Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
E.S.INDIRESH, J.

Smt. Srilakshmi, W/o. Sri. Vasudeva sastry – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, By Its Secretary To Government Revenue Department – Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 371 Of 2014 (DEC/INJ) C/W, Regular First Appeal No. 246 Of 2014 (DEC/INJ), Regular First Appeal No. 370 Of 2014 (DEC/INJ), Regular First Appeal No. 372 Of 2014 (DEC/INJ)
Decided On : 05-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. M.V. Hiremath, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri. Hanamantharaya Lagali, Aga., Sri. V. D. Raviraj, Adv.

Unilateral cancellation of sale deeds by a society is invalid if statutory notice is not given, and established possession takes precedence.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act - Sections 31 and related provisions - Cancellation Deeds dated 28.12.2004 executed unilaterally by society declared illegal - The sale deeds executed in favor of plaintiffs are valid and binding as possession is established - The principle of priority for registered documents upheld based on chronological execution. (Paras 20, 25)

(B) Legal Standing and Membership - The court emphasized that defendant no.6 cannot question the membership of plaintiffs as neither society nor its office bearers contested this claim. (Paras 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought a declaration for setting aside cancellation deeds executed by defendant no.4-society and claimed ownership through earlier executed sale deeds. The ownership was challenged by a subsequent purchaser claiming the deeds were unlawful. (Paras 5, 10)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the unilateral cancellation was improper, and the plaintiffs maintained lawful possession, leading to reversal of trial court's decision. (Paras 25, 26)

Issues: The significant issues revolved around the legality of the cancellation deeds and validation of the plaintiffs' ownership and possession rights. (Paras 8, 19)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unilateral cancellation of sale deeds without notice is impermissible and emphasized that established possession would prevail if validated by statutory records. (Paras 20-24)

Result: Appeals allowed; the appellate court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT :

E.S.INDIRESH, J.

1. These appeals are arising out of judgment and decree dated 03.12.2013 in O.S.No.8096/2006, O.S.No.8098/2006, O.S.No.7992/2006 and O.S.No.8095/2006 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original ranking before the court below.

3. Since the facts are identical and the questions of law involved for consideration in the respective appeals are one and the same, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals were clubbed together, heard and disposed of by placing common judgment.

4. The brief facts in these suits are that the plaintiff has sought a declaration with consequential relief of injunction against the defendants to set aside the Cancellation Deeds dated 28.12.2004 and to declare that the Sale Deeds dated 07.03.2006 executed in favour of defendant no.6 are null and void, inter alia, sought for relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from obstructing the possession and enjoyment of the suit sites, bearing Nos. 160, 120, 119, 157, 121 and 156 respectively and the building constructed thereon in Srigandada Vasathi Rahithara Sangha, in land bearing Sy.No.43 of Sane Guruvanahalli Gram Panchayath, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore.

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the members of the defendant no.4-society (Srigandada Vasathi Rahithara Sangha). The objective of the defendant no.4-society was to distribute the sites to the siteless members of the society in land bearing Sy.No.43/2 of Srigandada Kaval. It is also stated that defendant no.4- society, has allotted respective sites to the plaintiffs, who were the members of defendant no.4-society. The Sale Deeds were executed before the jurisdictional registrar by defendant no.4-society and the Possession Certificates were issued on 22.02.1994. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant no.5-Channigaraya, who claimed to be the Secretary of defendant no.4-society, indulged in illegal allotment of sites to non-members of defendant no.4- society though he is not an office bearer of defendant no.4-society and as such, defendant no.5 has executed a deed of cancellation of the earlier Sale Deeds dated 27.08.2003 made in favour of the plaintiffs, and thereafter, the sites which were allotted in favour of the plaintiffs by defendant no.4-society were cancelled as such and defendant no.5 executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of defendant no.6 on 07.03.2006. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are in possession of the scheduled property and therefore defendant no.4 unilaterally has cancelled the said Sale Deeds made in favour of the plaintiffs, which is illegal and accordingly, the plaintiffs have preferred the suits mentioned above before the Trial Court. It is also stated in the plaint that an enquiry has been initiated against defendant no.5 and defendant no.4-society as to the illegal functioning of the society with regard to misappropriation of funds and therefore it is contended in the plaint that the cancellation of the registered Sale Deeds made in favour of the plaintiffs as per the cancellation of the deed dated 28.12.2004 requires to be set aside and therefore the Sale Deeds dated 07.03.2006 executed by defendant no.4 and defendant no.5 in favour of defendant no.6 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Consequently, the plaintiffs have filed the aforementioned suits.

6. After service of summons, defendant nos.1 to 3 were represented by the District Government Pleader. Defendant no.4 and defendant no.5 were served and have been placed exparte since they remained absent. Defendant no.6 (subsequent purchaser) entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint.

7. It is the case of defendant no.6, in the written statement that the plaintiffs are not the members of defendant no.4-society and the plaintiff in O.S.No.7992/2006