JUDGMENT :

V. Gopala Gowda, J. — I have gone through the judgment of my learned brother Judge, Justice Dipak Misra, wherein certain relevant facts have been adverted to by my learned brother on the contentious legal issues urged on behalf of the parties. My learned brother has also adverted to the relevant provisions under Sections 20, 21, 22 and 32 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

2. 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 Sayamma AIR 2007 AP 57, the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of E.R. Kalaivan v. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai & Anr. AIR 2010 Madras 18 and the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M. Ramakrishna Reddy v. Sub Registrar, Bangalore & Anr. AIR 2000 Karnataka 46 My learned brother judge has also referred the decision of this Court in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi & Anr. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 15 SCC 207, 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).

3. I have also taken into consideration 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. The contention urged on behalf of the Society is that as there was no construction 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 appellant’s mother dated 22.03.1962.

4. 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.

5. My learned brother Judge has also referred to the order dated 17.07.2013 passed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 13255 of 2012 (Satya Pal Anand v. Punjabi Housing Cooperative Society & Ors.), arising out of the order dated 03.08.2011, passed in Writ Petition No. 14548 of 2008 by the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in relation to the appointment of receiver with respect to the said plot of land. This Court held that since the respondent No.5-Mrs. Manjeet Kaur was already in possession of the property in dispute and the appellant had received an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- by way of a compromise deed, there was no justification for the appointment of the receiver in the light of the fact that there was a pending dispute between the parties under Section 69 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, before the Registrar of Societies. 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.

6. I respectfully dissent with the said view taken by my learned brother Judge by giving the following reasons.

7. 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 appellant’s mother namely, Smt. 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. 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 comprising of the said plot of land.

8. Subsequent to the de