MAHARAJ SINHA, J.

( 1 ) NORMALLY, a learned Single Judge exercises the revisional jurisdiction both under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure and also under Article 227 of the Constitution to decide on merits all applications under such jurisdiction.

( 2 ) IN the present case, however, in dealing with the merits of the above revisional application the learned Judge found that the point that arose for His lordship's consideration was a point where there was no direct authority or judicial pronouncement of this Court. In the words of the learned Judge. "the point as to whether an unregistered society or an unregistered club can acquire and hold properties movable as well as immovable is a point which has not been dealt with and decided in a direct way by this Court. As it will appear the point is not at all free from controversies".

( 3 ) ON the above basis, after having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the decided authorities on the subject, the learned judge was pleased to frame two questions, which questions, the learned Judge thought should be referred to "higher Bench" for decision. For the sake of convenience the said two questions, as framed by the learned Single Judge, including the concluding portion of His Lordship's judgment are quoted below:-In view of what has been stated above the following two points are being framed for referring them to a higher Bench for decision :1. Does a society including a club not registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act come under the category of a "living person" as per Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act and can such an unregistered society or an unregistered club validly acquire immovable property by purchase under the provisions of the Transfer of property Act?2. Will a purchase of immovable property made by an unregistered club showing the Secretary alone as the purchaser in the deed of purchase be a valid one?place the records before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for referring the points framed above to a higher Bench for decision.

( 4 ) THUS, we in the Division Bench are to decide the above points or rather the questions framed by the learned Single Judge. Before attempting to answer or decide the above questions the facts and circumstances out of which the questions as above have arisen for consideration need, I think, be mentioned in brief.

( 5 ) USHA Rani Kundu invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court claiming that on 13 December, 1976 she purchased a plot of land, particulars of which are mentioned in her revisiohal application, from one Murari Mohan Saha, the previous owner of the said plot of land. The opposite parties to the said revisional application are the members of a Club named Agradut Sangha who were claiming pre-emption on behalf of the said Club, Agradut Sangha by making an application under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act in the court of learned Munsiff, at Barasat. The stand that the members of the said club took claiming pre-emption was that the said Club "became owner of adjoining and contiguous land" on the basis of a previous purchase by the Club of a contiguous land by a registered deed executed by the owner of the said land in favour of the Secretary of the said Club, Agradut Sangha.

( 6 ) USHA Rani, however, raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the said application for pre-emption on the ground that the said transfer of adjoining and contiguous land by the erstwhile owner thereof in favour of the Secretary of the said Club, could not be treated to be a valid transfer as on the date of such transfer i. e. 13 February, 1975 the said Club agradut Sangha was not registered under the Societies Registrations Act and as such neither the Club nor its Secretary could acquire any title to the land in question by way of "transfer inter vivos" and that no suit could be brought either for or against the said Club since the said Club was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document