S K SINGH Vs. COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case unfolds the story of a victim of fraud perpetrated on him by respondent No. 4 with the active connivance of respondent No. 3 and unjust and unwarranted intervention with the arbitral award by the Andhra Pradesh cooperative Tribunal headed by a responsible judicial officer. The following facts unravel this squalid affair:

(2.) THE petitioner is a member of respondent No. 3 Society (for short, 'the society') with membership No. 1498 and was allotted plot bearing No. 1012 admeasuring about 1100 square yards on 04. 08. 1975 by the Society. The petitioner paid the entire cost of the plot in instalments and was corresponding with the Society for allotment of an alternative plot. The petitioner lives in usa. On 23. 12. 1992, he addressed a letter to the Society requesting it to furnish information to his GPA, Dr. Dinesh Singh (for short, 'the GPA')regarding his membership. In reply thereto, the Secretary of the Society wrote letter dated 05. 01. 1993, wherein he informed that the petitioner's membership and his plot were transferred to his 'sister' Smt. V. Aruna wife of Ashok Rao, h. No. 1-2-51, Sri Krupa Towers, Flat No. C-1, Domalguda, Hyderabad, respondent no. 4 herein, based on the petitioner's letter dated 04. 07. 1992 and notarized affidavit dated 06. 07. 1992. The Secretary further informed that the petitioner is not a member of the Society and that if any further information is required, he may write to the Society or visit it. Shocked by this letter, the petitioner wrote back on 22. 03. 1993, wherein he informed that respondent No. 4 is neither his sister nor in any way related to him, that the alleged letter of transfer and the affidavit relating thereto were forged with the mala fide intention of grabbing his land by misrepresentation and that the entire transaction was allowed to take place by the Society without verification of genuineness of the transfer letter and the affidavit. The petitioner requested the Society to enquire into the matter and restore his membership and the plot by cancelling the transfer made in favour of respondent No. 4. The petitioner also informed in the said letter that he was authorizing his nephew Dr. T. Dinesh Kumar Singh through GPA duly executed by him to take appropriate steps in the matter.

(3.) AS the Society failed to take any steps to restore his membership and the plot to him, the petitioner caused legal notice dated 11. 11. 1993 issued to the secretary of the Society, wherein the Society was called upon to take necessary action in that regard by revoking the transfer made in favour of respondent No. 4 and restore the membership and re-allot the plot in his favour, failing which necessary steps including criminal action will be taken against the Society and all the persons concerned with the alleged fraud. The Secretary of the Society got a reply sent through his lawyer wherein he inter alia referred to the previous correspondence the petitioner had with the Society from the time of allotment in the year 1975. Reference to purported letter dated 04. 07. 1992 of the petitioner and the notarized affidavit dated 06. 07. 1992 was made in the said reply notice and the Society took the stand that it has transferred the membership and plot acting bona fide on the said documents. It is inter alia stated "the Society is not interested in any way, except looking after the activities of the Society. When once the Society receives a letter and the affidavits in the usual course of business, the Managing Committee of the society has approved the transfer after making the verification with the records and correspondence already available with the Society and since the transfer has been effected, the tenor of your notice to ignore the affidavits and the letters at this belated stage does not arise. Your client is advised to take legal recourse". It is further maintained that the Society is not aware of any fraud practiced by respondent No. 4 and it cannot sit over the judgment and decide whether the letter and the affidavits are forged or not and that the same falls within the purview of the Courts and as the Managing Committee of the Society already acted upon the transfer letter and the notarized affidavit in good faith and effected transfer, the question of restoring back the plot and membership did not arise.