Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8606 OF 2019

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.5413 of 2019)

THE MANAGER, THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. …Appellant

VERSUS

FARMER BANK EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS. …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.8607-08       OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)Nos.5414-5415 of 2019)

THE FARMER BANK EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. …Appellant

VERSUS

THE MANAGER, THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ORS. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

2

2.     These Appeals arise out of (i)  the judgment and order dated

08.02.2018 passed in First Appeal No. 255 of 2016 and (ii) order dated

24.09.2018 passed in Review Application No. 333 of 2018 in said First

Appeal by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New

Delhi (‘the National Commission’, for short).

3. The  Appellant-Bank  is  the  apex  bank  of  all  District  Central

Cooperative Banks in State of Maharashtra and is also a scheduled bank in

terms  of  the  Banking  Regulation  Act,  1949.   In  response  to  an

advertisement published by the Respondent No.2 (Nagpur Improvement

Trust)  offering  an  extent  of  land  admeasuring  2709.701  square  metres

consisting of 14 plots, the Appellant made an application and was allotted

said land on 02.11.1973 against the premium of Rs.90,300/-.  One of the

conditions  for  allotment  was  that  the  plot  shall  be  used  for  residential

purposes.  The possession of the plot was immediately handed over.  Soon

thereafter, the Appellant applied for variation in sub-division and requested

that the entire land be divided into 16 plots instead of  14 plots as was

initially contemplated.   The request was allowed and the land was sub-

divided into 16 plots.

4. The Appellant, thereafter, constructed 28 tenements on 14 plots out

of 16 plots while the other two plots were kept vacant.  With the idea of

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

3

making tenements available to the persons working with the Appellant in

the category of peons, applications were invited from interested persons.  It

appears  that  only 19 persons satisfied the requirements and therefore 9

persons belonging to the category of clerks were also accommodated.  All

the  28  tenements  were  thus  allotted  to  28  employees  of  the  Appellant

sometime in March 1976.  Upto the stage of allotment not a single paisa

was  paid  by  any  of  the  employees.   These  employees  were  given  the

facility of financial support by the Appellant where interest was charged at

concessional rate and home loans were made available to them.  

5. Though the allotment  of  said 28 tenements  was  done in  March

1976 itself and possession was given, the Society of the employees did not

get any lease executed as there were existing loans which were yet to be

cleared by each of the employees.  The lease in respect of the entire extent

of  land  was  therefore  got  executed  in  the  name  of  the  Appellant  by

Respondent  No.2,  the  period  of  lease  being  03.11.1973  to  31.03.2004.

After  the loans were repaid,  the Executive Committee of  the Appellant

passed Resolution No.3 on 21.1.2004 resolving that since the loans were

repaid, the tenements and the concerned plots be transferred in the names

of those employees or their legal heirs by completing all legal formalities.

Though, the Resolution was passed on 21.01.2004, the formalities could

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

4

not be completed and as the period of lease had come to an end, the lease

was got  renewed from Respondent  No.2 in  favour  of  the Appellant  on

15.02.2011 for further period of 30 years from 01.4.2004 to 31.03.2034.  

6. On 16.04.2012 the Society of the employees i.e. the Respondent

No.1 herein filed Complaint  No.10 of  2012 before the State  Consumer

Disputes  Redressal  Commission,  Nagpur  (‘the  State  Commission’,  for

short) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act’) submitting inter alia that:-

“5. The management of Non-applicant No.2 bank decided to undertake housing scheme for the employees working as peons  with  Non-applicant  No.2.   And,  therefore,  in response  to  an  advertisement  in  local  newspaper  in  the year  1973 published by the  Non-applicant  No.1  offering residential plots to the general public in the old Subhedar Layout  locality  under  Khasara  No.58  &  59,  known  as Sakkardara  Street  expansion  scheme,  the  Non-applicant No.2  contracted  the  Non-applicant  No.1  to  purchase  14 plots for its employees in peon category.  The proposal of Non-applicant No.2 was accepted by Non-applicant No.1 and 14 plots bearing Nos.83 to 96 were allotted to Non- applicant  No.2  Bank  for  a  total  consideration  of Rs.90,300/- (Rupees Ninety thousand Three Hundred Only) admeasuring 2709.701 sqr. Mtr i.e. 29,167 sqr. Ft. of area. Initially it was proposed by the Board of Directors of the Non-applicant No.2 to construct 2 tenements on each plot totalling 28 tenements.  However, the then Local manager at the Regional Office, Nagpur of Non-applicant No.2 got the 14 plots divided into 16 plots with the approval of Non- applicant No.1.  The plots were renumbered as 83-96 + 89A and 90A.

