Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 1142 - SC - Indian LawsRegistration of extinguishment deed - Cancellation of plot in the Cooperative Housing Society allotted the petitioner - not raising any construction on the plot so allotted within time. - Whether in the fact situation of the present case, the High Court was justified in dismissing the Writ Petition? Whether the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is duty bound to declare the registered Deeds (between the private parties) as void ab initio and to cancel the same, especially when the aggrieved party (appellant) has already resorted to an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 64 of the Act of 1960 before the competent Forum whilst questioning the action of the Society in cancelling the allotment of the subject plot in favour of the original allottee and unilateral execution of an Extinguishment Deed for that purpose? Even if the High Court is endowed with a wide power including to examine the validity of the registered Extinguishment Deed and the subsequent registered deeds, should it foreclose the issues which involve disputed questions of fact and germane for adjudication by the competent Forum under the Act of 1960? Held that - the appellant having entered into a compromise deed with the Society and third party (subsequent allottees) in respect of the subject plot, it is doubtful whether it is open to the appellant to question the act of unilateral execution and registration of the stated Extinguishment Deed being irregular much less void and nullity. Indisputably, the respondents-Society is a Cooperative Housing Society Limited and is governed by its Bye-Laws. According to the counsel for the Society, the member is obliged to erect a house on the plot allotted to him within specified time, failing which must suffer the consequence including of cancellation of allotment of plot and removal of his membership. At the time of allotment, the member executes an agreement whereunder he/she undertakes to abide by the conditions specified for erecting a house on the plot allotted to him/her in the manner prescribed therein. Whether the Society is justified in proceeding against the defaulting member by cancelling the allotment of plot as well as membership, is an issue falling within the purview of the business of the Society. The member is bound by the stipulation contained in the agreement executed by him/her and in particular the Bye-laws of the Society. Any action by the Society for breach thereof is just or otherwise can be questioned before the statutory Forum under the Act of 1960. Those are matters which can and must be answered in the proceedings resorted to by the appellant before the statutory Forum - It is not open to presume that the Society had no authority in law to take a decision in that behalf. The right of the appellant qua the plot of land would obviously be subject to the final outcome of such action. The appellant being the legal representative of the original allottee, cannot claim any right higher than that of his predecessor qua the Housing Society, which is the final authority to decide on the issue of continuation of membership of its member. The right of the member to remain in occupation of the plot allotted by the Society would be entirely dependent on that decision. Whether the Sub-Registrar (Registration) has authority to cancel the registration of any document including an Extinguishment Deed after it is registered? Similarly, whether the Inspector General (Registration) can cancel the registration of Extinguishment Deed in exercise of powers under Section 69 of the Act of 1908? - Whether the Sub-Registrar (Registration) had no authority to register the Extinguishment Deed dated 9th August 2001, unilaterally presented by the Respondent Society for registration? Held that - The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once the document is registered - There is no express provision in the Act of 1908 which empowers the Registrar to recall such registration. The fact whether the document was properly presented for registration cannot be reopened by the Registrar after its registration. The power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter. In absence of any express provision in that behalf, it is not open to assume that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would be competent to cancel the registration of the documents in question. Similarly, the power of the Inspector General is limited to do superintendence of registration offices and make rules in that behalf. Even the Inspector General has no power to cancel the registration of any document which has already been registered. If the document is required to be compulsorily registered, but while doing so some irregularity creeps in, that, by itself, cannot result in a fraudulent action of the State Authority. Non-presence of the other party to the Extinguishment Deed presented by the Society before the Registering Officer by no standard can be said to be a fraudulent action per se. The fact whether that was done deceitly to cause loss and harm to the other party to the Deed, is a question of fact which must be pleaded and proved by the party making such allegation. That fact cannot be presumed. Admittedly, the documents in question do not fall within Sections 31, 88 and 89. Further, Section 32 does not require presence of both parties to the document when it is presented for registration. In that sense, presentation of Extinguishment Deed by the authorized person of the Society for registration cannot be faulted with reference to Section 34 of the Act of 1908. In absence of any express provision in the Act of 1908 mandating the presence of the other party to