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