Madras High Court
Revision vs The Deputy Registrar (Housing) on 27 January, 2012
Author: R.S.Ramanathan
Bench: R.S.Ramanathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 27.01.2012
Coram:
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.S.RAMANATHAN
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.5021 and 5022 of 2011
and
M.P.Nos. 1 and 1 of 2011
Kurudampalayam Co-operative House
Building Society Ltd.,
No.K 2178, rep. By its Special Officer
NGGO Colony, Coimbatore-641 022
... Revision Petitioner
in both C.R.Ps.
..vs..
1. The Deputy Registrar (Housing)
O/o. Deputy Registrar of Co-op-
Societies, Chinthamani Compound,
Mettupalayam Road,
Coimbatore- North,
Coimbatore-2 ... 1st Respondent
in both C.R.Ps.
2. N.Saif Ullah ... 2nd Respondent
in C.R.P.No.5021 of 2011
3. R.Sarathambal ... 2nd Respondent
in C.R.P.No.5022 of 2011
Prayer in C.R.P.No.5021 of 2011:
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 13.10.2011 made in CMA (CS) No.51 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore confirming the Award dated 14.9.2009 made in Claim No.336 of 2009 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Societies (Housing), Coimbatore by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
Prayer in C.R.P.No.5022 of 2011:
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 13.10.2011 made in CMA (CS) No.52 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore confirming the Award dated 14.9.2009 made in Claim No.333 of 2009 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Societies (Housing), Coimbatore by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner in
both C.R.Ps. ... Mr. N.Manokaran
O R D E R
The 2nd respondent in both the revisions are the members of the revision petitioner's Society and they applied to the Society for allotment of plot to each of them and also paid the dues in full. The 2nd respondent in C.R.P.No.521 of 2011 was allotted Plot No.24 and the 2nd respondent in C.R.P.No.5022 of 2011 was allotted Plot No.165. They applied to the revision petitioner to execute the sale deed and that was refused and therefore they raised the dispute under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Deputy Registrar passed an order in dispute Claim Nos.333 and 336 of 2009 directing the revision petitioner to execute the sale deed in respect of Plots allotted to them. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed appeal in C.M.A.Nos. 51 and 52 of 2010 before the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Coimbatore and the learned Principal District Judge dismissed the appeals and against the same, these revisions are filed.
2. Mr. N.Manokaran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Authorities below without properly appreciating the fact that the claim of the 2nd respondent is barred by limitation erred in directing the revision petitioner to execute the sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that in the year 1988 the allotment was ordered in favour of the 2nd respondent and they have also paid the dues in the year 1990 and thereafter, they have not taken any steps calling upon the revision petitioner to execute the sale deed and after steps were taken by the revision petitioner to sell the Plots having regard to the increase in value they raised the dispute under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the claim made by the 2nd respondent is also barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. He further submitted that as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, a suit for specific performance of a contract has to be filed within three years from the date prescribed in the agreement or from the date of refusal and specific performance cannot be granted in favour of a person who comes to Court belatedly and in this case though they have paid the entire amount in the year 1990 they have not taken any steps to get the sale deed executed by the Society and therefore the claim is barred by limitation. He further contended that under Section 90(9) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act six years period is prescribed for raising a dispute and admittedly the dispute was raised beyond the period of six years and therefore the claim is barred by limitation and they are not entitled to any relief.
3. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. It is seen from the typed set of papers filed by the revision petitioner that till 1998 Ex.A7, the revision petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to approach them regarding the sale of the Plot allotted to them and they have not sent any communication to the 2nd respondent that they would not execute the sale deed pursuant to the allotment if the 2nd respondent fails to comply with that direction. In other words, there was no refusal on the part of the revision petitioner to execute the sale deed as per the allotment and they are only requesting the 2nd respondent to approach the office to get the sale deed executed. Therefore, in the absence of any period mentioned in the allotment and in the absence of any refusal on the part of the revision petitioner to execute the sale deed pursuant to the allotment, under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, there is no limitation for the 2nd respondent to approach the Society as time begins to run only from the date of refusal. Further, under Section 90(9)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societes Act, the period of limitation for referring a dispute under Section 90 shall be regulated by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 and as per Section 90 (9)(a)(i) of the said Act, when the dispute relates to a Society in respect of which a Special Officer has been appointed under Section 88 or to a Society which has been ordered to be wound up under Section 137, the period of limitation shall be six years from the date of the order issued under Section 88 or Section 137. As per Section 90(9)(a)(ii) of the said Act, save as otherwise provided in clause (i), when the dispute relates to any act or omission on the part of any of the parties referred to in clause (b) or clause ) of sub-section (1), the period of limitation shall be six years from the date on which the act or omission with reference to which the dispute arose, took place. The reference to clause (b) or clause ) of sub-section (1) of Section 90 will not arise in this case and therefore Section 90(9)(a)(ii) of the Act will not be applicable. Similarly, Section 90(9)(a)(i) of the Act also will not be applicable to the facts of this case. Further, as per Section 90(9)(b) of the Act, the Registrar has got power to admit a dispute after the expiry of the period of limitation on suffiient cause is shown. In this case, admittedly, the Claim Petitions were filed in the year 2009 before the Deputy Registrar who is the Competent Authority and he has considered the question of limitation and allowed the claim made by the 2nd respondent and therefore even assuming that a period of limitation is prescribed under the Act and the dispute was raised beyond the period of limitation the Authority has passed an order accepting the claim of the 2nd respondent and therefore in my opinion, the order does not call for any interference. Further, according to me in the absence of any refusal on the part of the revision petitioner refusing to execute the sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent the time will not begin to run and therefore there is no question of limitation against the 2nd respondent in applying for execution of the sale deed.
4. Considering all these aspects, the Court below rightly allowed the application filed by the 2nd respondent and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Court below and the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 27.01.2012 Index: Yes/No. Internet: Yes/No. kr.
R.S.RAMANATHAN,J.
kr.
To The Principal District Judge, Principal District Court, Coimbatore.
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.5021 and 5022 of 2011 and M.P.Nos. 1 and 1 of 2011 27.01.2012