Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts in brief are that the Respondent Maruti Co­operative Housing Society Limited passed a unanimous Resolution No. 12 in its General Body Meeting on 13.08.1992 to sell the common plot admeasuring 400 sq. yards to the Appellant Trust at the rate of Rs. 200/­ per sq. yard for construction of a common 'Satsang Hall' for religious purposes and accordingly for a consideration of Rs. 80,001/­ paid by the Trust, a Sale Deed was executed in favour of the Appellant Trust by the Maruti Co­operative Housing Society Limited on 26.05.1993 and accordingly the possession was handed over to the Appellant Trust on which construction of the said 'Satsang Hall' was also made. Subsequently, one disgruntled member of the Society, namely, Mr. Vindochandra G. Vaghela filed the aforesaid Lavad Suit No. 2256 of 1994 challenging the power of the Respondent Society to sell the common plot to the C/LPA/999/2010 JUDGMENT Dt. 04.03.2021 HARIKRUSHNADAS CHHAGANLAL NANALAL & ISHWARDAS MOHANLAL Versus VINODCHANDRA G VAGHELA & 1 other(s) Appellant Trust and the Board of Nominees vide order dated 23.04.1999 under the Gujarat Co­operative Societies Act, 1961 held in favour of the Complainant Mr. Vindochandra G. Vaghela and quashed and set aside the said Resolution of the Society. The Appeal filed by the Appellant Trust before the Co­operative Tribunal namely Appeal No. 265 of 1999 also came to be dismissed on 17.06.2003. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Appellant Trust approached the learned Single Judge by way of the aforesaid writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 9900 of 2003 which too came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 11.01.2010.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant Trust has filed the present intra­court Appeal.

4. Ms. Dhara Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant Trust urged before us that the Registered Sale Deed in favour of the Appellant Trust executed by the Respondent Maruti Co­operative Housing Society Limited on 26.05.1993 could not be set aside by the Board of Nominees or the Tribunal constituted under the C/LPA/999/2010 JUDGMENT Dt. 04.03.2021 HARIKRUSHNADAS CHHAGANLAL NANALAL & ISHWARDAS MOHANLAL Versus VINODCHANDRA G VAGHELA & 1 other(s) provisions of the Gujarat Co­operative Societies Act, 1961 as it does not fall within the scope of Section 96 of the Act which covers only 'a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of the Society' and the contract of sale supported by the unanimous Resolution of the General Body Meeting could not have been quashed and set aside by way of an indirect challenge made only to the Resolution passed by the Respondent Society to sell the said common plot in favour of the Appellant Trust and that too for constructing a 'Satsang Hall' for religious purposes, which was also commonly used by all the members of the Society, who are not even charged any fees for entering in the 'Satsang Hall' constructed by them.

4.1 She urged that only a competent Civil Court has the power to set aside the registered Sale Deed and the Authorities created under the Gujarat Co­operative Societies Act of 1961 do not have any such power. She also submitted that there were in fact two common plots in the land owned by the Society and drawing our attention to the map of the said land owned by the Society, the learned C/LPA/999/2010 JUDGMENT Dt. 04.03.2021 HARIKRUSHNADAS CHHAGANLAL NANALAL & ISHWARDAS MOHANLAL Versus VINODCHANDRA G VAGHELA & 1 other(s) Counsel pointed out that another common plot was still available with the Society for other common amenities and facilities and therefore this sale in favour of the Appellant Trust was perfectly legal and justified and subserved the purpose of common facilities for the members of the Society itself and therefore merely a disgruntled member of the Society who may not be satisfied with the said Resolution of the Society could not be permitted to assail such Resolution No. 12 dated 13.08.1992 and indirectly challenge the sale deed itself. She submitted that the learned Single Judge as well as the Authorities below have fallen into error in holding that such a Resolution could not be passed by the Society and the common plot could not have been sold to the Appellant Trust. She submitted that the said construction was raised way back in the year 1993 and the said Satsang Hall is being used for common purposes.

11. Though it is not necessary for us to examine the question of equity or necessity of sale of such common plot by the Society in favour of the Appellant Trust, strictly speaking, as we are only concerned with the power and jurisdiction of the Authorities under the Act of 1961 to decide the said question, but we have seen from C/LPA/999/2010 JUDGMENT Dt. 04.03.2021 HARIKRUSHNADAS CHHAGANLAL NANALAL & ISHWARDAS MOHANLAL Versus VINODCHANDRA G VAGHELA & 1 other(s) the facts obtaining in the present case that not only the General Body Meeting of the Society passed a unanimous Resolution fully being aware of the fact that it is one of the two common plots of the Society but they are also selling the same in favour of the Appellant Trust for the purpose of construction of a 'Satsang Bhawan' which will be also available for utilization by the common people including the members of the Respondent Society. The object of utilizing the common plot for a common use of the Society therefore cannot be obviously said to be defeated by such a sale. The Resolution passed by a unanimous consent of all the members could not have been upset at the instance of a dissatisfied member of the Society only under the guise of a common plot being sold to a third party like the Appellant Trust. The availability of another common plot of almost the same size namely 400 sq. yards with the Society could very well be utilized for their other common facilities and purposes and there was hardly any reason to be upset too much about the sale in favour of the Appellant Trust and construction of a 'Satsang Bhawan' which is undoubtedly a common usage for all.