the Extinguishment Deed at the time of presentation for registration, by no stretch of imagination, such a requirement can be considered as mandatory. Whether the action of the Society to cancel the allotment of the plot followed by execution of an Extinguishment Deed was a just action? - Held that - That will have to be considered keeping in mind the provisions of the Act of 1960 and the Bye-laws of the Society which are binding on the members of the Society. The interplay of the provisions of the Contract Act and the Specific Relief Act and of the Co-operative Laws and the Bye Laws of the Society permitting cancellation of allotment of plot or the membership of the concerned member will have to be considered in appropriate proceedings. Whether the decision of the Society to cancel the allotment of plot made in favour of its member is barred by the law of Limitation Act, is again a matter to be tested in the proceedings before the Cooperative Forum where a dispute has been filed by the appellant, if the appellant pursues that contention - In the present case, the document in question no doubt is termed as an Extinguishment Deed. However, in effect, it is manifestation of the decision of the Society to cancel the allotment of the subject plot given to its member due to non fulfillment of the obligation by the member concerned. The subject document is linked to the decision of the Society to cancel the membership of the allottee of the plot given to him/her by the Housing Society. The High Court has justly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant with liberty to the appellant to pursue statutory remedy resorted to by him under the Act of 1960 or by resorting to any other remedy as may be advised and permissible in law - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the unilateral registration of the Extinguishment Deed by the Society. 2. Authority of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) and Inspector General (Registration) to cancel the registration of documents. 3. Applicability of the general principle laid down in Thota Ganga Laxmi's case to the State of Madhya Pradesh. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare registered deeds void ab initio. 5. The conduct of the appellant in pursuing multiple remedies and the effect of the compromise deed. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the unilateral registration of the Extinguishment Deed by the Society: The Society unilaterally executed an Extinguishment Deed on 9th August 2001, cancelling the allotment of Plot No. 7-B at Punjabi Bagh, Bhopal, to the appellant's mother due to a violation of the Society's Bye-laws. The Sub-Registrar registered this deed, and subsequent deeds were executed in favor of other parties. Justice V. Gopala Gowda found that the Sub-Registrar had no authority to register the Extinguishment Deed unilaterally and declared the action void ab initio. Justice Dipak Misra, however, opined that the registration was in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and did not require the presence of both parties at the time of registration. 2. Authority of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) and Inspector General (Registration) to cancel the registration of documents: The Sub-Registrar and Inspector General rejected the appellant's application to cancel the registration of the Extinguishment Deed, stating that they lacked jurisdiction to cancel registered documents. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that the Registration Act, 1908, does not confer the power to cancel registered documents on these authorities. The appropriate remedy for challenging the validity of such documents lies before a competent court. 3. Applicability of the general principle laid down in Thota Ganga Laxmi's case to the State of Madhya Pradesh: Justice Dipak Misra observed that the principle stated in Thota Ganga Laxmi's case, which prohibits the registration of unilateral cancellation deeds, was based on specific rules framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the absence of similar rules in Madhya Pradesh, this principle could not be applied. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the Registration Act, 1908, does not mandate the presence of both parties for the registration of documents. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare registered deeds void ab initio: The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be exercised when an alternative remedy is available. The Court also noted that the appellant's conduct in pursuing multiple remedies and entering into a compromise deed undermined his case. 5. The conduct of the appellant in pursuing multiple remedies and the effect of the compromise deed: The appellant entered into a compromise deed with the Society and subsequent purchasers, accepting a consideration amount of ?6.50 Lakh. Despite this, he continued to pursue multiple legal remedies, including a writ petition and a dispute under Section 64 of the Act of 1960. The Supreme Court found that the appellant's conduct in pursuing multiple proceedings and entering into a compromise deed precluded him from seeking relief in the writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction is an equitable remedy, and the appellant's conduct did not justify such relief. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition. The Court emphasized that the appellant should pursue his statutory remedy under the Act of 1960 or any other appropriate legal remedy. The Court also clarified that the registration of the Extinguishment Deed by the Sub-Registrar was not fraudulent or nullity in law, and any irregularity in the registration process should be challenged before a competent court.
|