The main legal point established is that a declaratory decree entitles a party to seek redressal of their legal rights, and a society is obligated to execute a sale deed in compliance with such a decree.

JUDGMENT

Amit B. Borkar, J. - Invoking Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has taken exception to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 08.10.2008 in Writ Petition No. 2429/2007, thereby confirming the judgments passed by the Courts below refusing to grant declaration of the sale deed executed by the respondent no. 1-Society in favour of the respondent no. 2 be declared as void and also refusing to direct the respondent no. 1-Society to execute sale deed in respect of Plot No. 1 in favour of the appellant.

2. In order to appreciate the grievance of appellant, it will be necessary to have a glance at a few introductory facts:-

The appellant, who is original disputant, had filed Dispute bearing no. 612/1996 before the Co-operative Court, Nagpur under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") seeking reliefs of declaration of sale deed executed by the respondent no. 1-Society in favour of the respondent no. 2 as null and void and without authority; direction to the respondent no. 1-Society to execute sale deed in respect of Plot No. 1, admeasuring 50 feet x 100 feet at Somalwada, Layout No. 3, Khasra No. 152/2, Nagpur in favour of the appellant; to deliver the possession of the said plot to the appellant. The appellant based his claim on four material facts viz.

(i) The Co-operative Court in earlier dispute declared that the appellant was entitled to plot admeasuring 50 feet x 100 feet belonging to the respondent no. 1-Society.

(ii) Sale deed executed by the respondent no. 1-Society in favour of the respondent no. 2 was without authority as it was executed by a person, who had no authority to execute the said sale deed on behalf of the respondent no. 1-Society.

(iii) The respondent no. 2 was not a member of the Society and there was no reference in the sale deed that the respondent no. 2 was member of the Society.

(iv) The sale deed executed in favour of the respondent no. 2 was affected by doctrine of Us pendens.

3. The Co-operative Court, Nagpur by judgment and order dated 07.06.2003 dismissed the dispute of the appellant holding that it was barred by the provisions of the Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; by the provisions of the Limitation Act; being barred by the principle of res judicata. The Co-operative Court further held that the appellant failed to prove that Mr. Sathe, Administrator, who executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent no. 2, had no authority to execute the sale deed on 29.08.1991.

4. The appellant had challenged the judgment passed by the Co-Operative Appellant Court in appeal. The Co-operative Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the present appellant by judgment and order dated 24.11.2005 confirming the finding recorded by the Cooperative Court as regards authority to execute the sale deed but, reversed the finding on the issues under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, limitation and res judicata. The appellant therefore filed Writ Petition No. 2429/2007 before this Court and the learned Single Judge by impugned judgment dismissed the Writ Petition of the appellant holding that Administrator Mr. Sathe had authority to execute the sale deed; principle of Uspendence is not applicable as the proceedings before the learned Single Judge were not original proceeding, the decree passed by the Co-operative Court in earlier Dispute no. 479/1991 granting declaration in favour of the appellant could not be executed in such manner.

5. The appellant has therefore, filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The present Letters Patent Appeal was admitted by this Court on 26.07.2010.

6. We have heard Mr. R. L. Khapre, learned Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. R. G. Kavinandan, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. R. R. Vyas, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 1-Society and Mr. R. S. Parsodkar, learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

7. Mr. R. L. Khapre,