IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment clarified the scope of jurisdiction under Section 70 of the Act, emphasizing that the dispute must relate to the constitution, management, or business of a co-operative society and involve specific parties for the Registrar to have jurisdiction.

ORDER :

1. The writ petitioner is assailing the order dated 08.04.2013 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.361/2010, setting aside an award passed under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for brevity 'Act of 1959').

2. In terms of the impugned order, the petition under Section 70 of the Act of 1959, to declare the petitioner as the absolute owner of a house site and to cancel the registered sale deed in favour of present respondent No. 6, is rejected. Hence, the present Writ Petition impugning the order of the Tribunal.

3. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 are the members of respondent No.1, Housing Co-operative Society. The petitioner claims that he was admitted to membership of respondent No.1-Society in the year 1983 and on 01.04.1991, lease cum sale deed was executed in his favour by respondent No.1 - Society in respect of site No.124, measuring 30 ft. x 40 ft in Sy.No.15 of Bikashipura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The petitioner also claims that he was put in possession of the said property on 04.09.1994.

4. Petitioner alleged that site No.217 was allotted to respondent No.5 on 19.06.2000 and the lease cum sale deed was executed in favour of respondent No.5 on the same day. It is further stated that on 30.07.2001, the lease cum sale deed dated 01.04.1991 executed in his favour in respect of site No.124 was cancelled without his notice and consent. Thereafter, on 13.08.2001, the rectification deed was executed in favour of respondent No.5 by substituting site No.124 (petitioner’s site) in place of site No.217 without notice to the petitioner.

5. The petitioner further alleged that on 13.04.2005, the Administrator was appointed to respondent No.1 - Society and on 08.03.2006, absolute sale deed was executed in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of site No.124. The sale deed was registered on 10.03.2006. On 10.03.2006, respondent No.5 sold the aforementioned site No.124 in favour of respondent No.6.

6. On 01.08.2008, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Act of 1959 before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society. In the said proceedings, the respondent No.1 - Society, its President, Secretary and respondent No.5 – the member/allottee, and respondent No.6 – person (non-member) in whose favour sale deed is executed by respondent No. 5 are made as parties.

7. In addition to the prayer to declare the petitioner as the owner of the disputed site, the petitioner also sought a declaration that the rectification deed dated 13.08.2001 and the sale deed dated 08.03.2006 executed by respondents No.2 and 3 in favour of respondent No.5 are illegal and nullity in law. The petitioner also sought a declaration that the sale deed executed by respondent No.5 in favour of respondent No.6 (non-member) on 10.03.2006 as illegal and nullity in law. By way of an amendment, petitioner also prayed for cancellation of the registered cancellation deed executed on 30.07.2001.

8. The purchaser/non-member took a stand that Registrar acting under the Act of 1959 has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 70 of the Act of 1959.

9. The Joint Registrar held that he has the jurisdiction to decide the dispute and also concluded that the execution of the sale deed by the Society in favour of respondent No.5 is bad in law and also held that the purchaser/respondent No.6 does not acquire any title in property and consequently, held that the petitioner is the owner of site No.124.

10. The purchaser filed the appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Rest of the parties did not challenge the award. The Tribunal held that the Registrar under Section 70 of the Act of 1959 does not have the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the registered sale deed between a member of the co-operative society and a non-member. However, the Tribunal opined that act of the Society unilaterally cancelling the lease cum sale deed in favour of the petitioner is illegal.

11. Appe