The main legal point established is that the Registrar of the Co-operative Society does not have jurisdiction to annul a sale deed, and the Civil Court has the authority to declare the sale deed as null and void.

JUDGMENT :

These Civil Revision petitions have been preferred against the order dated 06.02.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 134 of 2007, by the court of learned Sub-Judge 2nd, Danapur, whereby and whereunder the petition of defendant’s 3rd Set under Order VII Rule 11 (d), read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) and under Sections 48 and 57 (inadvertently typed as 54) of Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (in short ‘the Act’) has been rejected.

2. The plaintiff has filed a Title Suit for declaration of title of the plaintiff and non title of the defendants over the suit land and to hold and declare that sale deed dated 14.12.1988, said to be executed by defendants 1st Set in favour of defendants 2nd Set and sale deed dated 01.03.2002 purported to be executed by defendants 2nd Set in favour of defendants 3rd Set are illegal, invalid and inoperative and also to appoint the Survey knowing Commissioner for carving out for Society Plot No. 6 B, measuring 1800 square feet and also for recovery of possession with other ancillary relief.

3. The defendants after appearance filed their written statement. The defendants 3rd Set have filed a petition dated 23. 06.2011 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Sections 48 and 54 (appropriate Section 57) of Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 for rejection of the plaint.

4. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties and considering the material available on record and relying upon the decision of this Court in CWJC No. 4593 of 2001 reported in 2007 (2) PLJR 525 rejected the said petition vide the impugned order dated 06.02.2016.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in accordance with the provision under Sections 48 and 57 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, the plaintiff ought to have approached the Registrar of the Co-operative Society for his grievances and the Civil Court do not have any jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the plaintiffs and ought to have rejected the plaint and direct the plaintiff to take appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances. It is further submitted that cojoint reading of Sections 48 and 57 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 shows that in case of any dispute, touching the business of a registered societies arise among the members shall be decided by the Registrar Cooperative Societies and no Civil or Revenue Courts have any jurisdiction with regard to the same.

6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party that the suit filed by the plaintiff does come within the purview of the Sections 48 and 57 of the Bihar Co-operative Housing Society Act, as a relief sought in the plaint filed by the opposite party no. 1 is in regard to declaration of his title and recovery of possession on the basis of registered sale deed dated 07.07.1988, executed in favour of the plaintiff and cancellation of subsequent sale deed dated 14.12.1988, executed by defendant 1st Set in favour of defendant 2nd Set and sale deed dated 01.03.2002 executed by defendant 2nd Set in favour of defendant 3rd Set which cannot be done by the Registrar of the Co-operative Society and it requires adjudication by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction which has the power to cancel the forged and fabricated sale deeds and declare the same to be null, void ab-initio, non-operative and not binding upon the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further submits that the learned Trial Court rightly relied upon the ratio laid down in Smt. Swati Pandey and Ors. Vs. The Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna and Ors. reported in 2007 (2) PLJR 525 and there is no jurisdictional error and there is no illegality and / or irregularity while passing the impugned order and the petitioners have not made out any valid ground for interfering into and setting aside the impugned order.

8. H