Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
Ranjit Kaur - Appellant
Vs.
Gurcharan Singh and others - Respondents
RSA No.3276 of 2011, RSA No.3432 of 2011
Decided on : 23-11-2016
COOPERATIVE SOCIETY - NOMINEE - RIGHTS - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP - MAINTAINABILITY - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - PUNJAB COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1961 - SECTIONS 55, 82 - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 34 - SALE DEED EXECUTED BY SOCIETY IN FAVOUR OF NOMINEE - VALIDITY - LAW OF SUCCESSION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, the widow of the original allottee of a house in a cooperative housing society, filed a suit for a declaration that she was the owner of the house and that a sale deed executed by the society in favor of her son was illegal, null and void. The society was proceeded against ex parte, and the son filed a written statement taking preliminary objections and contending that the suit was barred by Sections 55 and 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The trial court held that the suit was maintainable and that the sale deed was illegal, null and void. On appeal, the lower appellate court upheld the trial court's findings on the maintainability of the suit but held that the plaintiff was not the exclusive owner of the house and that all legal heirs of her late husband were entitled to inherit the property as per the law of succession.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the suit was maintainable as the dispute did not touch upon the business of the society and that the plaintiff had a right to seek a declaration of her ownership of the house. However, the court also held that the plaintiff was not the exclusive owner of the house and that all legal heirs of her late husband were entitled to inherit the property as per the law of succession. The court further held that the sale deed executed by the society in favor of the son was illegal, null and void as no application had been made by the plaintiff to transfer the house to the son's name and that the society had no authority to execute the sale deed.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable in view of Sections 55 and 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? 2. Whether the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the house or whether all legal heirs of her late husband were entitled to inherit the property? 3. Whether the sale deed executed by the society in favor of the son was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The suit was maintainable as the dispute did not touch upon the business of the society and the plaintiff had a right to seek a declaration of her ownership of the house. 2. The plaintiff was not the exclusive owner of the house and all legal heirs of her late husband were entitled to inherit the property as per the law of succession. 3. The sale deed executed by the society in favor of the son was illegal, null and void as no application had been made by the plaintiff to transfer the house to the son's name and that the society had no authority to execute the sale deed.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by both the plaintiff and the son were dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
These are two cross appeals filed by the plaintiff and the first defendant both, who are mother and son, in a suit filed by the former, seeking a declaration to the effect that the “alleged sale deed” dated 11.02.1994, executed by the 2nd respondent in both the present appeals, in favour of the 1st defendant (appellant in RSA No.3432 of 2011 and respondent no.1 in RSA No.3276 of 2011), is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff (appellant in RSA No.3276 of 2011), she being the owner of the said property, being the nominee of Jaswant Singh, i.e. her deceased husband.
The plaintiff further sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property in any manner and from changing the nature thereof.
2. As per the suit set up by the plaintiff, she was the widow of Jaswant Singh, the original allottee of House No.59 situated in Gandhi Colony, Ludhiana, registered in the name of the 2nd defendant, i.e. Ludhiana Hosiery Industrial Workers Co-op. Housing Society (hereinafter to be referred to as the Society).
Jaswant Singh unfortunately died in a road accident on 13.12.1993 and the plaintiff being his nominee, submitted an application to the officials of the Society to transfer the house in her name, which was so done.
It was further contended that the plaintiffs' name existed in the voters list at Sr. no.59, in the election conducted by the Department of Cooperation on 31.07.1994.
One Rajinder Shir was stated to be the Secretary of the Society.
Thereafter, it was further contended that though the plaintiff never alienated the property to defendant no.1, nor authorised any official of the Society to get a sale deed executed in favour of defendant no.1, qua the suit property, the Society, however, got the signatures of the plaintiff on the pretext that they were required to complete the formalities regarding change of ownership of the plot, in her name, she being the nominee of Jaswant Singh.
Still further, it was averred that the plaintiff filed an application in an ejectment petition titled as Jaswant Singh v. Gurcharan Singh, to implead her as the petitioner in place of Jaswant Singh, in which defendant no.1 filed a reply taking a plea that the application was barred by limitation and that he had become the owner of the property by virtue of the sale deed executed by the Society in his favour. It was contended that even in the said reply, no date was given on which the sale deed was executed and therefore, there was a “malafide design” of both the defendants, i.e. Jaswant Singhs' son and the Society.
Still further, the plaintiff contended that the 1st defendant was a tenant in the property at a rent of Rs.600/- per month till 19.07.1992 and thereafter, at a rent of Rs.1200/- per month from 20.07.1992, as additional accommodation was given to him.
The ejectment petition filed by the late Jaswant Singh against defendant no.1, was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, (actually while deciding the application of the plaintiff to become the legal heir of Jaswant Singh). The application was held to be time barred which, as per the plaintiff, was on account of the fact that she was an illiterate lady who had failed to file the application for impleadment in her late husbands' place as his legal representative, within time.
The plaintiff further averred that it was then that she came to know that a fraud had been played upon her by defendant no.1, in connivance with the officials of the Society, i.e. defendant no.2.
3. The plaintiff is also stated have filed an application to the Society on 04.10.1994, asking it to disclose the facts pertaining to the execution of the “alleged sale deed” of House No.59, but the Society failed to give any reply.
Thereafter, she filed an application on 23.01.1994 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, for registration of a case against the 1st defendant and guilty officials of the Society, with a remi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
