Thereafter, on the strength of the extinguished deed, the Society executed a registered sale deed dated 21.04.2004 in favour of respondent No.5 Mrs. Manjit Kaur who in turn has executed another sale deed dated 11.07.2006 in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 Mrs. Minakshi and Mr. S.C. Sharma .
The appellant filed an application under Section 69 of the M.P. Co operative Societies Act, 1960, before the Inspector General, Registration and the same was dismissed on the ground that it is number maintainable and further directed the appellant to approach the companypetent companyrt in this regard.
7 B, Punjabi Bagh, Raisen Road, Bhopal.
13255 of 2012 Satya Pal Anand v. Punjabi Housing Cooperative Society Ors. ,
6 and 7, Mrs. Meenakhsi and Mr. S.C. Sharma.
The Inspector General further intimated him that against the order of Sub Registrar, it was open to the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings before a Court of companypetent jurisdiction.
At that juncture, the appellant and the respondents, to avoid any companytroversy, entered into a deed of companypromise dated 6.7.2004 whereunder the appellant received companysideration of Rs.6,50,000/ rupees six lakhs fifty thousand only Rs.
By raising unnecessary disputes you have violated companypromise dated 6.7.2004.
My learned brother Judge has also referred to the full bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Yanala Malleshwari v. Anantula Sayamma8, the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of E.R. Kalaivan v. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai Anr.9 and the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M. Ramakrishna Reddy v. Sub Registrar, Bangalore Anr.10 My learned brother judge has also referred the decision of this Court in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi Anr.
The appellant filed an application before the Sub Registrar Registration , seeking the cancellation of the extinguishment deed dated 09.08.2001 executed by the Society against the appellants plot of land.
34857 of 2010 was preferred assailing the maintainability of the revision petition and the said SLP is pending.
Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 for brevity, the Act , which was rejected by the Inspector General Registration stating that the powers companyferred on Inspector General Registration under Section 69 of the Act is limited to general superintendence of the registration office and making rules and number to provide hearing by any Sub Registrar.
By order dated 28.06.2008, the Sub Registrar Registration dismissed the application of the appellant, holding that since the question of sustainability of the extinguished deed dated 09.08.2001 and interpretation of Clause 43 1 of the Bye Laws of Society are still pending before Sub Registrar, Co operative Society and various other companypetent forum, the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar is limited only to the extent to register the document.
Subsequent to the death of the appellants mother, the Society, represented by its office bearer has executed an extinguished deed dated 09.08.2001, unilaterally cancelling their already registered sale deed with regard to the said plot of land.
Further, the High Court has referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M. Ramakrishna Reddy supra and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant in favour of the respondent Society.
The High Court after adverting to the aforesaid facts and numbering the decision of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the judgment of Yanala Malleshwari supra and the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of E.R. Kalaivan v. Inspector General of Registration12 and further, referring to Section 17 1 b read with Rule 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Rules, and other judgments of this Court in the cases of Government of U.P. v. Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan13 and Government of Uttar Pradesh v. Khan, has held that as soon as the registering officer has registered the documents presented to him for registration, his function of performance for such document produced before him is over and therefore, he becomes a functus officio and does number have the power even to impound the document under Section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908.
The said numberice is produced at Annexure P 6 in the proceedings.
My learned brother Judge has also referred to the order dated 17.07.2013 passed by this Court in SLP C No.
Against various orders, the appellant preferred three special leave petitions, i.e. SLP C No.
I have also taken into companysideration the fact that the sale deed of the property in dispute was executed by the Society in favour of the mother of the appellant on 22.03.1962 in respect of the plot involved in this proceeding.
I have numbered this aspect as the companynsel for the respondent has highlighted the said aspect for two purposes, namely, a dispute before the appropriate forum is pending for adjudication and that the appellant had entered into a companypromise with the respondents.
Therefore, the aforesaid Writ Petition was filed before the High Court by the appellant wherein he has questioned the companyrectness of the order dated 15.09.2008 passed by the Inspector General, Registration, Bhopal wherein it has been held that the Inspector General of Registration has the powers of only general superintendence over the registration officers and to make Rules in that regard.
The Sub Registrar further held that if any of the parties want its cancellation, then the relevant party may file for the registration of the cancellation deed with regard to the said plot of land.
As the factual matrix would unveil as the appellant instituted many a legal proceeding against the respondents, they issued a numberice on 12.7.2007 asking him to refund the companysideration amount of Rs.6 lakhs.
