Once a registered sale deed is executed, the vendor cannot unilaterally cancel it, as title has legally passed. Such cancellation requires a decree from a competent civil court. Additionally, civil courts retain exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning absolute title to immovable property, notwithstanding orders from non-judicial consumer forums.

JUDGMENT :

R. POORNIMA, J.

This second appeal is filed by the 1st Defendant as against the judgment and decree of the II Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, made in AS No.96 of 2001, dated 22/07/2002, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 04/04/2000 made in OS No.433 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.

2.The first respondent herein, who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court, contended that she was a member (No.390) of the second defendant Society. She applied for allotment of a house site and, pursuant thereto, was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,058/- towards the cost of the plot. The plaintiff paid the said amount on 09.07.1992 under Receipt No.436.

2.1.As per the resolution of the Special Officer and proceedings of the Society, Plot No.152 was allotted to the plaintiff for construction of a dwelling house. Consequently, a sale deed was also executed by the Society in her favour on 20.07.1992 and was duly registered as Document No.1528/1992 before the Sub-Registrar, Melapalayam. Possession of the property was also handed over to the plaintiff on the same day.

2.2.The plaintiff further contended that, subsequently and without any authority, the Special Officer of the Society cancelled the sale deed by executing a deed of cancellation dated 04.05.1993 registered as document No.822/93. The said cancellation, allegedly based on a resolution dated 27.02.1993, was not communicated to the plaintiff and is invalid in law. No reasons were assigned for such cancellation. The plaintiff alleged that the cancellation was arbitrary, capricious, and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff preferred a petition under Section 90 of the Co-Operative Societies Act, which was taken as Petition No.342 of 1992 before the competent authority. By order, dated 29.06.1994, the authority held that there was no illegality in the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It was further held that the cancellation deed dated 04.05.1993 executed by the Special Officer was null and void and a direction was issued to cancel the said cancellation deed within one month from the date of the order. The authority also directed that the plaintiff is entitled to possession and enjoyment of Plot No.152. Pursuant to the said order, the Special Officer executed a further deed on 05.08.1994 affirming that the original sale deed dated 20.07.1992 executed in favour of the plaintiff is valid and continues to remain in force.

2.3.The plaintiff further stated that, after taking possession, she levelled the land, submitted a building plan to the Municipality, and incurred substantial expenses with the intention of constructing a house. The plan was approved on 06.02.1997. It was also stated that in the sale deed dated 20.07.1992, her name was wrongly mentioned as “K. Kanthamani” instead of “S.Kanthamani” which was later rectified by a registered rectification deed dated 17.07.1996 executed by the Society.

2.4.The plaintiff further averred that she subsequently came to know that the first defendant had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli, in C.O.P. No.6 of 1993, claiming that the suit property had originally been allotted to her and that its cancellation was improper. The Consumer Forum allowed the complaint, and the appeal preferred by the Society in Appeal No.491 of 1994 was also dismissed.

2.5.The plaintiff contended that she was not made a party to the said proceedings. Based on the orders of the Consumer Forum, the Society