6. The  Non-applicant  No.2  started  collecting  monthly subscription  from  those  employees  who  registered  their names to participate in the scheme, with a view to create

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

5

their 10% contributory fund to avial 90% of loan facility as against the cost of their respective tenements.

7. Thereafter, Non-applicant No.2 engaged M/s Planarch an Architectural firm and got the tenement plans sanctioned from Non-applicant  No.1.   The Non-applicant  No.2 then engaged Shri N.T. Vyas, a building contractor, to construct 28  tenements  with  its  own  funds.   However,  the  Non- applicant No.2 restricted the construction of tenements to 28 only instead of 32 and 14 plots and 2 plots remained vacant as because the Board of Director of Non-applicant No.2 Bank at Head Office at Mumbai did not approve the subdivision of plots from 14 to 16.

8. At  the  time  of  completion  of  construction  of  28 tenements, only 19 peons confirmed their participation and, therefore,  9  employees  from  clerical  cadre  were accommodated in the scheme and allotment of tenements was  done  in  March 1976.   In  fact,  if  the  Non-applicant No.2 would have constructed 4 more tenements, the same could  have  been allotted  to  those  desirous  employees  in future.   However,  for  the  reason  best  known,  the  Non- applicant No.2 kept 2 plots vacant, for the past 38 years.

9. The Non-applicant No.2 initially incurred all expenses relating to completion of the project as mentioned below:-

Sr.No. Particular Amount (Rs.) Security Deposit

Total (Rs.)

1. Cost of Land 90,300.00 -- 90,300.00 2 Ground  Rent

(1974-75) 1,806.00 -- 1,806.00

3 Security Deposit (NIT)

-- 800.00 800.00

4. Steel 47,845.48 -- 47,845.48 5 Cement 87,634.40 -- 87,634.40 6 Contractor’s

Bill 3,69,855.19 -- 3,69,855.19

7 Architect Feed

19,364.80 -- 19,364.80

8 Supervisor’s charges

3,600 --- 3,600

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

6

9 Water Meter 1,736.00 3,920.00 5,656.00 10 Electricity

Connection 3,280.00 1,400.00 4,680.00

11 Debentures Purchased for Electricity

-- 2,800.00 2,800.00

12 Other expenses

116.00 -- 116.00

Total 6,25,537.87 8,920.00 6,34,457.87

The total cost of the project  including cost of land was worked out at Rs.6,34,457.87 and by dividing this amount by  28  the  cost  of  each  tenement  was  worked  out  at Rs.22,659.20 which  obviously  includes  the  proportionate cost of 2 vacant plots admeasuring 3600 sq.ft. of area.  The Board of Directors of the Non-applicant No.2 Bank in its meeting held on 12.01.1977 approved the cost of project and cost of each tenement and also approved housing loan to  each  employee  as  per  their  eligibility.   It  was  also resolved by the  Board of  Directors  to  transfer  the  entire property in  the  name of  society along with loan amount sanctioned to 28 members and started effecting recovery of loan through society via their monthly salaries.  However, due  to  sub-division  of  14  plots  into  16  plots  and constructing  only  28  tenements,  every  member  had  to sacrifice the benefit of 12 sq.ft. of permissible construction are  even after  paying the  cost  and suffered  a  permanent irreparable loss.

… 11. As stated earlier, the Non-appliant No.2 paid the price of 16 plots.  The expenditure incurred on construction and for  other  purposes  was  initially  borne  by  Non-applicant No.2.   However,  both  the  Non-applicant  No.1  and Non- applicant No.2 cheated the Complainant and its members by executing the lease deed of 16 plots for a period of 30 years  commencing  from  03.11.1973  to  31.03.2004  in favour of Non-applicant No.2.  This document of lease was executed on 26.04.1979 i.e. 3 years after handing over the possession of tenements in March 1976 and further after its own  decision  of  12.01.1977  taken  by  the  Board  of Directors  of  Non-applicant  No.2  Bank  to  transfer  the property in favour of Complainant Society.  However, the annual lease rent is being paid by the Complainant society since beginning and up till now over Rs.70,000/- are paid

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

7

towards rent without any title to the land.  Now, therefore, the Complainant or its members do not possess any title to the  property  they  are  occupying  even  though  they  have discharged their loan liability way back on their respective superannuation or on the expiry of term of repayment of loan.  Out of 28 allottees, 20 members have died and the question of succession  to the property has arisen before the Complainant Society.  However, the Complainant Society is totally helpless to resolve the issue as the title of the said 16 plots of land is with the Non-applicant No.2.”

