R. YASHODARA RAO Vs. SATYA PRAKASH ARCADE APARTMENTS FLAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is the appellant. Brief facts of the case as represented by the appellant are that the complainant association was registered under the Societies Act. The complaint is filed for non-providing of facilities and amenities such as

(2.) The opposite party no.5 and previous land owners of the apartments, the opposite parties no.1 to 4 created registered sale deed bearing document No.6017 of 2006 in favour of the opposite parties no.1 to 4 in respect of a small room in the cellar. The opposite party no.1 applied for mutation and tax assessment in the name of P.V.Rammohan Rao in respect of the room in the cellar. The complainant intended to demolish the room in the cellar.

(3.) The opposite party no.2 has filed counter which was also stated to have been treated as the counter of the opposite parties no.1, 3 and 4. It was contended that the complaint is not maintainable and barred u/s 23 of AP Societies Registration Act. The opposite parties no.1 to 4 are the members of the complainant association. Hence, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. No prior notice as provided u/s 126 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act was issued before filing the complaint. As per the agreement between the opposite parties no.1 to 4 and the opposite party no.5 the opposite party no.5 had to develop and construct the flat at his cost. The share of the opposite party no.5 is 65.08% of the built up area, undivided share of land and parking etc. The complainant association is not a party to the agreement between the opposite parties no.1 to 4 and the opposite partyno.5. For proper conveyance of title in favour of the third party purchasers, the opposite parties no.1 to 4 and the opposite party no.5 executed the sale deeds irrespective of their extent of share in any such sale transactions.