SATYA PAL ANAND Vs PUNJABI HOUSING CO-OPTV. SOCIETY .
Bench: P. SATHASIVAM,J. CHELAMESWAR
Case number: SLP(C) No.-013255-013255 / 2012
Diary number: 29229 / 2011
Advocates: PETITIONER-IN-PERSON Vs
B. S. BANTHIA
Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NO. 13255 OF 2012
Satya Pal Anand …Petitioner
Versus
Punjabi Housing Co-operative Society & Others …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Chelameswar, J.
1. This petition arises out of the final judgment and
order dated 03.08.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.14548
of 2008 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
2. It is rather difficult to cull out the facts accurately
because of the inadequacy of the record. Be that as it
may, the broad and undisputed facts are as under:
Page 2
3. The petitioner’s mother was allotted a plot of land
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the property in dispute’) by the
first respondent – the Punjabi Housing Co-operative
Society Ltd. Pursuant to such an allotment, the sale-deed
dated 22.03.1962 came to be executed, which deed was
registered on 30.03.1962 before the Sub-Registrar, Bhopal.
It appears that the petitioner’s mother died on 12.06.1988.
The petitioner claims to be the sole successor-in-interest
though we find from the record (from the alleged
compromise deed dated 06.07.2004 executed by the
petitioner herein) that he has a sister.
4. It appears that after lapse of about 40 years, the first
respondent purported to have cancelled the sale made in
favour of the petitioner’s deceased mother. On
09.08.2001, a deed styled as Extinguishment Deed came
to be executed by the first respondent before the Sub-
Registrar, Bhopal - the legality of which deed is required to
be examined separately. However, we do not propose to
say anything at this stage.
2
Page 3
5. Subsequently, the first respondent executed another
sale deed with respect to the property in dispute in favour
of the second respondent on 21.04.2004.
6. A document styled as Compromise Deed dated
06.07.2004 came to be executed by the petitioner herein,
the substance of which is that the petitioner agreed to
receive a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- only and put an end to all
the disputes in respect of the disputed property. It
appears from the recital of the document that out of the
abovementioned amount, a sum of Rs.4.50,000/- was paid
by draft issued by the State Bank of Indore, Bhopal Branch
and the balance by a post dated cheque. We may state
here that the petitioner does not dispute either the
execution of the abovementioned document or the receipt
of the abovementioned amounts. As it can be seen from
the synopsis filed in this appeal at page ‘J’, it is stated as
follows:
“Amount was not returned as the petitioner had been advised by the learned advocates having expertise in civil litigation and of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 that the agreement secured upon misrepresentation & upon the facts in his case on 06.07.2004 was in law null and void & amount had been paid for unlawful purposes & in violation of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act and the return of the amount paid there under could not be claimed in law and the suit if filed shall meet its dismissal.”
3
Page 4
However, the petitioner now maintains that the said
compromise was obtained under duress. Subsequently,
the petitioner raised a dispute by approaching the
Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies.
7. It appears from the record that subsequently the
petitioner herein raised a dispute before the Registrar
under Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act
questioning the legality of the execution of the
abovementioned unilateral Extinguishment Deed and
allotment of the property in dispute in favour of the second
respondent. Vide order dated 1.2.2006, the Deputy
Registrar passed an order injuncting the defendants from
raising any construction or transferring by way of sale etc.
of the property in dispute.
8. However, the said interim injunction appears to have
been vacated by an order dated 12.4.2006. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Registrar, Cooperative Society. It appears that the
Registrar vide order dated 29.08.2006 set aside the order
dated 12.04.2006. Unfortunately, the order dated
4
Page 5
29.08.2006 is not available on record completely, only part
of the order is annexed to the paper book.
9. On 02.02.2008, the petitioner herein filed an
application under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC before the Deputy
Registrar for appointment of receiver in respect of the
property in dispute. On 04.02.2008, an ex-parte order
appointing receiver was passed which was modified on
18.2.2008 and it was further directed to the receiver to
take physical possession of the property in dispute. It
appears that by another order dated 25.03.2008 the
Deputy Registrar directed the receiver to take symbolic
possession, instead of physical possession, of the property
in dispute. (Copy of this order is not available on record).
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision
before the Joint Registrar. Simultaneously, the second
respondent also filed two revisions challenging the orders
of appointment of the receiver dated 04.02.2008 and
18.02.2008 whereby the receiver was directed to take
physical possession of the property in dispute.
5
Page 6
10. By order dated 08.11.2008, the Joint Registrar
allowed the revisions of the second respondent and
remitted the case back to the Deputy Registrar to decide
the matter afresh. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner herein preferred a second appeal before the
Cooperative Tribunal which appeal was treated as revision
filed under Section 77 of the Act but dismissed vide order
dated 22.11.2008. (Neither of the two orders is available
on record).
11. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the
petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ
petition from which the present appeal arises.
12. By the impugned judgment, the writ petition was
dismissed.
13. We must also mention herein that during the
pendency of these proceedings, the second respondent
sold the property in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5 by
sale deed dated 11.07.2006. It appears that the Sub-
Registrar on inspection of the disputed plot found that
there were two constructed duplex and two more near
6
Page 7
completion as on the date of inspection i.e. on 13.03.2007
of which one was occupied by respondent no.4.
14. It must be remembered that the instant proceedings
arise out of the interlocutory proceedings seeking
appointment of the receiver at the instance of the
petitioner herein. Having regard to the fact that
respondent no.4 was in possession of the property in
dispute at least since 13.03.2007 admittedly and also
having regard to the fact that the petitioner received an
amount of Rs.6,50,000/- we do not see any justification for
the appointment of the receiver. We see no reason to
interfere with the judgment under appeal. We accordingly
dismiss the special leave petition.
………………………………….J. (P. SATHASIVAM)
………………………………….J. (J. CHELAMESWAR )
New Delhi; July 17, 2013.
7