Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Kusum Verma And Anr. vs Pritam Singh Gulati And Anr. on 27 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: AIR1998MP199, 1998(1)MPLJ578, AIR 1998 MADHYA PRADESH 199, (1999) 1 CURCC 582 (1998) 1 MPLJ 578, (1998) 1 MPLJ 578
ORDER S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court deciding issue No. 7 against the defendant/applicants holding that the suit was not barred in view of the provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, and was entertainable and maintainable in the Civil Court; the defendant/ applicants have now approached this Court seeking redress praying for reversal of the order.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant/applicants as well as the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, and have also carefully perused the record.
3. The facts in brief, shorn of details, and necessary for the disposal of this revision lie in a harrow compass. The suit giving rise to this revision was filed by Pritam Singh Gulati, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, wherein the Rastriya Adilrsh Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha, Dr. Smi. Kusum Vcrma and Dr. S.K. Verma, have been impleaded as defendants Nos. 1 to 3. respectively.
4. The Rastriya Adarsh Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha (Regd.), the defendant No. 1 is a housing society which acquires land and after carving out the plots allots them to its members thereafter they are transferred in their favour for constructing residential buildings.
5. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of plot No. 30 in dispute on the basis of a sale deed dated 19th June, 1981, which sale deed had beenexecuted by the Rastriya Adarsh Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha (hereinafter referred to as the Society), transferring the plot in dispute in favour of the plaintiff which was duly registered on the same date which had been signed by its Adhyaksh and Secretary on behalf of the Society.
6. During the pendency of the suit, the aforesaid Society had executed a sale deed in respect of the same plot in favour of Dr. Smt. Kusum Verma, the defendant No. 2 on 20th May, 1992, which was registered on the same date. The sale deed had been signed by the Adhyaksh of the Society, on its behalf.
7. The plaintiff had prayed for a decree declaring that he was the owner-in-possession of the plot in dispute and the defendants had no right either to cancel or challenge the right, title and interest which accrued in his favour pursuant to the sale deed. The plaintiff also claimed a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/Society from transferring or alienating in any manner the plot in dispute, and further not to cancel the same during the pendency of the suit which had been filed on 24th August, 1987. The defendant/Society transferred the plot in favour of Dr. Smt. Kusum Verma, whereafter she was also impleaded along with her husband Dr. S.K. Verma, as defendants Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, and a further relief was prayed for declaring the sale deed made in favour of Dr. Smt. Kusum Verma to be void and legally ineffectual. The plaintiff further prayed for another prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, from raising any construction over the plot in dispute or interfere in the plaintiff's raising construction therein.
8. The aforesaid suit was contested by the Society on various grounds. The execution of the sale deed dated 19th June, 1981, was not denied but the validity of the said transfer was challenged setting up various pleas. It was also asserted that the Society had cancelled the sale deed dated 19th June, 1981, relied upon by the plaintiff on 11th August, 1987. The Society also raised a plea challenging the entertainability of the suit in view of the provisions contained in Section 82 read with Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
9. The defendant No. 2 filed a separate written statement. In her written statement, it was alleged that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff was void and legally ineffectual as the sale deed had been executed in violation of the rules of the Society. Various pleas were set up challenging the validity of the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff. Similar pleas as raised by the defendant No. 1, Society in regard to the maintainability and entertainability of the suit had also been raised by the defendant No. 2.
10. The trial Court framed an issue which was to the effect that whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. It is this issue which has been decided in favour of the plaintiff under the impugned order.
11. The provisions contained in Section 64 read with Section 84 of the Act indicate that if the nature of the dispute is such which falls within the purview of the provisions contained in Section 64 of the Act, and being so covered is referable to the Registrar the suits with regard to such disputes stand expressly barred under Sub-section 1(c) of Section 84 of the Act and the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the categories of disputes referred to in Section 64 of the Act stands vested in the Registrar.
12. The question which arises for consideration in this case, therefore, is as to whether the dispute raised by the plaintiff and the relief claimed by him is such which falls within the purview of Section 64 of the Act and the Registrar could be deemed to have vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the same and grant the reliefs prayed for.
13. It may be noticed at this stage that the present revision has been filed by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 only. The defendant No. 2 is the transferee and the defendant No. 1, Society had effected the transfer in her favour during the pendency of the suit. The defendant No. 3 is her husband and the decree of prohibitory injunction as indicated above had been claimed against him also.
14. However, the defendant No. 1, Society has submitted to the order passed by the trial Court which is now sought to be challenged by its transferee having in her favour a transfer lis pendens.
15. The learned counsel for the defendant/ applicants has strenuously urged that the question relating to the validity of the sate deed relied upon by the plaintiff included the question concerning the validity of the membership of the vendee, and the competence and authority of the office bearers of the Society in regard to the execution of the sale deed for and on behalf of the Society and since the dispute raised by the defendant No. 1, Society touched the constitution, management and business of the Society, the exclusive jurisdiction to decide them vested with the Registrar and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit, the controversy raised wherein, included the determination of the disputes of the aforesaid nature.