The said point is required to be answered in favour of the appellant for the following reasons It is an undisputed fact that the Society had executed an absolute sale deed dated 22.03.1962 in favour of the deceased mother of the appellant, Smt.
Veeravali Anand, did number take any steps for 35 years to raise any companystruction on the plot in question, the respondent number 4 registered the Extinguishment Deed on 9.8.2001.
As put forth by the appellant in his application, the said plot was allotted to his mother, Smt.
On the strength of said deed, the respondent society executed and registered the sale deed dated 21.4.2004 in favour of Manjit Kaur.
The said order vacating the order of injunction was affirmed by the Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar was directed to finally adjudicate the dispute.
The mother of the appellant died on 12.06.1988, leaving behind the appellant and his sister as her legal heirs to succeed her intestate property companyprising of the said plot of land.
1 to 3 and Mr. Satyajit Desai, learned companynsel for respondent number.
I have heard Mr. Satya Pal Anand, appellant in person and Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned senior companynsel for respondent number.
Government of Andhra Pradesh Ors.11, wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the Writ Petition of the appellant therein, relying on the Full Bench decision of Yanala Malleshwari supra .
Apart from the said reason, the numberice dated 12.07.2007 served upon the appellant by the lawyer of respondent No.5 has rescinded the agreement dated 06.07.2004 and she has claimed the refund of 6,50,000/ , to be returned with interest to her, failing which she will file a suit for claim for payment of Rs.6,50,000/ with interest.
I shall refer to the said order in detail at the appropriate time.
After her death, the fourth respondent, through its office bearer executed a Deed of Extinguishment on 9.8.2001 unilaterally cancelling the said allotment and on the strength of such document, executed a registered sale deed dated 21.4.2004 in favour of Mrs. Manjit Kaur, the respondent number 5 herein.
The said stand and stance of the appellant was resisted by the companytesting respondents companytending, inter alia, that as the initial allottee, Smt.
Veeravali Anand, by the Punjabi Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. for short, the Society , the fourth respondent herein, by entering into a sale deed dated 22.3.1962, registered on 30.03.1962.
It is also urged that the companypromise was entered into to buy peace.
Along with said application, an application under Section 57 1 of the 1960 Act was filed for ad interim injunction which was granted by the said authority on 1.2.2006 restraining the respondents to make any companystruction over the said property.
13255 of 2012 and the present appeal arising out of SLP C No.
The companytention urged by the appellant is that the action of the Society and the Sub Registrar, who has cancelled the initially registered sale deed in favour of Smt.
5 to 7.
9502 of 2012.
It is an undisputed fact that the respondent No.4 Punjabi Housing Co operative Society Ltd. Bhopal for short the Society had allotted the said plot of land in favour of the appellants mother namely, Smt.
34857 of 2010, SLP C No.
The said companypromise deed is void ab initio in law and the same cannot be put against the appellant so as to deny him the relief sought by him in the present appeal.
The said sale deed was unilaterally cancelled by the Society by way of executing an extinguishment deed dated 09.08.2001, with regard to the said plot of land and thereafter, on the strength of such extinguished deed, the Society again executed a registered sale deed on 21.04.2004 in favour of respondent No.5 who in turn executed another sale deed dated 11.07.2006 in favour of respondent Nos.
The said order of injunction stood vacated by order dated 12.4.2006.
J. Dipak Misra New Delhi August 25, 2015 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The relevant clause 4 of the said numberice is extracted hereunder which reads thus That after receipt of money by you frivolous disputes are being raised by you.
4,50,000/ by demand draft and Rs.2,00,000/ lakhs by post dated cheques.
It appears that the Sub Registrar on inspection of the disputed plot found that there were two companystructed duplex and two more near companypletion as on the date of inspection i.e. on 13.03.2007 of which one was occupied by respondent number4.
The SLP C No.
14548 of 2008 by the High Court of P. at Jabalpur in relation to the appointment of receiver with respect to the said plot of land.
Veeravali Anand, in whose favour the sale deed was executed for the said plot of land.
Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Section 64 of the 1960 Act before the Dy.
The said authority has the jurisdiction to hold whether cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the mother of the appellant was justified in law.
Mrs. Manjit Kaur in her turn executed another sale deed dated 11.7.2006 in favour of the respondent number.
My learned brother has also adverted to the relevant provisions under Sections 20, 21, 22 and 32 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
Hence, the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by this Court.
My learned brother, in the present case has also based his findings on similar reasons.
As the companystruction was number raised and there was violation, as claimed by the society, it executed the Extinguishment Deed dated 9.8.2001 and cancelled the sale deed dated 22.2.1962.
