Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Ltd. vs The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sindhanoor, Raichur Dist., T. Sangappa and Smt. Rudramma

S. Abdul Nazeer

This writ petition is directed against the order No. 566/1999 dated 29.12.2010 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, whereby the appeal filed by the third respondent has been allowed. The second respondent is the husband of the third respondent. The second respondent had been working with the petitioner-Society as its Manager-cum-Secretary. It was alleged that while in service, he had misappropriated the funds of the society In an enquiry held by the first respondent, it was established that the second respondent had misappropriated the funds of the society. In order to recover the said amount, the petitioner initiated proceedings before the first respondent. The first respondent has passed an order at Annexure ''A'' by attaching the property bearing Sy. Nos. 21/A, 21/E and 32 of Virupapura Village measuring 24 acres 8 guntas. The third respondent fried the above appeal before the Tribunal challenging the said order. The contention of the third respondent is that she has inherited the property from her family. In fact, the property belonged to her father. After the death of her father, her mother has succeeded to the said property and after the death of her mother, she has become the owner of the said property. Accepting the said contention, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Tribunal is not justified in raising the attachment. It is his submission that the second respondent has purchased the property originally in the name of his father-in-law. Thereafter, the said property was succeeded by the third respondent.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent has sought to justify the impugned order. It is argued that the property originally belonged to the father of the third respondent. After his death, her mother has succeeded to the said property and after the death of her mother the property has devolved on her. He has pointed out the Record of Rights (''ROR'' for short) of the property right from the year 1958-1959 onwards till this day in support of his submission.

I have carefully considered the arguments made by the learned Counsel at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. The ROR of the property for the years 1958-1959, 1959-1960 and 1960-1961 is at Annexure ''R1'' It is evident from the ROR that the property stood in the name of Doddappa, the father of the third respondent. It is also clear from the ROR at Annexure ''R2'' that in the year 1963-1964, the name of kabjedar was transferred from Doddappa to Eramma, who is the mother of the third respondent. Annexure ''R3'' is the ROR of 2009-2010, which discloses that the name of the third respondent was incorporated for the first time on 2.3.2010. It is also clear from the ROR at Annexure ''R3'' that the property is the ancestral property of the third respondent. These documents would clearly indicate that the property belongs to Rudramma. The petitioner has not produced any document in support of his contention that the property belongs to T. Sangappa, the second respondent herein. Therefore, the first respondent could not have attached the property of the third respondent in order to recover the amount due from the second respondent. The Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record has rightly allowed the appeal. I do not find any error in the order. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.