16. The learned counsel for the defendant/ applicants has further contended that as provided under. Section 64(1)(c) of the Act, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of the Society was liable to be referred to the Registrar.
17. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 has however, urged that the transaction of sale relied upon by the plaintiff was complete with the execution of the sale deed by the Society in his favour on 19th June, 1981, and the Society ceased to have any right, title or interest in the plot of land which was the subject-matter of the sale deed which right, title and interest stood passed on in favour of the plaintiff.
18. It has further been pointed out that the defendant/Society had neither denied the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff nor the genuineness of the signatures of its office bearers who had signed the sale deed for and on behalf of the Society had been denied, but it had only asserted lhat they had colluded with the plaintiff to transfer the property, challenging further the entitlement of the plaintiff to get the transfer effected in his favour.
19. The contention is that all the allegations made in the written statement by the defendant No. I, Society as well as the defendant No. 2 indicate only that the transaction of sale relied upon by the plaintiff was voidable and not void: whereas on the plaint allegations, the sale relied upon by the defendant No. 2 was asserted to be void ab initio and non est. In such a situation, it is urged lhat the dispute could not he taken to be falling within the purview of the disputes contemplated under Section 64 of the Act, which were referable to the Registrar. It is further urged that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to grant a decree of declaration or prohibitory injunction as sought for by the plaintiff. In this view of the matter also, it is contended that the Civil Court had full jurisdiction to entertain the suit unaffected by the provisions contained in Section 84 of the Act, which could not be deemed to have been attracted at all.
20. 1 have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, and have also perused the provisions of the Act.
21. As pointed out by this Court in its decision in the case of Baldeo Kumar Agrawal v. Managing Director. M.P. Rajya Laghu Van Upaj Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, reported in AIR 1997 MP 147. in enacting Section 64 of the Act. the legislative intent obviously was to provide self-contained dispute resolving mechanism through the hierarchy of original and appellate co-operative Courts and the contention that only disputes categorised in Clauses (i) to (v) of Section 64(2) of the Act, are alone referable cannot be accepted as that would whittle down the scope of Sub-section (1) of Section 64, and frustrate the very purpose of broad categorisation of disputes therein.
22. However, taking into consideration the pleadings of the parlies and the nature of the claim as set forth in the plaint, in the present case, it is obvious thai the dispute raised by the plaintiff cannot by any stretch of imagination be taken to be a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of the society. The Society, ex facie had parted with its interest in the plot in dispute with the execution of the sale deed dated 19th June, 1981. The transaction of sale of the plot stood completed with the registration of the sale deed. In case, this sale deed was voidable; its effect could only be taken away by avoiding the same and getting il cancelled through a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. So long as a voidable sale deed is nol cancelled, it continues to remain valid and effective. It is not the case of the defendants that the sale deed dated 19th June, 1981, was void which could be ignored. When the suit had been filed by the plaintiff initially in the year 1987, he had prayed for a declaration that the defendants were not entitled to cancel the sale deed which had been executed in his favour and had also prayed for a prohibitory injunction seek ing to restrain them from transferring the property in dispute or cancelling the sale deed. It was during the pendency of the suit that the defendant No. 1. Society had executed another sale deed in respect of the same plot which was the subject-
matter of the sale deed dated 19th June, 1981. On coming to know of this sale deed, the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 amended the plaint and prayed for the other reliefs which included the relief of declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of Dr. Mrs. Kusum Verma, defendant No. 2, during the pendency of the suit was void and legally ineffectual.
23. The business of the Society as has already been noticed hereinabove was to acquire the land and after carving out the plots; sell them to its members for raising residential houses.
24. I am of the considered opinion that the dispute in regard to the invalidity of a particular sate deed and its cancellation on the ground that it was voidable could only be determined and adjudicated upon by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
"25. I am further of the considered opinion that in such matters, a dispute, if any; relating to the transaction regarding a sale could be referred to the Registrar only up to the stage anterior to the passing of the title and not thereafter. A void sale deed which has to be treated as non est is however liable to be ignored at any stage.
26. In a case where the transaction of sale is claimed by the Society to be voidable and further in all such cases where the relief claimed by the plaintiff is such which cannot be granted by the Registrar or in any forum contemplated under the Act, even in those cases the bar of Section 84 of the Act cannot be said to have been attracted. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and declaration as sought for by the plaintiff could not have been granted in any forum provided under the Act. In this view of the matter also, the Civil Court could not be taken to have been ousted of its jurisdiction with which it stood vested under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to deal with the suit filed by the plaintiff.
27. In view of my conclusions indicated hereinabove, I am clearly of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order cannot be taken to be vitiated by any such legal infirmity which may justify any interference therein by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction envisaged under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
28. The revision deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
29. There shall, however be no order as to the costs.