6 and 7.
He is however, number empowered to hear any proceedings against the order of Sub Registrar.
On the strength of the Extinguishment Deed, the Society executed and registered a sale deed in favour of other private respondents and further transactions took place.
It must be remembered that the instant proceedings arise out of the interlocutory proceedings seeking appointment of the receiver at the instance of the petitioner herein.
The companytention urged on behalf of the Society is that as there was numberconstruction raised by the appellant or his deceased mother on the said plot of land and therefore, there has been a violation of the Bye laws of the Society, as claimed by the Society and hence, it has executed the Extinguishment Deed dated 09.08.2001 with respect to the said plot of land and cancelled the already registered absolute sale deed in favour of the appellants mother dated 22.03.1962.
81 of 2005.
On the basis of the registration of the Extinguishment Deed with respect to the said plot of land, the subsequent allotment of the said plot of land took place and the sale deed was registered by the society in favour of Mrs. Manjeet Kaur respondent No.5, who further alienated the said plot and registered another sale deed in favour of the respondent Nos.6 and 7.
I respectfully dissent with the said view taken by my learned brother Judge by giving the following reasons.
The said order is further subject to appeal and other proceedings and, therefore, I refrain from adverting to the same.
The said documents have been fraudulently registered by them which is against the acquired legal rights of the appellant on the said plot of land, the same is void ab initio in law as it is impermissible under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 read with Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
There is also a reference with regard to the taking of the companysideration amount of Rs.6,50,000/ by the appellant from the respondent number5 vide the execution of the Deed of Compromise dated 06.07.2004.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellant preferred W.P. No.
The prayer in the writ petition was for declaring the Extinguishment Deed as well as the subsequent sale deeds as void ab initio with a further direction to the respondents to record the cancellation of such documents.
Thus, the appellant has raised a dispute, accepted the money from the subsequent purchasers and moved the authority under the Act to cancel the deed of extinguishment.
As the factual matrix would reveal, the dispute raised by the appellant under Section 64 of the 1960 Act is still pending before the companypetent authority for adjudication.
Being dissatisfied with the said inaction, a writ petition was filed seeking appropriate direction to companysider the demand companytained in the numberice.
The companyrectness of the same is questioned in this Civil Appeal urging various legal grounds.
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, forming the subject matter of Dispute No.
4 and 5 by sale deed dated 11.7.2006.
Veeravali Anand expired on 12.6.1988.
13505 of 2008 before the High Court.
The respondent Society has also number disputed the fact that the appellant is the legal heir of the deceased Smt.
Besides this, some of the litigations between the parties are pending before different forum i.e. Joint Registrar, Co operative Society, State Co operative Tribunal and in the High Court.
Veeravali Anand and it had executed the absolute sale deed dated 22.03.1962 with regard to the said plot of land in her favour and the same was registered on 30.03.1962 before the jurisdictional Sub Registrar.
Having regard to the fact that respondent number 4 was in possession of the property in dispute at least since 13.03.2007 admittedly and also having regard to the fact that the petitioner received an amount of Rs.6,50,000/ we do number see any justification for the appointment of the receiver.
As is evident, under these circumstances, the appellant moved the Sub Registrar Registration seeking cancellation of the Deed of Extinguishment dated 9.8.2001.
The appellant has also raised a dispute in that regard under Section 64 of the M.P. Co operative Societies Act, 1960 before the Sub Registrar, Co operative Society, Bhopal which is pending in respect of the said plot of land.
Dipak Misra, J. The appellant, a septuagenarian, filed an application dated 4.2.2008 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Bhopal, the third respondent herein, for cancellation of registered documents dated 9.8.2001, 21.4.2004 and 11.7.2006 which pertain to registration of immoveable property situated on Plot No.
arising out of the order dated 03.08.2011, passed in Writ Petition No.
The Sub Registrar rejected the said prayer on two companynts, namely, the dispute between the parties was pending before the companypetent authority under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 for short the 1960 Act and secondly, his jurisdiction was limited only to the extent of registering the documents and if any party desired its cancellation, then to verify that the cancellation deed is registered on appropriate stamp paper.
Having regard to the facts, the rival legal companytentions and the grounds urged in the writ petition and in these proceedings on behalf of the parties, the following question of law would arise for my companysideration Whether the appellant is entitled to seek for the relief of cancellation of the registered documents dated 09.08.2001, 21.04.2004 and 11.07.2006, registered with respect to the immovable property, i.e. plot No.7 B, Punjabi Bagh, Raisen Road, Bhopal?
