1. The substantial question of law formulated on 15.6.2012 and to be answered is as under:-

"Whether the Court below has erred in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court holding the purchase of the suit land by the appellants vide sale certificate dated 6.1.1995 is illegal and void, in view of sub-section (5) of Section 41(a) of the MP/CG Co-operative Societies Act, 1960?"

[For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred in the instant judgment as were referred in the suit.]

2. The necessary facts in nutshell required to be noticed for adjudication of the second appeal are as under:-

(2.1) The suit land bearing Khasra No. 228 area 0.178 hectare situated at Village Karaki, Tahsil Dhaurpur, District Surguja was originally held by defendants No. 3 and 4, namely, Sukhan and Bhukhan, respectively. (Defendants No. 3 and 4 are now dead and their names have been deleted from the array of cause-title by order dated 14.4.2014.) Defendants No. 3 and 4 obtained a loan of Rs. 3,500 from Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank, Ambikapur (henceforth the Bank) on 10.2.1969 vide Ex.P-5C for construction of a Well and mortgaged the suit land in favour of the Bank. Thereafter, by sale-deed dated 24.4.1987 (Ex.P-1), defendants No.3 and 4 sold the suit land in favour of plaintiffs Phagu Ram and Chatar Ram. Thereafter, on default of repayment of the loan to the Bank by defendants No. 3 and 4 the suit land was put to auction by the Bank on 11.2.1994 and ultimately, the auction of the suit land was confirmed in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 namely, Hajaru Ram and Govind Ram, respectively and a sale-certificate was issued in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 on 6.1.1995 (Ex.D-4). When the suit, land was sold by the Bank to defendant No. 1 and 2 in the public-auction held on 11.2.1994, the plaintiffs filed a suit on 30.6.1994 for permanent injunction stating inter alia that defendant No. 1 and 2 are proclaiming to have purchased the suit land and trying to interfere with their peaceful possession.

(2.2) On being summoned, defendants No. 1 and 2 auction-purchasers appeared before the trial Court and not only filed their written statement opposing the plaint averments but also invoked Order 8 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth the CPC) making a counter-claim stating inter alia that they had purchased the suit land in the public-auction held on 11.2.1994 and the sale-certificate-(Ex.D-4) has been issued in their favour and they are entitled for a declaration of title over the suit land in their favour.

3. The trial Court, on appreciation of the pleadings of the parties, framed 6 issues and answered them as follows:-

dzekad okn&iz’u fu”d”kZ

1- D;k oknhx.k okn Hkwfe [kljk uacj 228 jdck 0-178 gsDVs;j ijarq LFkk;h fu”ks/kkKk izkIr djus ds gdnkj gS\ ugha

2- D;k oknhx.k )kjk izLrqr O;ogkj okn e/;izns’k lgdkjh lfefr vf/kfu;e] 1960 dh /kkjk 82¼2½¼3½ ds rgr~ izfrikyuh; gS\ gk¡

3- D;k oknhx.k )kjk izLrqr okn i{kdkjksa ds vla;kstu laca/kh nks”k gS\ ugha

4- lgk;rk ,oa O;;\ izfr dzekad 1 ,oa 2 dks okn Hkfe dk LoRokf/kdkjh ?kksf”kr fd;k x;kA mHk; i{k viuk&viuk okn O;; Lo;a ogu djsaxsA

5- D;k okn Hkwfe 228 jdck 0-178 gsDVs;j] oknh )kjk dz; fd;s tkus ds iwoZ esa Hkwfe fodkl cSad ds le{k ca/kd Fkh\ gk¡

6- D;k ca/kd dh jkf’k pqdrk u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k Hkwfe fodkl cSad )kjk dh fuykeh oS/k gS\ gk¡

By judgment and decree dated 28.7.1995 in Civil Suit No. 105-A/1994, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, but decreed the counter-claim holding that defendants No. 1 and 2 are title-holders of the suit land and not only decreed the suit land but also decreed other lands which were not in dispute and were purchased by the auction-purchasers defendants No. 1 and 2 in the public-auction held on 11.2.1994.

4. On an appeal being filed by the plaintiffs under Section 96 of the CPC, the first appellate Court, by judgment and decree dated 7.7.2001 in Civil Appeal No. 24-A/1995, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree pas