Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11965
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Chhaya Devi Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Devashish Panda – Respondent
FA No. 99 of 2019
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Registered Instruments and Transfer of Title
Act Referred
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: S.31, S.54, S.10, S.11
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960: S.94, S.69, S.71, S.70
Specific Relief Act, 1963: S.31, S.34
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: S.114
Headnote
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Adverse inference - Failure of party to enter witness box - Held, where a party to a suit does not appear to state their case on oath and offer themselves for cross-examination, an adverse inference must be drawn against them. (Para 39)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought title to suit property based on a sale deed executed by a liquidator following the alleged cancellation of a prior registered sale deed in the respondent's favor, citing non-compliance with construction timeframe clauses in the society's by-laws.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the liquidator's power is administrative and does not include adjudicatory authority to unilaterally void registered instruments. The doctrine of de facto acts does not protect actions that are inherently without jurisdictional authority.
Issues: Whether a registered sale deed can be unilaterally cancelled by a liquidator and whether the subsequent title acquisition via such cancellation is valid.
Ratio Decidendi: A registered sale deed transfers absolute title, and any subsequent cancellation must be adjudicated by a competent civil court under the Specific Relief Act. Administrative authorities cannot invoke the de facto doctrine to validate actions that infringe upon vested proprietary rights or exceed their limited statutory mandate.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.P. Sharma, Nidhi Tiwari
For the Respondents: Prafull N. Bharat, Harshal Chouhan
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over title resulting from unilateral cancellation of a registered sale deed by a housing society liquidator. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. procedural history and evidence production in the trial court regarding ownership and possession of the suit property. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. appellant's contention that conditional clauses in sale deeds justify cancellation and applicability of the de facto doctrine. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. respondent's contention that registered sale deeds confer absolute title, and unilateral cancellation is procedurally and legally unauthorized. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. analysis of the liquidator's authority and the impact of the transfer of property act on unilateral cancellation of registered instruments. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. application of the de facto doctrine cannot validate acts taken entirely outside of statutory jurisdiction. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. adverse inference from non-appearance of party in witness box and final adjudication of title dispute. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
1. The present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the Defendant No. 4, against the impugned judgment and decree dated 05-10-2018, passed by the learned 4th Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Raipur, District Raipur in Civil Suit No. 59-A/2013, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction is decreed in his favour, and the counter claim of the Defendant No. 4 for declaration of title and permanent injunction is dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties shown in the suit is being taken to refer to the respective parties in the present appeal.
3. The plaintiff instituted a Civil suit before the learned trial Court for the relief of declaration of title, declaration that the revocation deed dated 10-03-2011 and sale deed dated 10-03-2011 executed by the Defendant No. 3 in favour of Defendant No. 4 is not binding upon him, and permanent injunction over the suit property, i.e. the open and diverted land of residential plot No. 25, Khasara No. 332/1, 332/2 and 334, area 2400 Sqr. Ft. (60 x 40 ft.), situated at village Purena, P.H. No. 113, R.I. Circle Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, which is the property belonging to “Rashtriya Khanij Vikas Nigam Karmchari Sahakari Samiti” (in short “the Society”). It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the plaintiff has purchased the suit land through the registered sale deed dated 16-07-2001, from its owner, M.A. Appan, and came into possession thereof. He constructed the boundary wall and surrounded the suit land by wall and constructed a water tank also. The Defendant No. 2 was appointed as the Prescribed Authority of the said Society, vide order dated 20-01-2011. He sent a proposal for the liquidation of the property of the Society to the Deputy Registrar on 25-01-2011. On 28-01-2011, Defendant No. 3 was appointed as liquidator of the said Society. After his appointment as liquidator, the Defendant No. 3, on 10-03-2011, without there being any notice or intimation to the plaintiff, produced a revocation deed before the Sub-Registrar, Raipur, which was accepted for its registration and on the same day, a sale deed was executed in favour of the Defendant No. 4. The said sale deed is executed without there being any authority and void ab initio and the Defendant No. 4 could not get any title by the said sale deed. Such a sale deed dated 10-03-2011 is not binding upon the plaintiff. He obtained a copy of the sale deed on 13-05-2011. He also came to know that the Board of Directors have also filed an appeal against the dissolution of the Society, before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur, which is pending for its consideration. On 16-05-2011, the plaintiff served a legal notice under Section 94 of the Cooperative So
