MAHALAXMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. vs ASHABHAI ATMARAM PATEL (D) TH. LRS

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(SC) 205

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
MAHALAXMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ETC. – Appellants
VERSUS
ASHABHAI ATMARAM PATEL (D) TH.LRS AND OTHERS – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2050-2053 of 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 126-129 of 2012]
Decided on : 01-03-2013

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226 and 227 – Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order XXIII - Rule 3 - Power of Attorney - Claim resting - Co-operative Housing Society Ltd for short Society for a declaration that sale deeds were illegal and also for an order of permanent injunction restraining Society from dealing with the lands and also for other consequential heirs of deceased (respondent and plaintiff are heirs of plaintiff is Patel (since deceased) and now through Legal Representatives – respondent and plaintiff are heirs Patel (respondent herein along with the plaint filed an application for temporary injunction which was allowed vide order One Co- operative Housing Society sought intervention in suit Civil Suit on basis of registered Agreement Sell and joined as defendant Civil Suit was also suit filed by respondent against Deputy Collector appellant herein and respondent for an order of permanent injunction on the ground that no permission under Section Tenancy Act was obtained before executing various sale deeds –Held, Court shall order such agreement compromise or satisfaction to be recorded and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as relates to parties to the suit whether or not subject-matter suit - Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at Court shall decide the question but no adjournment shall be granted for purpose of deciding question unless Court for reasons to be recorded thinks fit to grant such adjournment court have also found that heirs of plaintiff did not took steps to record themselves in Civil Suit till same was disposed of and hence as per provisions Articles of Limitation Act suit stood abated qua plaintiff steps had been taken set aside abatement as well court have also on facts found that plaintiff purpose of consolidation of suits is to save costs time and effort and to make conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. Consolidation of suits ordered for meeting ends of justice as saves parties from multiplicity of proceedings delay and expenses and the parties are relieved of need of adducing same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over two suits at two different trials - Reference may be made to judgment Court transfer suits from one court to another to be tried together will not take away right of parties to invoke and there is also no prohibition to record a compromise in one suit - Suits always retain their independent identity and even after an order of consolidation court is not powerless to dispose of any suit independently once the ingredients has been satisfied – Order accordingly

JUDGMENT

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.:-Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat disposing of six special civil applications of which we are concerned with the appeals preferred against Special Civil Application Nos. 7088 of 2010, 10084 of 2009, 11925 of 2009 and 7087 of 2010. The learned single Judge, in exercise of his powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India quashed the orders dated 14.08.2008 and 08.09.2009 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 292/1993 and Special Civil Suit No. 681/1992 respectfully by the Learned Civil Judge (SD) of Ahmadabad (Rural) and remanded the matter to the court, after reviving the interim order dated 28.05.1993 passed in Civil Suit No. 292/1993.

3. Civil Suit No. 292 of 1993 was preferred by respondent No.4 - Chandrakant Atmaram Patel and respondent nos. 1 to 5 herein (purchasers) against respondent no. 6 – Bai Saraswati and the appellant herein – Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (for short ‘Mahalaxmi Society’) for a declaration that sale deeds dated 5.6.1992 and 8.6.1992 were illegal and also for an order of permanent injunction restraining the Mahalaxmi Society from dealing with the lands and also for other consequential reliefs. Chandrakant Atmaram Patel, plaintiff no. 1, plaintiff no. 2 are the heirs of the deceased Baldevprasad (respondent nos. 5/1 and 5/2 herein), the plaintiff no. 3 are heirs of Manilal Bechardas (respondent nos. 3/1 and 3/2 herein), plaintiff no. 4 is Ashabai Patel (since deceased) and now through Legal Representatives – respondent nos. 1/1/A to 1/1/D) and plaintiff no. 5 are heirs of Amrutlal Patel (respondent nos. 2/1, 2/2, 2/3 and 7 herein), along with the plaint filed an application for temporary injunction, which was allowed vide order dated 28.5.1993. One Jankalyan Co- operative Housing Society sought intervention in the suit Civil Suit No. 292/1993 on the basis of a registered Agreement to Sell dated 15.6.1992 and joined as defendant no. 3. Civil Suit No. 681/1992 was also a suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 against the Deputy Collector, the appellant herein and the 6th respondent for an order of permanent injunction on the ground that no permission under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act was obtained before executing various sale deeds.

4. We have to trace the facts leading to the filing of the above suits and the disputes cropped up thereafter between the original plaintiffs, Bai Saraswati and the Mahalaxmi Society, leading to the filing of pursis dated 7.7.2008 and 18.09.2008 and the steps they have taken for resolving those disputes in Civil Suit No. 292 of 1993 and Civil Suit No. 681/1992.

5. Bai Saraswati – respondent no. 6 herein – had executed two Sale Deeds dated 27.10.1964 in respect of separate non-contiguous parcels of lands in favour of five persons i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 5. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 (purchasers) formed a partnership firm in the name of M/s Arbuda Corporation on 4.3.1965 to deal with the above-mentioned properties and each partner had equal share. M/s Arbuda Corporation on 15.9.1975 executed an Agreement to Sell in favour of the Mahalaxmi Society in respect of the above-mentioned lands.

6. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short ‘the ULC Act’) came into force in 1976. M/s Arbuda Corporation and the appellant Mahalaxmi Society jointly made an application under Section 20 of the ULC Act seeking permission to execute the sale deed before the Deputy Collector, Ahmadabad. Similar applications were also filed by the appellant – Bai Saraswati and respondent No. 4 – Chandrakant Atmaram Patel. On 7.1.1989, respondent nos. 5/1, 5/2 and 5/3, respondent nos. 3/1 and 3/2, respondent no. 1 (since deceased) and respondent no. 2 (since deceased) executed a Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No. 4 – Chandrakant Atmaram Patel in respect of the above-mentioned properties. The power of attorney provided that the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document