Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 785 (AP)

V. Amos alias Ramulu v. P. Johnson

2008-09-16

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

body2008
JUDGMENT : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the respondents in O.P.No.911 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge, Khammam, assailing the action of the learned District Judge in entertaining O.P.No.911 of 2004. 2. The background facts of the case leading to filing of this Civil Revision Petition by the respondents in O.P.No.911 of 2004, in brief, are:- Rev.P.Johnson and Pastor K.Anand Raj are the petitioners and whereas Vanka Amos and 8 others are the respondents in O.P.No.911 of 2004. They are the members of ‘The Good Samaritan Evangelical Lutheran Church (GSELC), Bhadrachalam’. It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, (Act 21 of 1860) with Registration No.7/1995, dated 14.11.1995. As per Article 8 of the Constitution of the Church, the Executive Council shall consists of the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary and nine other members which includes at least two women, two youth under 30 years of age, elected by the convention according to the by-laws of the Church. The term of Founder Vice-President, Founder Secretary and Founder Executive Council Members came to be expired by 14.11.1999. The term of the Founder President also came to an end on 14.11.2002. After expiry of the term of the office of the Founder President, Founder Vice-President, Founder Secretary and Founder Executive Council Members, no elections were conducted to fill-up the vacancies. But, the respondents 1 to 3 claim to have been elected as President, Vice-President and Secretary respectively and respondents 4 to 9 claim to have been elected as Members of the Executive Council in the convention alleged to have been held between 27.01.2003 and 31.01.2003 at Mettugudem village of Kukknur Mandal, Khammam District. According to the petitioners in O.P.No.911 of 2004, no such convention was held between 27.01.2003 to 31.01.2003. According to the petitioners in O.P.No.911 of 2004, no such convention was held between 27.01.2003 to 31.01.2003. Therefore, they invoked the jurisdiction of the District Court, under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 and filed the O.P. with a prayer, which reads as hereunder: “Therefore, the petitioners most respectfully pray that the Hon’ble Court may in the interests of Justice, be pleased to pass order:- i) Declaring that the respondents 1 to 3 were not entitled to the post of President/Bishop, vice-president and secretary respectively and respondents 4 to 9 were not elected as the members of the Executive Council of The Good Samaritan Evangelical Lutheran Church (GSELC) as no elections were held after expiry of the term of office of the founder members of the church till this day much less during 27.01.2003 to 31.01.2003 as claimed by the respondents and consequently restrain the respondents No.1 to 3 from acting as president/Bishop, Vice-President and Secretary respectively, respondents No.4 to 9 as members of executives council of Good Samaritan Lutheran Church (GSELC) as per the constitution and registered by laws of Good Samaritan Lutheran Church (GSELC). ii) To appoint a commissioner for conducting elections to the executive council of the Good Samaritan Lutheran Church (GSELC), Bhadrachalam, as per the constitution and registered by-laws of Good Samaritan Lutheran Church (GSELC), Bhadrachalam. iii) To allow the costs of this petition, and iv) Pass any such or other order as the Hon’ble court may deem just, in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Respondents in the O.P. filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the action of the District Judge, Khammam in entertaining O.P.No.911 of 2004. 4. This Civil Revision Petition came to be allowed on 10.09.2004. The order passed in the C.R.P. reads as hereunder: “The Society is said to have been located in the agency area. The learned District Judge, Khammam ought not to have entertained the application in O.P.No.911/2004. Obviously, the learned District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the cases arising from agency area. He has not bestowed his attention whether the case arises from agency area or from other area. The entertainment of the petition ex facie is illegal. There is no need to call upon the respondents and hear them. Obviously, the learned District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the cases arising from agency area. He has not bestowed his attention whether the case arises from agency area or from other area. The entertainment of the petition ex facie is illegal. There is no need to call upon the respondents and hear them. The learned District Judge is directed to make an enquiry afresh and return the case, if he has no jurisdiction and power to try the cases arising from agency areas, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, after hearing both sides. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage. No costs.” 5. The respondents in the C.R.P. carried the matter to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, by order dated 31.01.2005, set aside the order dated 10.09.2004 and remanded the matter back to this Court for fresh disposal after hearing both the parties. Hence, the C.R.P. is listed before me for disposal afresh after hearing both the parties. