P SATHYANARAYANAN Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD EMMPLOYEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Second Appeals are teken up together for disposal since the point involved in both the matters is same No doubt these appeals are filed by two different person, who are respectively the plaintiff in O. S. No 12 4 of 1988 and O. S No. 1223 of 1988 both on the file of the Disirict Munsif, Valliyoor. The 1st defendant in both the suits is same. It is Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Cooperative House Construction Society Valliyoor and is the 1st respondent in these two Second Appeals.

(2.) According to the plaintiff in each of the two suits the 1st defendant society is a registered society, which was registered pursuant to. G.O. No. 1193 dated 31-7-1986. Prior to coming into existence of the said registered society, the said society was an unregistered body. While the said society was such an unregistered body, the respective plaintiffs became its members in 1980 find in the same year, the said society offered to sell two different house sites, viz , Plot Nos 19 and 37 respectively, the former, to the plaintiff in O S No 1224 of 1988 and the latter in favour of the plaintiff in O S No 1223 of 19S8 and thereafter by letter dafed 7-2-1982, the said Society informed the respective plaintiff that it has allotted in them the said plots, in the proposed housing colony and that the probable date of registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs would be intimated separately But, it did not so intimate. But. finally on 1-7-1987 by which time. the old unregistered society became a registered society which is the 1st defendant, it refused to register the sale deed on the footing that the abovesaid plaintiffs were not employees of the Tamil Nadu E'ectricitv Board and as per the Rules and Regulations of the 1st defendant registered society and also as per G O. No. 11193, allotment of house sites belonging to the 1st defendant could be made only to employees of the Electricity Board. Hence the said auitt were filed and since the 1st defendant has alleged, that the above referred to Plot No 39 was allotted by the 1st defendant Society in favour of the 2nd defendant in O. S No. 1221 of 1988 he was impleaded as 2nd defendant in the said suit Likewise since the 1st defendant alleged that the Plot No 37 was allotted by the 1st defendant-society in favour of the 2nd defendant in O S. No. 1223 of 1988, he was impleaded as 2nd defen dant in the said suit The said 3nd defendant in each of the said suits is respectively the 2nd respondent in these Second Appeals.

(3.) Both the abovesaid suits were dismissed and the appeals therefrom by the plaintiff respectively in A. S. No. 118 of 1992 and A S No 119 of 1992 both on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli were also dismissed. The judgments both at the trial stage and at the first appeal stage were not commen judgments and they were delivered separately. The respondents in both the appeals are represented by the same counsel.