2016 Supreme(SC) 871

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
Satya Pal Anand – Appellant
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6673 of 2014
Decided On : 26-10-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
When a party has multiple remedies, he has to choose one. Multiplicity of actions on same cause cannot be permitted.
Essentially a question of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
Ultra vires act and simple infraction of procedural Rule – Distinction.
After registration of a document Sub-Registrar (Registration) has no role. He has no power to recall such registration. Even Inspector General (Registration) has no such power.
Function and power of Registering officer is administrative and not quasi-judicial.
In absence of any provision in the Act or Rules or any circular, registration of Extinguishment deed cannot be held invalid.
Validity of registration of Extinguishment deed including the question of limitation are to be tested before Co-operative Forum. Writ jurisdiction of High Court is not the proper remedy.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Jurisdiction extra-ordinary and discretionary – Conduct of the party invoking Article 226 cannot be ignored – When a party has multiple remedies, he has to chose – Multiplicity of actions on same cause cannot be permitted – Appellant filing cases before Dy. Registrar Co-operative; Sub-Registrar (Registration); a criminal case for the same relief of cancelation of Deed of Extinguishment – Filing writ petition during pendency of these proceedings – Approaching High Court straightway without resorting to statutory and other remedies would stand on different footing – Further, having accepted consideration amount after entering into a compromise deed appellant cannot be heard to complain about the irregularity in the registration of the Extinguishment Deed, more so when he did not heed to the notices of the respondents to refund the consideration amount after lodging cases – High Court rightly dismissing the writ petition. (Para 14, 15)

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Whether the compromise deed entered into by the appellant was voluntary and at his own volition or under duress – Essentially a question of fact – Cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction – High Court rightly giving relief to keep all questions open to enable the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy already invoked by him. (Para 16)

       (c) Administration of justice – Ultra vires act and simple infraction of procedural Rule – Distinction – Registration of unilateral Extinguishing deed presented by society at the instance of third party without notice to appellant – It is irregularity – Corrupt practice cannot be attributed to the statutory authorities – Cancellation of allotment due to default in construction on the plot as per agreement between the member and the society – A matter within purview of business of the Society – Society cannot be presumed not to have authority in law to take a decision in that behalf – Appellant being the legal representative of the original allottee, cannot claim any right higher than that of his predecessor qua the Housing Society – Society is the final authority to decide on the issue of continuation of membership of its member – High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition. (Para 17, 18)

       AIR 1964 SC 72; (1979) 2 SCC 297; (2005) 6 SCC 211; (1986) 2 SCC 679; (1989) 2 SCC 691; AIR 1955 SC 233 – Distinguished

       (d) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 – Allotment of plot by housing society to its members and cancellation thereof on default in stipulation – Involving transfer of immovable property – Compulsorily registrable – After registration Sub-Registrar (Registration) has no role – Has no power to recall such registration – Cancellation of registration is a substantive matter – Even Inspector General (Registration) has no power. (Para 21)

       (e) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 32 and 34 – Society presenting Extinguishment deed for registration in absence of appellant – Cannot be said to be a fraudulent action per se – Sctionn32 and 34 do not require presence of both parties for registration – Whether such action was deceitful needs to be pleaded and proved before civil court – Petition under Writ jurisdiction is not the proper remedy. (Para 24, 25)

       AIR 2007 Andhra Pradesh 57 [FB] – Cited with approval

       (f) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 35 – Function and power of Registering officer – Administrative and not quasi-judicial – He is only to see that the document to be registered is accompanied by supporting documents – His enquiry is incidental – He cannot decide as to whether a document presented for registration is executed by person having title, as mentioned in the instrument. (Para 26, 27)

       AIR 1990 Madras 251 – Cited with approval

       (2010)15 SCC 207 – Distinguished

       (g) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 69, 34, 87, 68 and 72 – Rules framed under – Rule 26(k)(i) of Rules made by Andhra Pradesh – No such rule made by Madhya Pradesh – Registration process being procedural matter must be expressly provided in the Act or the Rules applicable to the concerned State – Registration of Extinguishment Deed presented by person duly authorized by the Society – Not invalid – Scope of appeal under section 72 limited to the inaction or refusal to register a document – Section 72 or 68 cannot be invoked to cancel a registration – In absence of any provision in the Act or Rules or any circular, registration of Extinguishment deed cannot be held invalid. (Para 28, 29)

       AIR 2010 Madras 18 – Distinguished

       (h) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Extinguishment deed – Cancellation of allotment – Validity – Applicability of Limitation Act – To be tested before Co-operative Forum – High Court rightly dismissing writ petition. (Para 30, 31, 32)

       (2010)15 SCC 207 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       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.

       Justice Dipak Misra took the view that, in the fact situation of the 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 v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2010)15 SCC 207 would be applicable?

       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 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 Sub-Registrar were also without authority and void ab initio. 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). His Lordship allowed the appeal filed by the appellant with compensation amount to be paid by the respondents quantified at Rs.10 Lakh.

       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., 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 4 appellant filed a dispute under Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. 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.

       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 5 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. The Sub-Registrar (Registration) by a speaking order rejected the said application 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) u/s 69 of the Registration Act, 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.

       The appellant thereafter approached the High Court 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. 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. 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 considered in those proceedings after recording of the evidence and production of other material to be relied on by the parties therein.

       Finding of the Court:

       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.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.