SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 871

RANJAN GOGOI, PRAFULLA C.PANT, A.M.KHANWILKAR
Satya Pal Anand – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Judgement Key Points
  • Based on the provided legal document, the Sub-Registrar (Registration) and Inspector General (Registration) have no power to cancel the registration of a document after it has been registered, as their functions are administrative and not quasi-judicial (!) .
  • The validity of an Extinguishment Deed, including questions regarding limitation and whether it was executed voluntarily or under duress, are essentially questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and must be tested before the Co-operative Forum (!) .
  • When a party has multiple remedies available, they must choose one, and multiplicity of actions on the same cause cannot be permitted; thus, approaching the High Court under Article 226 while other statutory remedies are pending is not appropriate (!) .
  • The distinction between an ultra vires act and a simple infraction of a procedural rule is important; mere irregularity in registration does not render a document void ab initio unless there is an express provision to that effect in the Act or Rules (!) .
  • The decision in Thota Ganga Laxmi regarding the requirement of joint execution for cancellation deeds applies specifically to the Rules framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and cannot be universally applied to other states like Madhya Pradesh in the absence of similar express provisions (!) .
  • The Registering Officer is not expected to evaluate the title of the parties or decide if a document is legal or permissible in law; such matters fall within the purview of the competent Forum under the Cooperative Societies Act (!) .
  • The High Court is justified in dismissing the Writ Petition because the appellant had already resorted to an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and pursuing multiple proceedings for the same relief is not equitable (!) .

JUDGMENT :

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

This appeal has been placed before a three Judges’ Bench in terms of order dated August 25, 2015, consequent to the difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of the Division Bench.

2. Justice Dipak Misra took the view that, in the fact situation of the present case the Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Sub-Registrar (Registration) and the Inspector General (Registration) was rightly dismissed by the High Court. However, His Lordship opined that a question would still arise for consideration, namely, whether in absence of any specific Rule in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the general principle laid down in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi & Anr. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (2010)15 SCC 207 would be applicable?

3. Justice V. Gopala Gowda on the other hand allowed the appeal on the finding that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) had no authority to register the Extinguishment Deed presented by the respondent-Society dated 9th August 2001 and his action of registration of that document was void ab initio. For the same reason, the subsequent deeds in respect of the property in question registered by the
















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top