The High Court · 2025

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

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

20.Alapati Samrajyam Wo Dr. A.S V.K.Prasada Rao (died) ,aged: 59 years, R/o.H.No. 481911-A Siddarthanagar, Fathimanagr, Kazipet ... Petitionets/Respondents AND 1 2 ) 4 5 o 7 8 o 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. Thokala Papi Fleddy, S/o. Narsimha Reddy, aged about 70 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. 2-6-1202, KLN Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda. Etta Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy, aged about 72 yeart;, Occ: Retired Employee R.lo 2-7 -1234, Excise Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal. Kanukuntla V'adha Rajulu (died), - 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. Thakkalapalli Furushothamy, S/o. Dharmaiah, aged about 70'years, Occ. Head Master Rlo.1-1-1OOl2, Prashanth nagar, NlT, Hanamkonda, Warangal City P.Anand Kunrar, S/o. George, Aged about 66 years, Occ: Retired. Employee, Rl o.1 -8-1214, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda Warangal. Rondla Bhujanga Reddy, S/o. Buchi Reddy, age 69 years, Rlc'. 2-10-297, Waddepalli, l-la namkonda, Warangal District. Marri Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Buchi Reddy, Aged about 67 ye;rrs, R/o Raghunathapally. affergadh Mandal, Warangal District.

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

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

14. 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. 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.

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

17. Neelam Kamala, Wo. Radha Krishna, Aged about 63 years, Occ: House hold, R/o.2-10-249, Waddepalli, Hanamkonda, Warangal city. ...Respondents/Petitioners l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CRPMP. NO: 6933 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in 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. Counsel for the Petitioners :Sri Dadi Radha Krishna Counsel for the Respondents: M/s Resu Law Office The Court made the following: ORDER (.. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K, SUJANA CML REVISION PETITION No.512O OF 2Or4 ORDER: 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. , 2 SKS, J CRP.No.5l23 of 2014

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

3. 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 intention to ,f' 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 2OO 1 dated

17.10.2006, and the public notice dated 31.7.2OO7, published in Eenadu District Edition, uide Exs.B.4, B.5, and 28 to B.30, and would unequivocally establish that the respondents had resigned from the Society. He lamented that the said evidence 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.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners had incessantly contended that the Society was already being represented by 3 SXS, J Czur.N( .5I23 of 2014 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.

5. 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 4 SKS, J CRP.No.5123 of20l4 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 not in 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.

6. 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: 5 SKS, J CRP.No. ;123 of 2014 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?

11. 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? [] . 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? zf . To what relieP"

7. Adnrittedly, the Society is a non profitable and non- trading 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 6 SKS, J CRP.No.5l23 of 2()14 fine moral and cultural traditions of secular India through education; to organize and promote the study of Science, Humanit5r, and Fine Arts; to train and prepare str-rdents to excel in their chosen helds; to establish study circles, discussion groups, iibraries, and branches across Andhra Pradesh; and to establish schools and educational institutions to progressively realizn the societ5r's objectives' It is also not in dispute that the teachers, who are working in Government or aided institutions, cannot be Members of the Society, as per instructi'ons of Secretary, Director of Education of the Government, as admitted by RW.2 as well'

8. The bye-laws of the Societlr provide for four categories of members, i.e., founder members, honorary members, subscribing members, and life members' The respondent Nos.2 to 12 were founder members, while the remaining were at least members of the Society. The petitioner Nos' 1 to 19 are also founder members. The control of society was taken over by petitioner No.1 with effect from March 1998' Notably, the bye-laws do not provide for the removal of Members, except for filling vacancies as per Article 13. 1 SKS, J lRP.No.5 t23 of 2014

9. TtLe petitioners llrime contention of the learned counsel for the 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.

10. 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, I I I 8 SKS, J CRP.No.5123 of2014 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 is not supported by aly evidence. RW1, RW2, and RW3 gave 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 J 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 receiving any compensation or refund and alleged that the petitioners fabricated the documents to take over the Society's management. The failure of petitioners to produce the original Award, accounts, and other relevant documents raises doubts over contentions made on their part. It is a fact that no . accounts or records of the payments made for withdrawal of membership, were maintained.

11. Additionally, RWl, RW2, and RW3 failed to provide any credible evidence to support their claim that the petitioners 9 SKS, J (lRP.No.5 23 of 2014 \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.

12. 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 2007 6 ALD 709 AtR 1971 SC 2351; 2 T 10 SKS, J CRP.No.5l23 of 2014 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.

13. 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. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// sd/- AS A. SRINIVASA REDDY T T REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge' Warangal (with re-cords if any) i. or! cc i.j sri Dadi Radhi Krishna' Advocate [oPUC] i. on" CC to M/s Resu Law Office, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies ADI(PlP @i HIGH COURT DATED:0410212025 I gE s' ,-.- -\ I ( i ?B rqAi 2025 c * DEsrr t -- "i-Oti, ORDER * { cRP.No,S123 0t 2014 DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 'tr