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 is not applicable to agency area and therefore, the District Judge is not empowered to entertain the O.P. in respect of the disputes which are required to be adjudicated according to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924 (for short, ‘the Rules). In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Parameswara Veerraju Reddi v. State of A.P. & Ors. ( 2006(4) ALD 558 ), wherein it has been held that dispute between the parties whether they are tribals or non-tribals in respect of property located in the agency areas, civil court jurisdiction is ousted and vested with the agency courts. For better appreciation, I may refer para.15 of the said judgment, which reads as hereunder: “15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also stated that the Agency Rules are intended to apply only where tribals are involved and not where the parties are non-tribals. Therefore, there is no bar for the learned District Judge to entertain the suit as it is in between the non-tribals, even if the subject-matter is within the tribal area forming part of the District which he presides. Therefore, there is no bar for the learned District Judge to entertain the suit as it is in between the non-tribals, even if the subject-matter is within the tribal area forming part of the District which he presides. The defendants in the suit are the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its District Collector, East Godavari, Revenue Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram and Mandal Revenue Officer and there is no dispute that they are non-tribals. This is very strange. It is not that whether somebody is a tribal or a non-tribal or whether the dispute is between a tribal and a non-tribal or inter se the non-tribals. The sine qua non being the location of the subject-matter of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with such matters. The notification issued by the Government is not in conflict with the parent Act i.e., A.P.Civil Courts Act, 1972. Therefore, it must give way to the substantive statute and so be read in that context. Since, as held above, I am of the opinion that the Judgment reported in Ashifaquddin’s case (supra) is per incuriam and the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.1573, dated 30.10.1972 is not ultra vires of Sections 1(2) and 1(3) of the Act, the other judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner do not call for any consideration. The order impugned does not call for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 35 of 2001’) is applicable to the entire State of Andhra Pradesh including the scheduled areas. He further submits that under Section 23 of the Act 35 of 2001, the District Court concerned has jurisdiction to entertain any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the society in respect of any matters relating to the society and that Agent to the Government cannot be equated with the District Judge as interpreted in Article 236 of the Constitution of India and in which case the learned District Judge is justified in entertaining O.P.No.911 of 2004. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Nehrulal Makadia v. State of A.P. ( 1987 (2) ALT 171 ), wherein Article 236 of the Constitution of India fell for consideration. Para.6 of the said judgment needs to be noted and it is thus: “In Nagireddy’s case it was held words ‘District Court’ were not defined, therefore, to ascertain the meaning Section 3 of the Evidence Act was referred. In that Act ‘Court’ was defined to include Judges, Magistrates and all those who were authorized to record evidence. The General Clauses Act of 1897 was referred to held ‘District Judge’ means the Judge of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. Article 236 of the Constitution of India was referred where District Judge was defined to include Judge, City Civil Court, Additional District Judge, Joint District Judge, Assistant District Judge, Chief Judge, of Small Causes Court, Chief Presidency Magistrate, Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge. Section 10 of A.P. Civil Courts Act of 1972 was referred in that for each District Court a District Judge is appointed in the State. Principally from Article 236 of the Constitution of India, it was held District Judge includes Sessions Judge. That inference was elaborated in the following manner:-- “Therefore the important test is whether the Presiding Officer of the District Court, who is the District Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, has exercised his power on the civil side or the criminal side”. Having held so, Section 13, it was held the subject of appeal was civil in nature, therefore, the appeal is to be heard by District Judge. The subject in appeal under Section 44 was seizure of forest produce, tools and vehicles. Appeals are provided under sub-clause (2-E) against order of confiscation of seized articles. Here the second chapter in Sections 7 and 9 of Code of Criminal Procedure were referred. It was held High Court in consultation appoints Sessions Judge. Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges. Appeals are provided under sub-clause (2-E) against order of confiscation of seized articles. Here the second chapter in Sections 7 and 9 of Code of Criminal Procedure were referred. It was held High Court in consultation appoints Sessions Judge. Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges. The order further reasoned: “From a combined reading of the provisions of the A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 and the above provisions of the Crl.P.C. along with Article 236 of the Constitution of India, it becomes clear that for every district there will be a court called ‘District Court’ which shall be presided over by a District Judge and the Government also establishes in the State several sessions divisions and normally for every district there will be a sessions Division. Such a District Court is also called “Court of Session” and the presiding Officer is known as “District and Sessions Judge” and he exercises powers both civil and criminal…” Later, the nature of the order, seizure and confiscation are held to be criminal in nature. Any appeal preferred against such an order to the “District Court” presided over by a “District and Sessions Judge” can be entertained only as a criminal appeal. The Sessions Judge can make over the appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge. Thus in Nagireddy’s case the disposal of appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge was held set irregular.” 9. Indisputably, the Society called The Good Samaritan Evangelical Lutheran Church (GSELC), Bhadrachalam is situated in Bhadrachalam, which is an agency area. The dispute is among the members of the Society and it is in respect of the respondents holding the position of office bearers of the Society. In a way the dispute is between the parties with regard to the management of the affairs of the society and not in respect of any immovable property situated in agency area or recovery of money. Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules deal with the jurisdiction of agency courts and they read as hereunder: “3. The Courts shall subject to the provisions herein contained have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature, excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. 4. Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules deal with the jurisdiction of agency courts and they read as hereunder: “3. The Courts shall subject to the provisions herein contained have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature, excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. 4. Claims to succession to or of any interest in the estates of any chief, or to any pension or grant of money or land revenue conferred or made by the British or any former Government shall not be entertained in any Court. Such claims shall be inquired into by the Agent to the State Government, and he shall submit the result of the inquiries for the orders of the government who may pass such orders as they think fit. Note:- Claims to pensions and grants of money or land revenue are governed by the provisions of the relevant law for the time being in force.” Though Rule 3 of the Rules empowers the Agency Courts to try all suits, nature of suits agency court is empowered is controlled by Rule 4 of the Rules. The dispute among the members of the registered society located in the agency area is not covered under Rule 4 of the Rules. At this juncture, I may refer Sections 23 and 24 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 and they read as under: “23. Dispute regarding management: In the event of any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, 9Central Act 26 of 1996) or may file an application in the District Court concerned and the said Court shall after necessary inquiry pass such order as it may deem fit. 24. 24. Dissolution of Society and adjustment of its affairs: (1) A society may, by passing a special resolution, determine that it shall be dissolved of and thereupon, with prior intimation to the Registrar, it shall be dissolved at the time specified in the resolution and all the necessary steps shall be taken for the disposal and settlement of the property of the society, and its claims and liabilities according to the bye-laws, if any, of the society, and if there are no bye-laws to this effect in the manner as the General Body may find it expedient: Provided that in the event of any dispute arising among the members of the Committee or the members of the society, the adjustment of its affairs shall be referred to the Court and the Court shall make such other in the matter including appointment of liquidator as it deems fit: Provided further that if the Central Government or any State Government is a member of, or a contributory to any society registered under this Act, such society shall not be dissolved without the consent of the Government concerned. (2) A society dissolved under this section shall file with the Registrar a full report showing as to how the property has been disposed of.” A plain reading of the above referred to provisions indicate that a dispute arising among the members of the committee and the members of the Society is required to be adjudicated upon by the Court. The Court has been defined under section 2(d) which reads as hereunder: “2(d) ‘Court’ means in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, the City Civil Court, and elsewhere, the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction” The definition of court does not include agency courts. Therefore, the District Judge, Khammam is justified in entertaining the O.P wherein the dispute among the members of the registered Society is required to be adjudicated. 10. Accordingly, I find that there is no illegality or irregularity in entertaining the O.P. by the District Judge, Khammam warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. 11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.