Delhi High Court
Shri R.S. Batra vs Burmah-Shell Coop. Societies on 28 March, 2012
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.768/2005
% 28th March, 2012
SHRI R.S. BATRA ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms. Sumati Jumarani,
Advs.
VERSUS
BURMAH-SHELL COOP. SOCIETIES ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rohit Kumar Modi, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 15.3.2005 dismissing the suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits filed by the appellant/plaintiff on the ground that the disputes which were subject matter of the suit have to be decided in arbitration under Section 60 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972. RFA No.768/2005 Page 1 of 4
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Delhi Dayalbagh Cooperative House building Society Vs. Dy, Registrar, Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors., 166 (2010) DLT 139 in which judgment the Division Bench of this Court has held that when the issue is of validity of the documents, i.e. issue was to devolution/transfer of ownership, then, issue as to ownership on the basis of the documents can only be decided by the Civil Court and not under the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972.
3. In the present case, the issue pertains to who owns the subject flat No. 505, Aradhana Apartments, Burmah Shell Cooperative Housing Society, R.K. Puram, New Delhi which belongs to the original member, Sh.J.S.Premi. Whereas the appellant claimed to be the nominee of the original member, Sh.J.S. Premi, the defendants no. 2 and 3 are the children and therefore the legal heirs of late Sh. J.S. Premi and who accordingly claimed entitlement to ownership of the subject flat. It was also pleaded by the defendants no. 2 and 3 that the appellant/plaintiff in fact had given an affidavit/indemnity bond that the appellant would surrender/relinquish his membership of the society in the event of the existing of bonafide successors of the original member, RFA No.768/2005 Page 2 of 4 Sh. J.S. Premi claiming an interest in the share/property.
4. In view of the above, the disputes in the subject suit pertain to the claim of ownership of the property/flat, and there is no classical dispute between the members of the society or between persons who claim through the members or between the society and the members etc. as per Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972. The disputes in the suit are to the rival claims of ownership to the flat.
5. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.3.2005 is set aside. It is held that the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to decide the disputes which are subject matter of the suit. Nothing contained in today's judgment is a reflection on merits of the case of either of the parties and the Trial Court will hear and dispose of the suit in accordance with law
6. Parties to appear before the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi on 7.5.2012, and on which date, the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi will mark the suit for disposal to a competent Court in accordance with law. The concerned Court before whom the suit comes up, will issue notice to the respondents/defendants and their counsel before proceeding ahead with the suit. Trial Court record be sent back so as to be available to the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi on 7.5.2012.
RFA No.768/2005 Page 3 of 4
7. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
8. After the judgment was dictated counsel appears for the respondent no.1 and states that he has no objection for allowing of the appeal in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MARCH 28, 2012 ak RFA No.768/2005 Page 4 of 4