Satya Pal Anand vs State Of M.P. And Ors

4. Briefly stated, Plot No.7-B at Punjabi Bagh, Raisen Road, Bhopal was allotted to the appellant’s mother Smt. Veeravali Anand by Punjabi Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Society”), vide a registered deed dated 22nd March 1962. Smt. Veeravali Anand expired on 12th June 1988. 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. Veeravali Anand because of violation of the Bye-laws of the Society in not raising any construction on the plot so allotted within time. 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 objected to the said transaction. However, a compromise 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 consideration 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). Notwithstanding the compromise 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. 81 of 2005. The appellant challenged the Society’s 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 continues to be the owner of the subject plot allotted by the Society to his mother, having inherited the same. In the said dispute, the appellant filed interim applications praying for restraint order and for appointment of a Receiver. It is not necessary to dilate on those facts to consider the issues on hand. Suffice it to note that the said dispute is still pending adjudication.

5. 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. 6 & 7) vide registered Deed dated 11th July 2006. Since the appellant was perseverating the dispute and resorting to multiple proceedings in relation to the subject plot, the respondents issued a notice on 12th July 2007 asking the appellant to refund the consideration amount accepted by him in furtherance of the compromise deed dated 6th July 2004. The appellant did not pay any heed to that demand and instead continued with the multiple proceedings resorted to by him before the Authority under the Act of 1960, including criminal proceedings. 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. This application was filed on 4th February 2008 by the appellant. The Sub-Registrar (Registration) by a speaking order rejected the said application on 28th June 2008 mainly on two counts. Firstly, a dispute was pending between the parties with regard to the same subject matter. Secondly, he had no jurisdiction to cancel the registration of a registered document in question. For, his jurisdiction was limited to registration of the document when presented by the executant before him for that purpose. 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”). The Inspector General (Registration) vide order dated 19th September 2008 rejected the said application on the ground that powers conferred on him were limited to the general superintendence of the Registration Offices and making Rules.

12. The respondent Nos. 6 and 7 additionally submit that they are purchasers of the subject plot for consideration. They have acted to their detriment in good faith by going ahead with the construction on the plot with the permission of the Society and after obtaining approvals from the Municipal Authorities. They have spent their fortune in doing so. Besides supporting the stand taken by the other respondents, they submit that in the fact situation of the present case no relief in equity is warranted in favour of the appellant. Thus, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been justly dismissed with liberty to pursue appropriate remedy.

Regarding issue Nos. (d) to (f)

33. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that, the High Court has justly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant with liberty to the appellant to pursue statutory remedy resorted to by him under the Act of 1960 or by resorting to any other remedy as may be advised and permissible in law. All questions to be considered in those proceedings will have to be decided on its own merits.

34. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in the above terms with no order as to costs.