2007 (4) TMI 776 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the suit property.
2. Possession of the suit property.
3. Interference with possession by the defendant.
4. Notice under Section 125 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.
5. Validity of the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff.
6. Unilateral cancellation of the sale deed by the defendant.
7. Barred by limitation.
8. Sufficiency of court fee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the Suit Property:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of the property through a series of registered sale deeds, starting from the defendant to C. Janardhan Rao, then to P. Noorulla Bhasha, and finally to the plaintiff. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff proved his ownership of the suit property. The defendant's contention that the sale deed was void due to non-compliance with the society's bye-laws was dismissed, as the bye-laws do not have the force of law and only govern internal management.

2. Possession of the Suit Property:
The plaintiff demonstrated possession through various documents, including the sale deeds and possession certificates. The Trial Court found that the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the property, which was not effectively challenged by the defendant.

3. Interference with Possession by the Defendant:
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant obstructed his construction activities and claimed that the property was not rightfully his. The Trial Court accepted the plaintiff's evidence of interference by the defendant and granted an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession.

4. Notice under Section 125 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act:
The plaintiff issued a notice under Section 125 to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, which the Trial Court found to be in conformity with the law. The defendant's challenge to the notice's validity was rejected.

5. Validity of the Sale Deed in Favor of the Plaintiff:
The defendant argued that the sale deed to C. Janardhan Rao was void as he was not a member of the society. The Trial Court found that the sale deed was executed by authorized office bearers of the society and was valid. The sale to non-members was not expressly prohibited by the bye-laws, making the transaction lawful and enforceable.

6. Unilateral Cancellation of the Sale Deed by the Defendant:
The defendant unilaterally canceled the sale deed to C. Janardhan Rao, claiming it was void. The Trial Court held that such unilateral cancellation was invalid. The proper procedure under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act requires a court order to cancel a deed. The cancellation deed executed by the defendant was deemed illegal and not binding on the plaintiff.

7. Barred by Limitation:
The defendant contended that the suit was barred by time. The Trial Court found that the suit was filed within the permissible period, and the plaintiff's claim was not barred by limitation.

8. Sufficiency of Court Fee:
The defendant argued that the court fee paid was insufficient. The Trial Court determined that the court fee paid by the plaintiff was adequate and in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's judgment, affirming the plaintiff's ownership and possession of the property, the invalidity of the unilateral cancellation deed by the defendant, and the sufficiency of the court fee. The appeal was dismissed, and the injunction against the defendant was sustained.