SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 2943

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD 
MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
B.M. Education and Social Institute - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Writ (C) No. 8282 of 2025
Decided On : 21-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Punit Kumar Gupta

The court affirmed that permission for property transfers under the Societies Registration Act must involve all necessary members to protect their interests, as their absence precludes legitimate objection assessments.

Headnote:(A) Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Section 5A - Permission required for property transfer - District Judge rejected application as necessary parties were not impleaded, hindering the assessment of societal interests. Court emphasized the need for consent from society members and the conditions under which property transfers may be permitted. (Paras 2-10)

(B) Legal representation in society property matters - Court held that without all necessary parties, objections cannot be legitimately determined. Proper due process must be followed to ensure all interests are accounted for. (Paras 4-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a District Judge's order rejecting a property sale application by the society, claiming no objections from its members. However, the court noted the absence of member objections in the application process.

Findings of Court:
The District Judge's rejection was upheld due to the failure to include society members as necessary parties, confirming the importance of their involvement in property transactions.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the necessity of involving society members in applications regarding property sales and the validity of objections when members are not parties to the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that Section 5A requires member involvement to ensure sales are in the society's interest, underscoring the importance of due representation in legal proceedings concerning property transfers.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with liberty for the petitioner to refile, including all necessary parties.

Table of Content
1. challenge to application under society registration act. (Para 2 , 3)
2. need for court approval in property sales. (Para 4 , 5)
3. inadmissibility due to lack of necessary parties. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. permission granted for filing new application. (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT :

Manish Kumar Nigam, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.1.2025 passed by District Judge, Banda rejecting the application under Section 5A of the Society Registration Act, 1860 declining the permission to the society to execute a sale deed of the property of the society on the ground that original resolution and accounts of the society were not placed before the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the District Judge, Banda has erred in law in rejecting the application filed by the society under Section 5A of the Society Registration Act, 1807. There was no objection on behalf of any of the members of the society to the sale of the property of the society and therefore the application filed by the Society ought to have been allowed by the District Judge, Banda.

4. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that application was filed impleading public at large as opposite party in the said application without impleading the members of the society who may probably have any objections to the sale of the property of the society. This Court in case of Kisan Education Society Vs. District Judge and others , 2008 (10) ADJ 524 has held in paragraph 6 and 7 of the judgment which are quoted as under :

"6. Section 5 -A of the Societies Registration Act, as applicable in the State of U.P. provides:

5. Property of society how vested - The property, movable and immovable, belonging to a society registered under this Act, if not vested in trustees, shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the governing body of such society, and in all proceedings, civil and criminal, may be described as the property of the governing body of such society by their proper title.

7. The aforesaid provision has been incorporated in order to protect the properties of the Society and the interest of its members. This Section places an embargo on the Society from transferring its immovable properties without previous permission from the District Judge. The idea behind this is that the Court should be satisfied that the transfer of the property of the Society was being made in the larger interest of the Society and not to the detriment of the members of the Society."

5. Similar view was taken in case of Raj Nath Misra Vs. The Xth Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and others , 1991 ALJ 486, wherein the Court has held:

"The said Section has been enacted for putting a check on the society from transferring its immovable properties without the previous approval of the Court so that the Court may also look into it and give permission only if the Court is satisfied that the transfer of any immovable property is being made in the interest of the society and not in the manner which is detrimental to the interest of the society. This is the entire scope of said section. The only objection which is contemplated within the purview of the aforesaid Section is that the governing body of the society is proposing to transfer its immovable property which is contrary to the interest of the institution. It is not within the scope of the said Section to examine as to whether the society has ceased to be the owner of its immovable property."

6. In view of law laid down by this Court, the purpose of obtaining permission before the sale of property of the society by the society is to protect the interest of members of the Society. In the present case, the application was filed without impleading any member of the society and therefore, it cannot said that there was no objection on behalf of the members of the society as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner as they are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top