended that the lrial Court lacked the authority to decidr: the rlispute, as it should have been handled by a differer-rt cor rrt i.e., Districl- Cou:-t, according to the Societies Registrati, rn Act. This Cou rt is; of the view that the District Court has rightly placed relianr;e on the Judgment rendered in the case cf Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan Memorial Educational Society, Nellore District v. District Registrar of Societies, Nellol:e and othersr and Muthura Prasad v. Dossibai2, whereuncler it is held tha'L disputes related to societies must be hzrndled by the

¶108

2007 6 ALD 709

¶109

2 AtR 1971 SC 2351;

¶110

¶111

¶112

SKS, J CRP.No.5l23 of 2014

¶113

District Court. Additionally, the Court notes that a decision of the Court on jurisdiction is not hnal if it was made in error, and the principle of " res judicata', does not apply when a jurisdiction of the Court is in question. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in the case, there are no illegalities or inhrmities in the impugned order and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶114

Accordingiy, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed conlrrming the order dated C.7.72.2024 passed in So.O.P.No. 173 | ol 2OO7 by the learned principal District Judge, Waralgal. However, on a request made by learned counsel for petitioners, it is observed that the said order does not come in the way of the management of affairs of the Society. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶115

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

¶116

stand closed.

¶117

sd/A. SRINIVASA^REDDY AS T T REGISTRAR

¶118

//TRUE COPY//

¶119

CTION OFFICER

¶120

To, 1. The Principal^{District Judge'Warangal (with re-cordsif any)} i. or! cc i.j^{sri Dadi RadhiKrishna' Advocate[oPUC]} i. on" CC to^{M/s Resu Law Office, Advocate[OPUC]} 4. Two CD CoPies

ADI(PlP @i

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410212025

ORDER