LAWS(APH)-1984-9-31

SREEPURAM HOUSING SOCIETY UNREGD Vs. N HANUMACHASTRY

Decided On September 04, 1984
SREEPURAM HOUSING SOCIETY (UNREGD) Appellant
V/S
N.HANUMACHASTRY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRP No.4678/82 is filed against an order permitting one Sri Hanuma Sastry to be impleaded as 2nd plaintiff in the suit, 0 S No. 257/82. CRP 4679/82 is filed against the order permitting one Sri I. Seshagiri Rao to be impleaded as 3rd plaintiff in the suit. Both these orders have been passed under Order 1 Rule 8 (3) C P C.

(2.) CRP No, 4680/82 is filed against the order permitting one Sri Hanumashastry to represent the purcha- sers of plots from D-1 society other than defendants 3 to 16. Similarly, CRP 4682/82 is filed against the order permitting Sri I. Seshagiri Rao to represent the purchasers of plots from one M S Sarma, a neighbouring owner, and the members thereof became members of the plaintiff-Association.

(3.) To appreciate the points in these revision petition, it is necessary to state few undisputed facts; The lands bearings S No. 200 situated in Sahebnagar Of an extent of Ac. 41. 02 cts and Ac 21. 18cts in S No. 59 situated in Karmanghat village were purchased by the 1st defendant, an unregistered society, represented by its President, Sri P V S Sastry. He laid out the plots ana sold them to various persons. While laying out the plots, he set apart extensive property running to 15150 sq. yards for the purpose of establishing Andhra Vidya Parishat (6000 sq. yards), Mandir (3000 sq. yards), garden (3150 sq. y) and for elementary school and its play ground (3000 sq. y). Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff-association was formed and was registered under the Societies Registration Act. Similarly, Sri M S Sarma also purchased the adjacent land and laid out 82 plots and sold them to various persons. It is also an admitted fact that the purchasers of the plots from Messrs. P V S Sastry and M S Sarma now became members of the plaintiff-association. No doubt the right of the purchasers from Sri M S Sarma to become members is questioned in the suit. I need not go into that question at this stage. I merely proceed on the footing that all of them are members of the plaintiff-association.