S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court deciding issue No. 7 against the defendant/applicants holding that the suit was not barred in view of the provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, and was entertainable and maintainable in the Civil Court; the defendant/applicants have now approached this Court seeking redress praying for reversal of the order.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant/applicants as well as the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, and have also carefully perused the record.

( 3 ) THE facts in brief, shorn of details, and necessary for the disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass. The suit giving rise to this revision was filed by Pritam Singh Gulati, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, wherein the Rastriya Adarsh Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha, Dr. Smt. Kusum Verma and Dr. S. K. Verma, have been impleaded as defendants Nos. 1 to 3, respectively.

( 4 ) THE Rastriya Adarsh Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha (Regd.), the defendant No. 1 is a housing society which acquires land and after carving out the plots allots them to its members thereafter they are transferred in their favour for constructing residential buildings.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff claimed to be the owner of plot No. 30 in dispute on the basis of a sale deed dated 19th June, 1981, which sale deed had been executed by the Rastriya Adarsh Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha (hereinafter referred to as the Society), transferring the plot in dispute in favour of the plaintiff which was duly registered on the same date which had been signed by its Adhyaksh and Secretary on behalf of the Society.

( 6 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, the aforesaid Society had executed a sale deed in respect of the same plot in favour of Dr. Smt. Kusum Verma, the defendant No. 2 on 20th May, 1992, which was registered on the same date. The sale deed had been signed by the Adhyaksh of the Society, on its behalf.

( 7 ) THE plaintiff had prayed for a decree declaring that he was the owner-in-possession of the plot in dispute and the defendants had no right either to cancel or challenge the right, title and interest which accrued in his favour pursuant to the sale deed. The plaintiff also claimed a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/society from transferring or alienating in any manner the plot in dispute, and further not to cancel the same during the pendency of the suit which had been filed on 24th August, 1987. Thedefendant/society transferred the plot in favour of Dr. Smt. Kusum Verma, whereafter she was also impleaded along with her husband Dr. S. K. Verma, as defendants Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, and a further relief was prayed for declaring the sale deed made in favour of Dr. Smt. Kusum Verma to be void and legally ineffectual. The plaintiff further prayed for another prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, from raising any construction over the plot in dispute or interfere in the plaintiff's raising construction therein.

( 8 ) THE aforesaid suit was contested by the Society on various grounds. The execution of the sale deed dated 19th June, 1981, was not denied but the validity of the said transfer was challenged setting up various pleas. It was also asserted that the Society had cancelled the sale deed dated 19th June, 1981, relied upon by the plaintiff on 11th August, 1987. The Society also raised a plea challenging the entertainability of the suit in view of the provisions contained in Section 82 read with Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 9 ) THE defendant No. 2 filed a separate written statement. In her written statement, it was alleged that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff was void and legally ineffectual as the sale deed had been executed in violation of the rules of the Society. Various pleas were set up challenging the validity of the sal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document