A liquidator lacks the jurisdiction to unilaterally cancel a registered sale deed. Such an act is void ab initio, and the de facto doctrine cannot be invoked to validate an exercise of power that is inherently outside the scope of statutory authority or violates vested property rights.

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