Case Briefs
Truth and Youth (TAY) 2021. All rights reserved.

Gun Rock Enclave Cooperative Housing Society v. Capt. G.G.K. Raju Died Per LRs

Author: Lakshya Raj Singh Rathore, 1st year Student at Institute Of Law, Nirma University.

Citation: 2021 SCC OnLine TS 477

Bench: T.Amarnath Goud

Date of decision: April 9, 2021

Original Copy: View

Statues Involved:  Cooperative Society Act



  • Whether the cancelation of deed for plot56 in Mr. Raju’s (GGK) favour was correct or not?
  • The further sale to Dr. Jhansi of plot56 can be considered a valid ground or not?
  • The jurisdiction of tribunal in matters of transfer of property issues.  

Background of the case: 

  • The case came up for hearing for multi litigation laid first by the Captain GGK Raju and his legal heirs fighting his legal battle after the death with the original petitioner society for a flat in the society of the petitioner situated at Tokatta Village, Secunderabad.
  • The respondent was allotted plot no190 in the beginning and instead plot no.56 and this plot 56 was first alloted to Capt Ms Uma Raju and resulted in cancellation 


  • GGK Raju after not being satisfied filed a complaint before the deputy registrar, who rejected the contention of the petitioner that there was an erroneous registration in favour of the first respondent and directed the society to restore the pot no. 56 in favour of the first respondent on the grounds of payment of dues and also stated that Mr Raju had not chosen to pay the consideration of the sale. The second petitioner had also executed a cancellation deed to cancel the deed of 5-6-2000 but this was further cancelled by the court on the complaint of society.
  • Also Ms Uma filed a complaint to possess the title and sale of plot no. 56 and to which the society had complied with, and further sold to Jhansi who was living in plot56 peacefully.
  • Mr Raju filed a writ before the Hyderabad High Court (erstwhile) to cancel all entries of cancellation, which was dismissed as the challenge should come before a civil court, and the division court observed that he had not no remedy under article 226 and since Mr. Raju had not paid the consideration of the sale is final.
  • Aggrieved by the decisions Mr Raju filed CTA no.6 2012 before the cooperative tribunal which set aside the award of the plot (under section 61 of ACPS Act) and added that the president of society is liable for punishment of Rs100000 to Mr Raju and held the contention of Ms Uma to be void ab initio and the subsequent sale of the plot by her is invalid and should be cancelled.
  • Further to this decision the society and the president filed a petition that there had been a jurisdictional error by the tribunal and Mr. Raju had no right over plot56 also contending that the award to original allottee is not collusive as she was not heard in the entire proceeding and the tribunal had no authority in giving the award.
  • Also the two petitioners contended that Mr. Raju was a member of another society and had a plot allotted by that and this does not entitle him to be a member of the petitioner society.
  • The legal heirs (respondent 2-5) of Mr Raju countering the petitioner said that Ms Uma obtained an award and got sale deed executed in her favour and later in favour of Dr. Jhansi as she did it unilaterally and thus it is non-est in the eyes of law and at the time of allotment of plots Mr Raju was not the member of another society and thus the tribunal decision was under its jurisdiction.
  • The 6th respondent aggrieved by CTA no 6 filed writ petition that the Mr. Raju’s plea which was dismissed by the deputy registrar is correct and since Ms Uma had further sold the plot and as per special relief act the respondents must not be entertained.
  • The court did not find that the CTA objecting to the decision in GWB No.18, 2009 which is not tenable in itself as it was submitted to request an order to instruct the petitioners to comply with the judgment of GWB No. 92 of 1984 as it was not tenable, since the authority becomes a functus officio and the first defendant can no longer submit another ARC for the implementation of the previous award as it cannot be enforced by filing the second ARC. The authority to delete the registered documents lies exclusively with the civil courts and not the arbitrator. The judgment of the cooperative court is ultra vires and only the civil court has jurisdiction, so it can be annulled at this point, as the property issue must be decided by a competent civil court.
  • The high court said that the judgment of the tribunal should be set aside to judge the dispute above and as per the M Venkataramana v. A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad we know that the cooperative tribunal had no right in deciding the issue and only civil court has the jurisdiction.
  • And since Ms Uma had paid the sale consideration for plot 56 and also as per the arbitration case got the plot in his favour and as this decision was not challenged and thus is final.
  • Thus the court has observed that the cancellation of the plot was never challenged, along with that he failed to pay the sale consideration to which the decision of the division bench to give Ms. Uma the plot 56 as she had paid the sale consideration is completely correct and it is a binding decision and  Dr. Jhansi is legally entitled to enjoy the transfer of plot 56 by Ms Uma. 
  • Moreover Dr. Jhansi cannot be made a party to the suit under section 121 of the cooperative societies act and as section 61 runs around the management, members so it cannot override the Transfer of Property Act and also  s61 provides authority to the BOD to take the primary action against the president and if found guilty then only 500Rs. can be imposed (section 81 and section 83) and the tribunal ultra vires of its authority found him guilty and imposed 1 lakh fine which is clearly not a legally valid decision.
  • Finally the court said that the case is not invoking any provisions under section 420,467 or 468 of IPC, on the contrary the respondents have filed litigation seeking inappropriate remedies before wrong forums and because of which the court imposes Rs 10,000 fine for wasting time of the court and also all the other miscellaneous petitions stand closed.  

Critical Analysis:

  • The court looking upon the issues of the case defined the powers of the tribunal and also stated that sometimes due to the mistake of the court the cases for no reason are stretched and the innocent party has to face problems for no reason.
  • The court also touched upon the section 61, 81,83 and 121 of the cooperative societies act.
  • From the case we also understand the concept that the central acts have a higher position than the state acts.
  • Also this case defines the power of jurisdiction of a tribunal when deciding over such similar disputes of transfer of property.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.