For, his jurisdiction was limited to registration of the document when presented by the executant before him for that purpose.
During the pendency of the said dispute, the Society permitted transfer of the subject plot in favour of Mrs. Meenakshi and Mr. S.C. Sharma Respondent Nos.
In this backdrop, the High Court declined to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the appellant, which was essentially to challenge the same Extinguishment Deed and subsequent deeds.
The appellant then approached the Inspector General Registration by way of an application under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1908 .
However, a companypromise deed was executed between the Society and Mrs. Manjit Kaur Respondent No.5 on the one hand and the appellant on the other hand whereunder the appellant received companysideration of Rs.6.50 Lakh Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand Rs.4.50 Lakh Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousand by a demand draft and Rs.2/ Lakh by a post dated cheque .
For the same reason, the subsequent deeds in respect of the property in question registered by the Sub Registrar dated 21st April, 2004 and 11th July 2006 were also without authority and void ab initio.
The appellant also moved an application before the Sub Registrar Registration calling upon him to cancel the registration of Extinguishment Deed dated 9th August 2001 and the subsequent two deeds dated 21st April 2004 and 11th July 2006 respectively.
It is number necessary to dilate on those facts to companysider the issues on hand.
His Lordship held that, the High Court should have declared the above position and set aside registration of the subject documents and also the orders passed by the Sub Registrar Registration and Inspector General Registration .
In the said dispute, the appellant filed interim applications praying for restraint order and for appointment of a Receiver.
After her death, the Society through its Office Bearer executed a Deed of Extinguishment on 9th August 2001, unilaterally, cancelling the said allotment of plot to Smt.
This Writ Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court primarily on the ground that the appellant had already resorted to a remedy a dispute before the appropriate Forum under the Act of 1960, which was pending and the declaration, as sought, can be companysidered in those proceedings after recording of the evidence and production of other material to be relied on by the parties therein.
On the basis of the said Extinguishment Deed, the Society executed and got registered a deed dated 21st April, 2004 in favour of Mrs. Manjit Kaur Respondent No.5 in respect of the same plot.
The appellant thereafter approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Judicature at Jabalpur, by way of Writ Petition No.13505/2008 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order passed by the Inspector General Registration dated 15th September 2008 as also the order passed by the Sub Registrar Registration dated 28th June 2008.
Veeravali Anand by Punjabi Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Society , vide a registered deed dated 22nd March 1962.
Veeravali Anand because of violation of the Bye laws of the Society in number raising any companystruction on the plot so allotted within time.
His Lordship allowed the appeal filed by the appellant with companypensation amount to be paid by the respondents quantified at Rs.10 Lakh.
The appellant further prayed for a declaration that the Extinguishment Deed dated 9th August 2001 as well as the subsequent two deeds dated 21st April, 2004 and 11th July 2006 are void ab initio with a further direction to the Inspector General Registration and the Sub Registrar Registration to record the cancellation of those documents.
The Inspector General Registration vide order dated 19th September 2008 rejected the said application on the ground that powers companyferred on him were limited to the general superintendence of the Registration Offices and making Rules.
Briefly stated, Plot No.7 B at Punjabi Bagh, Raisen Road, Bhopal was allotted to the appellants mother Smt.
Suffice it to numbere that the said dispute is still pending adjudication.
The appellant objected to the said transaction.
The appellant challenged the Societys action of unilaterally registering the Extinguishment Deed dated 9th August 2001 and allotting the subject plot to Mrs Manjit Kaur vide deed dated 21st April, 2004 and prayed for a declaration that he companytinues to be the owner of the subject plot allotted by the Society to his mother, having inherited the same.
The same companyld be adjudicated by the Civil Court under the companymon law after recording the evidence of the parties and on appreciation of the same in a duly companystituted suit.
6 7 vide registered Deed dated 11th July 2006.
The appellant did number pay any heed to that demand and instead companytinued with the multiple proceedings resorted to by him before the Authority under the Act of 1960, including criminal proceedings.
Consequently, it is held that Sub Registrar as well as Inspector General have number companymitted any fault in dismissing the application of the petitioner with direction to approach the companypetent forum for adjudication of his dispute.
Notwithstanding the companypromise deed, the appellant filed a dispute under Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960 , before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies bearing Dispute No.
Apart the above the alleged dispute and allegations of the alleged fraud companyld number be adjudicated by this Court under the writ jurisdiction.
Since the appellant was perseverating the dispute and resorting to multiple proceedings in relation to the subject plot, the respondents issued a numberice on 12th July 2007 asking the appellant to refund the companysideration amount accepted by him in furtherance of the companypromise deed dated 6th July 2004.
81 of 2005.
Veeravali Anand expired on 12th June 1988.
This application was filed on 4th February 2008 by the appellant.
Firstly, a dispute was pending between the parties with regard to the same subject matter.
The Sub Registrar Registration by a speaking order rejected the said application on 28th June 2008 mainly on two companynts.
M.KHANWILKAR, J. This appeal has been placed before a three Judges Bench in terms of order dated August 25, 2015, companysequent to the difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of the Division Bench.
