Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

38. The defence taken by the society clearly shows that it is under the impression that the sale deed in favour of a non-member is executed only by the Secretary and he has misappropriated the said amount and he had no authorization to execute the sale deed. But, the material on record demonstrates that before the execution of the sale deed, there was resolution dated 9-12-1973 authorizing the President, the Secretary and Treasurer to execute the sale deed in favour of non-members for the purpose of raising finance to complete the layout work as well as to pay interest due by the society which the members of the society were incapable of discharging. In pursuance of the said resolution, the President, Secretary and the Treasurer have executed the sale deed. Neither the subsequent sale deed executed by the society in favour of member nor the cancellation deed executed by the society is executed by the President, Secretary and Treasurer. It is only the Secretary who has executed the said documents. If the argument of the society is to be accepted, then the cancellation deed as well as sale deed in favour of a member also becomes void. The allegations made against the previous Secretary Sri Anniyappa is without any basis as is clear from the aforesaid three resolutions. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the said contention. The sale deed executed by the society represented by the President, Secretary and the Treasurer in favour of a non-member is valid and binding on the society and it is not void.

39. When the owner of a property sells/conveys the property to - the purchaser under a written document and get the same registered, the right and the title to the said property is transferred from the owner to the purchaser on registration of the said documents. After such registration the owner of the property ceases to have any interest and all his rights in the property gets extinguished. He would not have any right to meddle with the property thereafter. If such a person were to execute one more sale deed and get it registered in respect of the said property the said sale deed has no value in the eye of law. The reason being on the date of the second sale deed, he is not the owner of the property. Therefore, the purchaser would not get title to the property as the vendor could convey only that title which he has in the property on the date of execution and registration of the sale deed. Similarly, if after execution and registration of the sale deed, the owner wants to get back the property, it has to be done by canceling the sale deed on any of the grounds which are available to him under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act. Unilaterally he cannot execute what is styled as a deed of cancellation, because on the date of execution and registration of the deed of cancellation, the said person has no right or interest in that property. Normally what can be done by a Court can be done by the parties to an instrument by mutual consent. Even otherwise if the parties to a document agree to cancel it by mutual consent for some reason and restore status quo ante, it is possible to execute such a deed. An agreement of sale, lease or mortgage or partition may be cancelled with the consent of the parties thereto. Because in the case of agreement of sale, lease, mortgage or partition, each of the parties to the said document even after the execution and registration of the said deed retains interest in the property and, therefore, it is permissible for them to execute one more document to annul or cancel the earlier deed. However, it would not apply to a case of deed of sale executed and registered. In the case of a sale deed executed and registered the owner completely loses his right over the property and the purchaser becomes the absolute owner. It cannot be nullified by executing a deed of cancellation because by execution and registration of a sale deed, the properties are being vested in the purchaser and the title cannot be divested by mere execution of a deed of cancellation. Therefore, even by consent or agreement between the purchaser and the vendor, the said sale deed cannot be annulled. If the purchaser wants to give back the property, it has to be by another deed of conveyance. If the deed is vitiated by fraud or other grounds mentioned in the Contract Act, there is no possibility of parties agreeing by mutual consent to cancel the deed. It is only the Court which can cancel the deed duly executed, under the circumstances mentioned in Section 31 and other provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Therefore, the power to cancel a deed vests with a Court and it cannot be exercised by the vendor of a property. In this context it is necessary to see Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, which reads as under:

43. In the instant case, the plaintiff is seeking declaration that the cancellation deed dated 5.6.1981 executed by the defendant unilaterally canceling the sale deed dated 11.3.1974 executed in favour of Sri. C. Janardhana Rao, the predecessor in title of the plaintiff, is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and his predecessor in title. 40. Ex. PI is the sale deed in the name of the plaintiff executed by Sri. P.NoorullaBasha on 22.11.1980. InEx.Pl there is a recital to the effect that the purchaser was put in possession on 22.11.1980 upon receipt of Rs. 10,000/-. Ex. P2 is the sale deed executed by C.Janardhana Rao in favour of Sri. P. Noorulla Basha for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- and C. Janardhana Rao put Noorulla Basha in possesion of the property. The sale deed dated 11.3.1974 executed by the society in favour of C. Janardhana Rao refers to C. Janardhana Rao being admitted as a nominal member by virtue of the resolution of the general body meeting on 25.12.1973. Ex. P6 is the katha certificate in the name of the plaintiff issued by the revenue officer on 7.7.1981. Exs. P7 to P9 are the tax paid receipts. Ex. P 12 is the certified copy of the deed of cancellation. The said cancellation deed sets out the reasons for cancellation. The resolution passed in the general body meeting held on 28-9-1980 is the basis for cancellation. In the said resolution there is no whisper about the cancellation of the sale deed as per Ex. P3. The various reasons mentioned in Ex. PI 2 do not find a place in the said resolution. A careful scrutiny of the resolution shows that Secretary of the defendant-society was not empowered to execute the deed of cancellation of the sale deed executed by the defendant-society in favour of nominal members of the defendant-society. Defendant has not produced the extracts of the meeting held on 2.3.1980. The defendant-society has not issued notice to the previous owners of the suit property in question as per Ex. P2.

46. The trial Court on careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence rightly held that the plaintiff has established his title to the property. Plaintiff is in lawful possession of the property. The unilateral cancellation deed has no legal effect. The suit is not barred by time. Suit is not hit by Section 125 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. Court fee paid is sufficient and it rightly granted the declaration that the cancellation deed dated 5.6.1981 brought into existence by the defendant unilaterally purported to cancel the sale deed dated 11.3.1974 executed by it in favour of C. Janardhana Rao is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and his predecessor in title and it rightly granted an order of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said judgment and decree of the trial Court is in accordance with law and do not suffer from any legal infirmity which calls for interference. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.