Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3320
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Govind Prasad Srivastava - Appellant
Versus
Suresh Singh & Others - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1215 of 1999
Decided On : 02-02-2015
For the Appellant :- A.S.Rai
For the Respondent:- A.K. Rai,Nimai Das
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Housing Society does not have the authority to unilaterally cancel a sale-deed, as specified in the clauses of the sale-deed.
Headnote:
sale-deed - Property Dispute - Specific Relief Act, U.P. Cooperative Societies Act - 2, 3, 4, 6 - The court discussed the sale-deed dated 11.2.1980 and its clauses, emphasizing that the document did not confer any right upon the Housing Society to unilaterally cancel the sale-deed. The court highlighted the misreading of Clause-6 by the Lower Appellate Court and concluded that the subsequent sale-deed executed by the defendant was wholly illegal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an employee of Northern Eastern Railway, purchased a plot from the Housing Society. The Housing Society later revoked the sale-deed and sold the plot to another party. The plaintiff sought relief from the court.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the Lower Appellate Court set aside the judgment. The High Court found that the Housing Society had no right to unilaterally cancel the sale-deed and restored the Trial Court's judgment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Housing Society had the authority to cancel the sale-deed unilaterally.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale-deed did not confer any right upon the Housing Society to unilaterally cancel the sale-deed, and the subsequent sale-deed executed by the defendant was deemed wholly illegal.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court were set aside. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court were restored and confirmed, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri A.S. Rai, Advocate, for appellant and Sri Ashish Agarwal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate, representing respondents 6 and 7. Learned Standing Counsel is present for respondents 8 to 11. None appeared on behalf of any other respondent though the case has been called in revised and name of Sri A.K. Rai and Sri Nimai Das have been shown in the cause list as counsel for respondents.
2. The only question is whether the sale-deed with respect to property in dispute could have been cancelled by a unilateral document of cancellation dated 26.8.1981, executed by defendant no. 2.
3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute necessary for proper adjudication of the matter may be stated as under:
4. The case set up by the plaintiff, Govind Prasad Srivstava, is that he was an employee of Northern Eastern Railway posted at Varanasi. He had no independent house of his own at Varanasi. Defendant no. 2, Railway Men Sahkari Samiti Limited, Varanasi, (hereinafter referred to as "Housing Society") is a Society of the employees of Railways the object whereof was to facilitate for accommodation to the Railway employees. The Housing Society purchased a land at Ashapur and at Village Mavaiya. After planning colonization therein its plotting was done. The plots were sold to Railway employee who were members of Housing Society. The land initially belong to Government of India, Ministry of Railway, who had sold it to Housing Society for the purpose of benefit of Railway employees and was not liable to be sold to any outsider.
5. The plaintiff also purchased a plot No. 8, area 2560 sq. feet, for consideration of Rs. 3648/- vide sale-deed dated 11.2.1980. When the plaintiff proceeded for commencing construction activities and attempted to start construction on 7.7.1983, he found defendant no. 1 and Shiv Poojan Singh, Secretary of Housing Society, obstructing construction thereon and when the plaintiff asked them not to do so, they threatened him of getting their own construction forcibly. Plaintiff, therefore, sought a permanent injunction and also a direction for removal of construction already raised on the disputed plot.
6. The defendant no. 1 contested the suit stating that though plot no. 8 was sold by defendant no. 2 to plaintiff vide sale-deed dated 11.2.1980, but it was subject to certain conditions and one of such condition, whenever the development charges would be demanded by defendant no.2, plaintiff would pay the same. Since plaintiff did not pay development charges, therefore, his membership of Housing Society was revoked on 6.5.1983 and plot in question was sold by defendant no. 2 to defendant no. 1 vide sale-deed dated 10.6.1983. After purchasing disputed plot, defendant no. 1 has raised certain construction thereon.
7. The defendant no. 2 also contested the suit by filing his written statement and though admitted execution of sale-deed dated 11.2.1980, in favour of plaintiff, he said that plaintiff became member of Society on 8.4.1976 and remained so till November' 1990. The defendant no. 2 purchased disputed land from Railway Department of Government of India on 3.6.1979. Lay out plan was submitted to Varanasi Development Authority in which 116 plots were carved out. One plot was allotted and sold to plaintiff vide sale-deed dated 11.2.1980. There was condition of payment of development charge in the sale-deed dated 11.2.1980. On 30.11.1980 Housing Society demanded development charges as per demand raised by Varanasi Development Authority. A sum of Rs. 8176/- was demanded from plaintiff. Despite notice, plaintiff deposited only Rs. 3109/- instead of 8176/-. In a General Body meeting dated 28.11.1982, it was decided that those who have not deposited balance dues till 11.8.1982, their primary membership of Housing Society shall be cancelled. The plaintiff was also present in the aforesaid meeting. The resolution of meeting was communicated to plaintiff, still he did n