In para 13 of  the complaint,  various options were suggested by

Respondent No.1, one of the suggested options namely option ‘e’ being:- “The  Non-applicant  No.2  could  have  constructed  4 more tenements on remaining two vacant plots out of 16 plots and could have allotted them to the interested employees  easily  as  because  a  large  number  of employees of Non-applicant No.2 have sought housing loan  benefit  from  Non-applicant  No.2  thereafter  for their  housing  needs.   The Non-applicant  No.2  could have  also  refunded  the  cost  of  two  vacant  plots originally shared by 28 employees or adjusted to their loan accounts.”

The prayers made in the Complaint were as under:- “i. Direct  the  Non-applicant  No.1  to  renew the lease of 16 Plots No. 83 to 96 and 89A and 90A  in  favour  of  the  Complainant-Society within two months from the date of order.

ii. Direct the Non-applicant No. 2 to pay the cost  for  renewal  of  lease  of  16  plots  to  the Complainant-Society immediately as and when demanded by the Complainant Society.

iii. Direct the Non-applicant No. 2 to pay the price of two vacant plots, if it desires to retain for construction, as per prevailing market price which  amounts  to  Rs.98,00,000/-  (Rupees Ninety Eight Lakhs Only).

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

8

iv. Direct the Non-applicant No. 3 to accept and  register  the  document  of  Sale  Deed  that would be executed by Complainant  Society in favour  of  each  member  or  legal  heirs  of  the deceased  members  free  of  stamp  duty  and registration  charges  as  per  Government notification dated 14.03.1980.

v. Direct  the  Non-applicant  No.1  and  2  to pay Rs.1,00,000/- each to Complainant Society for  harassment  and  mental  agony  caused  to members over the years.

vi. Saddle  the  cost  of  Rs.20,000/-  on  Non- applicant No.2 bank for filing the complaint.”

7. In its written statement the Appellant denied the claim made by the

Respondent No.1 and submitted that the dispute raised by the Respondent

No.1 could not be a consumer dispute within the meaning of the Act and,

in any case, the complaint was barred by time as per Section 24A of the

Act.

8. It was observed by the State Commission that the entire cost of

construction of tenements and other charges were paid by the concerned

employees and as such nothing was due from those employees; that the

Appellant was a service provider in terms of the Act and the complaint was

maintainable.  Finding the Appellant to be deficient in rendering of service

in that it had not got the lease deed of the plots executed in favour of the

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

9

Respondent  No.1  well-in-time  and  had  thereby  caused  loss  to  the

Respondent No.1, the complaint was allowed with following directions:- “ii. It  is  directed  that  OP  No.2  shall  take suitable  steps  to  get  renewed & registered the lease deed of plot  Nos. 83 to 96, 89A & 90A described in the complaint through the OP No.1 NIT, in favour of the complainant society within two months from receipt of copy of this order.

iii. The  complainant  shall  bear  expenses  of renewal and registration of that lease deed as per the rates applicable as on 26.04.1979 and the OP No.2 Bank shall bear the additional expenses for the same as required on the date of the renewal and registration of that lease deed.

iv. The  OP  No.2  bank  shall  also  pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards physical and mental harassment caused to its  members and shall  also pay cost  of this complaint  amounting  to  Rs.5,000/-  to  the complainant.”

9. The Appellant, being aggrieved, filed First Appeal No. 255 of 2016

before  the  National  Commission.   Submissions  raised  by the  Appellant

were noted as under:- “5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the State Commission has given total financial responsibility for getting the lease deed executed in favour of the Respondent No.1.  It was also stated as the matter was under litigation,  the  bank  has  already  got  the  lease extended  for  another  30  years  from  the Respondent  No.2  in  favour  of  the  original allottee  i.e.  bank.   Now,  the  only  question remains that the lessee is to be transferred to the Respondent No.1 Society.  It was also contended by the learned counsel that out of the 16 plots

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

10

only  14  plots  have  been  utilized  and  the  two plots are still vacant and have not been allotted to any employee.  Thus, these two plots remain the  property   of  the  bank  and  that  cannot  be leased to the Respondent No.1 Society.

