ORDER : Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: "… to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for entire records connected to order in claim No.1 of 2011, dt.30.01.2012 passed by 3rd respondent, examine the same and set it aside, after declaring the same as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction, violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and rules framed thereunder and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with plot No.10 admeasuring 400 sq. yds. in Survey Number 404 of Markapur Town and pass such other order….." 2. The present writ of certiorari is being submitted before this Court to call for records and to quash the proceedings of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies-cum-Arbitrator, in Claim No.1 of 2011 dated 30.01.2012 who is arrayed as 3rd respondent herein. 3. The 5th respondent in the present Writ Petition, by name Smt. Devanaboina Ramalakshmi, originally filed the said Claim No.1 of 2011 before the 2nd respondent herein, i.e., the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Markapur, to adjudicate upon the claim made by her (i.e., 5th respondent). 4. The case of the 5th respondent herein is that she is the daughter of Malasani Chenna Kesavulu, who is the member of Markapur Public Servants Cooperative Society, and the plot No.8 was allotted to her father and her father executed a gift deed in her favour, which is an extent of 400 square yards in Sy.No.404 in Markapur town and the 5th respondent herein raised a compound wall to the height of 9 feet and the writ petitioner along with his agents came to their plot and trespassed into the site and dismantled the said compound wall and the writ petitioner along with his agents tried to raise constructions in the said plot without being any right or title over the said property. Therefore, the 5th respondent herein implored to adjudicate upon the dispute and to direct the writ petitioner not to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of plot No.8 in an extent of 400 square yards in Sy.No.404 in Markapur town. 5. Therefore, the 5th respondent herein implored to adjudicate upon the dispute and to direct the writ petitioner not to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of plot No.8 in an extent of 400 square yards in Sy.No.404 in Markapur town. 5. As the 2nd respondent herein has not pursued the said representation/application, the 5th respondent herein filed W.P.No.18478 of 2008 before the composite High Court for resolution of the dispute by way of Arbitration under Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act of 1964’) and the said Writ Petition was disposed by the composite High Court, vide order dated 30.06.2011, observing that “this Court has no doubt that the dispute will be entertained for arbitration under Section 61 of the Act of 1964 and will be adjudicated in terms thereof”. 6. Basing upon the said observation, the 2nd respondent herein has transferred the said dispute to the 3rd respondent herein, i.e., the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies-cum-Arbitrator, Markapuram (hereinafter called, ‘the Arbitrator’) for adjudication and for decision. 7. The sum and substance of the case of the 5th respondent herein is that her father is the member of Markapur Public Servants Cooperative Society and a plot was allotted to her father and the same was gifted to her and the writ petitioner herein is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said plot. The specific prayer of the 5th respondent in the claim application reads thus: "The petitioner therefore prays that this Honourable Authority may be pleased to pass an interim order as well as final order directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plot No.8 admeasuring 72' x 50' of an extent of 400 sq. yards in Sy.No.404 situated at Markapur, Prakasam District." 8. The 3rd respondent-Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies-cum-Arbitrator has disposed of the Claim No.1 of 2011 by an order dated 30.01.2012, observing thus: "The Arbitrator came to the conclusion that the respondents 1 to 3 in the Claim application (writ petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 in the present writ petition) have no manner of right or possession either plot No.8 or plot No.10. Hence it is order that the respondents are restrained by means of injunction restraining that the respondents 1 to 3 from entering into plot No.8 and plot No.10. Hence it is order that the respondents are restrained by means of injunction restraining that the respondents 1 to 3 from entering into plot No.8 and plot No.10. If the respondents failed to produce any reliable evidence that the plot No.10 belongs to them. Further it is clear from the society record that plot No.10 was allotted to Sri B.Arthor that there is no evidence that Sri B.Arthor allayed the property to others." 9. The said order dated 30.01.2012 in Claim No.1 of 2011 is assailed in the present Writ Petition by the respondent No.1 in Claim No.1 of 2011, who is the writ petitioner herein, on the grounds that plot No.10 ad-measuring 400 square yards was allotted to one B.Arthur who is the members of the 4th respondent society and the said B.Arthur sold plot under registered sale deed dated 03.06.1985 in favour of one S.Mahaboo Piran and after his demise, the said plot was sold in favour of the writ petitioner by executing a regular sale deed dated 29.12.2006, vide document No.1342 of 2007 and the writ petitioner was inducted into possession on 29.12.2006 and ever since, he had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said plot till the writ petitioner sold 200 square yards therefrom vide registered sale deed dated 25.04.2007 to third party. 10. And the 2nd respondent i.e., the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, does not have power or authority or has jurisdiction to receive and forward any claim petition of 5th respondent herein to 3rd respondent-Arbitrator and the Arbitrator does not have power, authority or jurisdiction to entertain, enquire into and decide any claim of the 5th respondent herein by name Smt. Devanaboina Ramalakshmi. And further contended that either, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies or, the Arbitrator cannot grant the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of immovable property and such reliefs could be granted only by a Court of competent civil jurisdiction established under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act and the claim of the 5th respondent has to be confined to plot No.8 but not over plot No.10, and she should have approached a competent civil court, but not before the Arbitrator. And it is also stated that petitioner is having no other efficacious remedy except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. And it is also stated that petitioner is having no other efficacious remedy except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. And also contended that the dispute which, from its very nature, is incapable of being resolved by the Registrar, ought to have been eschewed by the Arbitrator and relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Velagacharla Jayaram Reddy and others v. M.Venkata Ramana and others, (2022) 4 SCC 129 . 