6. Therefore, it is not possible to implement the order of the State Commission fully.   It  is further  argued  for  the  appellant  that  the  State Commission  has  ordered  all  the  expenses  in registration of the lease deed to be borne by the appellant bank over and above the expenses of registration  in  1979.   It  is  a  common  known practice that the purchaser has to bear the burden of  stamp  duty  and  registration  charges. Therefore, even if the lease deed is transferred in the name of  Respondent  Society,  the  expenses are  to  be  borne  by  the  society  or  the  Society members  and  not  the  appellant  bank.   It  was requested  by  the  learned counsel  that  on  both these counts, the order of the State Commission is not justified and needs to be set aside.”

The discussion was as under:-

“10. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.  It is true that out of 14 plots, the bank has got 16 plots made, however on the same land 14 plots have been allotted and 2 plots have been left out. The State Commission has passed the order in respect of the plot Nos. 83 to 96, 89A to 90A. The  question  is  now  of  transferring  the  lease deed  of  Respondent  No.1  and  its  members. Lease deed has been renewed in the name of the Bank,  there  should  be  no  difficulty  in transferring  the  lease  to  Respondent  No.1 Society  or  its  members  as  the  case  may  be according to the provisions of rules of NIT or any other relevant law.

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

11

11. So far as the question of expenditure for transferring  of  lease  deed is  concerned,  in  my view, as the registration will be done under the current law and the current law does not exempt Cooperative  Society  for  any  stamp  duty, therefore, the stamp duty will have to be paid by the  consumers  as  is  the  law  of  the  land. However,  as the Respondent No.1 has lost  the opportunity  of  getting  free  registration  done under the old law, due to deficiency and delay caused by the action or omission of the appellant bank, the appellant bank is ordered to share 50% of  the  total  expenditure  including  registration charges  and  the  stamp  duty  or  any  other charges/expenses  in  connection  with  the registration  of  lease  deed  in  favour  of  the Respondent  No.1  Society.   Accordingly,  the order dated 27.01.2016 of the State Commission be complied with by both the parties  within a period of three months.  The compensation and cost  as  awarded  by  the  State  Commission  is upheld.”

10. In this Appeal, we heard Mr. M.Y. Deshmukh, learned Advocate

for  the  Appellant,  Mr.  Kishor  Ram  Lambat,  learned  Advocate  for  the

Respondent  No.1  and  Mr.  Satyajit  A Desai,  learned  Advocate  for  the

Respondent No.2.   

11. The facts  on record clearly indicate that  neither  the Respondent

No.1 nor any of its members were involved when the initial allotment was

made by the Respondent No.2 in favour of the Appellant, when 16 plots

were carved out from the allotted land and 28 tenements were constructed.

The tenements were constructed by the Appellant to take care of the needs

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

12

of its employees for housing.  The facility of loans was also extended to

each of the allottees and the finance was made available at comfortable

rate of interest.  It is accepted that there was absolutely no profit motive

behind the exercise and the Appellant did not even demand any interest in

respect of funds employed by it and what was sought to be recovered was

only the element of actual costs incurred by it.

12. It is also clear from the record that the Resolution to transfer the

land  in  favour  of  the  employees  or  the  legal  heirs  was  passed  by  the

Appellant on 21.01.2004.  There is nothing on record to indicate that any

requisition  or  demands  were  made  by  the  Society  to  have  the  land

transferred and yet there was any delay on part of the Appellant in acting in

terms of the Resolution.  There was,  thus,  no deficiency on part of the

Appellant or refusal on its part to act in terms of the aforesaid Resolution

dated 12.01.1977.   If, as a result of any delay in execution of the document

in favour of the Society for which the Appellant was not responsible, the

Society would now be required to  pay stamp duty at an enhanced rate, that

by itself does not give any entitlement to seek relief against the Appellant.   13. It is true that the tabular chart extracted in para 9 of the complaint

denotes that the cost of land as well as the actual expenditure incurred in

erecting 28 tenements aggregated to Rs.6,34,457.87, which was divided by

28, being number of tenements, to arrive at what would be the actual cost

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

13

relatable  to  each  of  those  tenements.  After  receiving  financial

accommodation and other advantages, each one of the tenement holders

had  made  good  such  amount.  It  was,  therefore,  contended  that  all  the

tenement holders together had some interest in said two vacant plots.   

However, the documents on record do not indicate any intention on

part  of  the Appellant  that  any interest  in respect  of  said two plots  was

intended to be created.  The idea was to make available tenements to the

concerned on no profit no loss basis and not to let them have those two

plots and enable them to profiteer out of the transaction. That is precisely

why one of the alternatives suggested by the Respondent No.1 to resolve

the dispute was option ‘e’ in para 13 as extracted hereinabove.  The relief

in the complaint gives measure of the value of those plots which was stated

to be in the region of Rs.98 lakhs in the year 2012.   The nature of reliefs

claimed by Respondent No.1 indicates that apart from 28 tenements and

the land appurtenant thereto, the Respondent No.1 was also desirous of

securing interest in respect of said two plots.   

14. As stated above, it was never the intent of the Appellant and there

is nothing on record to even suggest that the idea was to transfer interest in

respect of those two plots in favour of the employees or the Society formed

by the employees. This  issue  was  squarely  raised  before  the  National

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

14

Commission but the matter was not considered at all.  Be that as it may, we

have gone through the record and do not find any indication or even a

whisper that any decision was taken to transfer interest in relation to those

two plots as well.  15. The  fact  of  the  matter  however  remains  that  some  contribution

towards cost of land was made by all the tenement holders.  If the amount

representing cost of land was Rs.90,300/- and had there been 32 tenements,

individual  share  of  every  tenement  holder  would  have  come  to

approximately Rs.2,822/-.  However, dividing said amount by number 28,

the  contribution  that  each  of  the  tenement  holder  actually  paid  was

Rs.3,225/-; which would mean that roughly Rs.400/- extra were charged

from each one of them.  Accepting the plea taken by the Respondent No.1

in option ‘e’ in para 13 as mentioned hereinabove, interest of justice, in our

view,  would  be  met  if  the  appellant  is  directed  to  make over  to  every

tenement  holder  a  sum  of  Rs.10,000/-  in  compensation  for  having

recovered  Rs.400/-  over  and  above  what  logically  could  have  been

recovered from each one of  them. It  is,  of  course,  left  to the appellant

either pay to each tenement holder a sum of Rs.10,000/- or transfer the

entire land to the Society.

16. It was seriously argued that the role played by the appellant was

not that  of  a service provider and all  that  it  had done was to extend a

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

15

helping hand so that its employees could satisfy their housing needs.  It

was also submitted that there was absolutely no profit element and in fact

the  appellant  had  incurred  considerable  expenditure  towards  interest

burden  for  having  invested  some  money  over  a  period  of  time  which

element was never sought to be recovered.  It is, thus, seriously disputed

and submitted that the instant matter could not have been gone into by fora

under the provisions of the Act.  However, at this length of time, we do not

deem it appropriate to relegate the Respondent No.1 to any other remedy.

Therefore, in peculiar circumstances of the case, we have proceeded on the

footing that the matter was maintainable before the fora under the Act.  But

as  stated  earlier,  there  was  absolutely  no  deficiency  on  part  of  the

Appellant  and  no  justification  in  imposing  any  costs  and  directing  the

Appellant to pay compensation to the Respondent No.1.

17. We, therefore, allow these Appeals and set aside the orders passed

by the State Commission and the National Commission.  In substitution of

the directions issued, we direct:-

a) The appellant shall pay to each of the tenement holders (or to

the heirs/successors, in case the original tenement holders are

no more) a sum of Rs.10,000/- within three weeks from today;

OR

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

16

in the alternative the Appellant shall  execute an appropriate

deed conveying interest in favour of the Respondent No.1 in

respect  of  28  tenements  and  the  entire  land  admeasuring

2709.701  square  meters,  as  stated  hereinabove,  within  six

weeks.

b) If the Appellant pays to each of the tenement holders (or to the

heirs/successors, in case the original tenement holders are no

more)  a  sum  of  Rs.10,000/-,  the  Respondent  No.1-Society

shall  be  entitled  to  have  an  appropriate  deed  conveying

interest  in  favour  of  the  Respondent  No.1  in  respect  of  28

tenements  and  the  proportionate  land  appurtenant  thereto

within six weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Appellant

shall  continue  to  have  right,  title  and  interest  in  respect  of

portion of  land representing those  two plots  over  which no

tenements have been constructed and it shall continue to have

propriety  interest  and  shall  be  entitled  to  deal  with  that

portion.  

c) In either  case the stamp duty in respect  of  such documents

shall  be  borne  by  the  Respondent  No.1  and  the  concerned

Civil Appeal No.8606  of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc. The Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.  vs.  Farmer Bank Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

17

documents  shall  be  executed  by  the  Appellant  and  the

Respondent No.2 in favour of the Respondent No.1.

18. The Appeals are allowed in aforesaid terms.  No costs.

……………………….J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

……………………….J. (Indira Banerjee)

New Delhi; November 14, 2019.