12. Before discussing with the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Velagacharla Jayaram Reddy’s case (1 supra), it is appropriate to mention that this court's judgment in M.Venkata Ramana v. A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad and others, 2010 SCC Online AP 313 = (2010) 4 ALD 500 and others is the basis for the petitioner's judgment, wherein it was held by the composite High Court in the following manner: "As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the genuineness or otherwise of the sale deeds, the identity and nature of the land in dispute, whether the alienations are liable to be set aside and the sale deeds are liable for cancellation, and whether the constructions made by the petitioners on the disputed land are liable to be demolished or not, are all matters, which are outside the scope of Section 61 of the Act, as they do not relate to business of the society, which can be referred to and adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator. When once, the sale deeds are executed and registered, title in the property covered by the sale deeds gets legally transferred in favour of the vendees and even the vendor cannot unilaterally cancel the same. In case the trans- action is found to be illegal and beyond the authority of the society, necessary recourse has to be taken to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, which provides for cancellation of documents and decrees." From the said judgment, it appears that the Arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. 13. The said findings have been approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Velagacharla Jayaram Reddy’s case (1 supra), arising out of the same judgment in M.Venkata Ramana’s case (2 supra). 14. 13. The said findings have been approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Velagacharla Jayaram Reddy’s case (1 supra), arising out of the same judgment in M.Venkata Ramana’s case (2 supra). 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo dated 24.07.2024, vide W.P. USR No.64481 of 2024 dated 25.072024, enclosing a copy of the order in I.A.No.470 of 2012 in O.S.No.130 of 2012 and also a copy of the order in I.A.No.781 of 2015 in O.S.No.130 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur. On perusal of the order it discloses that the 5th respondent herein filed suit for declaration of title and I.A.No.470 of 2012 for permanent injunction pending disposal of the suit, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur. And the leaned Senior Civil Judge, while denying the injunction to the 5th respondent herein, observed that "the petitioner (5th respondent herein) cannot succeed to prove her title basing on the unregistered and insufficiently stamped notarized gift deed. Therefore, it can be said that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Further the petitioner failed to prove that the first two plots were submerged in the water canal and the petitioner wrongly claiming plot No.10 as of her. The respondent started construction over his plot No.10. After shifting the material from the facets, the Court is of the considered opinion that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. The respondent is owner of plot No.10 and he started construction over his plot and the petitioner is no way concerned with plot No.10. If injunction is granted much inconvenience will be caused to the respondent." 15. Now basing upon the order in I.A.No.470 of 2012 in O.S.No.130 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapur, the writ petitioner claims that the 5th respondent has no connection to the property and that her property was submerged in a canal. And also contended that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and it is beyond the scope of the Arbitrator by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (referred supra), prayed to set aside the order passed in Claim No.1 of 2011 dated 30.01.2012. 16. And also contended that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and it is beyond the scope of the Arbitrator by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (referred supra), prayed to set aside the order passed in Claim No.1 of 2011 dated 30.01.2012. 16. As per the claim application, the counsel representing the 5th respondent herein claims that the arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide the issue, the prayer of the 5th respondent is to direct the writ petitioner herein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 5th respondent over the plot No.8. And it is also contended that the petitioner has not made any case to adjudicate the matter before this Court, thereby enforcing the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the Arbitrator has passed an award after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and the 5th respondent herein and therefore, learned counsel for the 5th respondent would urge this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition on the aforesaid grounds. 17. And also relied on the judgment of the composite High Court in Ashish Kumar Bhaumik and another v. Pramila and others, 2013 SCC Online AP 677 = (2013) 5 ALD 634 , wherein a learned Single Judge of the composite High Court held that an Arbitrator is having jurisdiction to decide the title and despite the judgment of the composite High Court in M.Venkata Ramana’s case (2 supra), observing that the judgment is not applicable because the alienation was made for a stranger who is not a member of society. 18. Now the point for consideration is, whether the Arbitrator is having jurisdiction to entertain a title dispute and the Claim No.1 of 2011 is liable to be set aside? 19. Before going into factual aspects pleaded by the respective parties, this Court proposes to deal with the legal submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. 20. As seen from the prayer of the 5th respondent raised before the Arbitrator is to direct the writ petitioner not to interfere with her possession and enjoyment over plot No.8. 21. 19. Before going into factual aspects pleaded by the respective parties, this Court proposes to deal with the legal submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. 20. As seen from the prayer of the 5th respondent raised before the Arbitrator is to direct the writ petitioner not to interfere with her possession and enjoyment over plot No.8. 21. The Arbitrator, while passing the award, has adjudicated the dispute and held in the following manner that: "The Arbitrator came to the conclusion that the respondents 1 to 3 (the writ petitioner herein and two other) have no manner of right, title or possession either plot No.8 or plot No.10". 22. In the present case, the Arbitrator has acted beyond its powers in granting relief that was beyond the subject matter of the reference under section 61 of Act and Rule 1964 as there were no prayer and pleadings for the same. The Arbitrator has to be strictly bound by the terms of reference or if there are no specific terms of reference, by the dispute or controversy raised under Section 61 of the Act of 1964 by a member against the concerned member or the society, as the case may be. It is only with respect to the disputed matters that the Arbitrator can proceed to give his award and he cannot go beyond the scope of dispute that could be said to arise out of the application filed before the Registrar. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and another, (2008) 17 SCC 491 , has held that the relief cannot be granted beyond the pleadings. The relevant portion of the said judgment, reads as under:- "16. The observation of the High Court that when a plaintiff sets forth the facts and makes a prayer for a particular relief in the suit, he is merely suggesting what the relief should be, and that it is for the court, as a matter of law, to decide upon the relief that should be granted, is not sound. Such an observation may be appropriate with reference to a writ proceeding. It may even be appropriate in a civil suit while proposing to grant as relief, a lesser or smaller version of what is claimed. Such an observation may be appropriate with reference to a writ proceeding. It may even be appropriate in a civil suit while proposing to grant as relief, a lesser or smaller version of what is claimed. But the said observation is misconceived if it is meant to hold that a civil court may grant any relief it deems fit, ignoring the prayer. It is fundamental that in a civil suit, relief to be granted can be only with reference to the prayers made in the pleadings. That apart, in civil suits, grant of relief is circumscribed by various factors like court fee, limitation, parties to the suits, as also grounds barring relief, like res judicata, estoppel, acquiescence, non-joinder of causes of action or parties etc., which require pleading and proof. Therefore, it would be hazardous to hold that in a civil suit whatever be the relief that is prayed, the court can on examination of facts grant any relief as it thinks fit. In a suit for recovery of Rs.one lakh, the court cannot grant a decree for Rs.Ten lakhs. In a suit for recovery possession of property 'A', court cannot grant possession of property 'B'. In a suit praying for permanent injunction, court grant a relief of declaration or possession. The jurisdiction to grant relief in a civil suit necessarily depends on the pleadings, prayer, court fee paid, evidence let in, etc." 24. In the present case, the Arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction and granted relief of title in favour of the 5th respondent herein and the Arbitrator has exercised his jurisdiction not voluntarily and it is beyond the provisions of the Act of 1964. The said finding of the Arbitrator is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the award passed by the 3rd respondent-Arbitrator is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Arbitrator to adjudicate the matter afresh keeping in view of the judgment in M.Venkata Ramana’s case (2 supra) and which affirmed by Supreme Court in a reported judgment in Velagacharla Jayaram Reddy’s case (1 supra). 25. The Arbitrator's registration of the dispute as claim No.1/2011 and decision on it is in accordance with the High Court's direction in W.P.No.18478 of 2008, so it cannot be concluded that he has no jurisdiction. 26. 25. The Arbitrator's registration of the dispute as claim No.1/2011 and decision on it is in accordance with the High Court's direction in W.P.No.18478 of 2008, so it cannot be concluded that he has no jurisdiction. 26. Additional document i.e., an order in I.A.No.470 of 2012 in O.S.No.130 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapur, was filed by the petitioner during the course of hearing in the writ petition. The order that it pertains to an interlocutory application in a suit was filed by the 5th respondent seeking the declaration and consequential injunction. In the order, the Judge stated that the 5th respondent has no right to the property. Which document sought to be brought on record supports the petitioner’s stand that the said additional document which may have a vital bearing on the merits of the case and it goes to the very root of the matter and that it is absolutely necessary for pronouncing judgment and if it is not allowed to be produced, the eventual order passed by the Arbitrator would be leading to injustice to the petitioner. 27. It is to observed that, if additional documents are filed then the concerned parties likely to be affected should be put on notice on such additional documents to satisfy the principle of natural justice. The matter requires fresh consideration by the Arbitrator. Parties are given liberty to supplement their respective pleadings if they so choose and file additional documents, if any, which shall be received by the Arbitration for its consideration. 28. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.01.2012 in Claim No.1 of 2011 is hereby set aside and both parties are relegated to the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator is hereby directed to settle the dispute between the writ petitioner and the 5th respondent herein and pass appropriate orders afresh including the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to entertain the dispute keeping in view of the division bench judgment of the common high court in M.Venkata Ramana’s case (2 supra), after giving opportunity to both the parties and permitting both parties to file additional material papers. Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.