Nafr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.03.18 11:53:12 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:12303 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 252 of 2018 President Smriti Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Smriti Nagar, P.O. Motilal Nehru Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.1), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - P. K. Kumra S/o Shri G.S.Kumra Aged About 65 Years R/o 2/b, K.C.S. Sector-8, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Present Address- H-33, Govindpuri, Gwalior (M.P.) (Plaintiff), District : Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh 2 - President, Bhilai Nagrik Sahkari Bank Bhilai Sector-6, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.2), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) For Res No.1 For Res No.2 : : : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Kanoje, Adv with Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Adv. Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Adv Mr. Rajat Agrawal,Adv on behalf of Mr. Anmol Sharma, Adv SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 12.03.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2018 passed by the Second Additional District Judge to the First Upper District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No.6-A/2008, whereby, suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for permanent injunction and 2 declaration of title in respect of Plot No.B-473 situated at Smriti Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Smritinagar, Bhilai on the basis of registered sale deed dated 06.02.1985 was partly allowed and decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their description before the trial Court. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of subject property and also for recovery of amount of Rs.90,720/- against the defendants making averment that being a member of Appellant/Society bearing Membership No.89 he was allotted one plot bearing No.B-473 by the Society and sale deed (Ex.P-4) was executed in his favour on 06.02.1985 and possession was also delivered in his favour. It is also alleged that plaintiff has opened Recurring Deposit account through appellant/defendant No.1/Society in the Bank of respondent/defendant No.2 and said RD was matured on 13.07.1987 with amount of Rs.90,720/-. However, when plaintiff raised demand for the aforesaid amount, the appellant Society cancelled his membership from Society and also cancelled the allotment of plot. Thereafter, on 25.03.1997 his membership was restored but it was again cancelled in the year 2000- 2001 and oral information was given to the plaintiff in this regard. 4. In the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant No.1 and respondent No.2/defendant No.2, it has been averred that membership and allotment of the plaintiff has been cancelled as per by-laws of the Society. It was also averred that suit is premature as no notice has been 3 served in terms of Section 64 read with Section 82 of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "Act 1960"). It was further averred that similar nature of application was preferred by the plaintiff before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies Durg which was dismissed on 18.06.2001, however, the said fact was suppressed by the plaintiff, therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable. On such averments, a prayer was made to dismiss the suit. 5. After evaluating the evidence on record, learned trial Court framed as many as 9 issues and reached to the conclusion that registered sale deed (Ex.P-4) has been executed by the Society in favour of the plaintiff wherein it has been categorically mentioned that possession is handed over to the purchaser i.e. plaintiff and no cancellation was sought by the Society by filing Civil Suit, so ownership continued and plaintiff is de jury possession of the subject property. Thereby, suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff and it has been held that plaintiff is owner and possession holder of Plot No.B-473 and permanent injunction has been granted against appellant/defendant No.1, however, in respect of recovery of money, suit was not proved, therefore, the suit was allowed in part. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that earlier the plaintiff has raised dispute before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Durg under Section 64 of the Act 1960 and said case was dismissed for want of prosecution on 18.06.2001 and said fact was suppressed by the plaintiff before the trial Court, therefore, the civil suit itself was not maintainable in view of Section 64 read with Section 82 of the Act 1960. 4 However, he fairly admits that legal steps by filing civil suit was not taken by the appellant for cancellation of the said sale deed but since there is bar under Section 82 of the Act 1960 and there is no jurisdiction to decide the lis, so findings recorded by the trial Court is not justifiable and the trial Court has committed grave error in passing the decree in favour of the plaintiff. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that as per Section 82 of the Act 1960 there is bar of jurisdiction of Court. Section 82 of the Act 1960 is reproduced hereunder:- "82. Bar of jurisdiction of Courts - 1) Save as provided in this Act, no civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of- (a) the registration of a society or of bye-laws or of an amendment of a bye-law; (b) the removal of a [Board] and the management of the society after such removal; (c) any dispute, required to be referred to the Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees; (d) any matter concerning the winding up and the dissolution of a society. (2) While a society is being wound up, no suit or other legal proceedings relating to the business of such society shall be proceeded with, or instituted against, the liquidator as such or against the society or any member thereof, except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose. (3) Save as provided in this Act, no order, decision or award made under this Act shall be questioned in any court on any ground whatsoever." 9. From perusal of aforesaid provision, it is explicit that there is bar of jurisdiction of Courts in respect of disputes pertaining to the registration 5 of the society, removal of a Board and management of society or any dispute about the nominee. So when the dispute relates to matters of the society, then only bar of jurisdiction of civil Court attracts. However, under the Act 1960, the Society has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to title and said jurisdiction vested exclusively to the civil Court. In such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that suit is maintainable. The trial Court has also observed that since the registered sale deed has been executed vide Ex.P-4 in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff by the appellant Society and since there is no breach of any terms and condition of the bylaws of the Society and the sale deed has not been cancelled by filing a civil suit before the competent jurisdiction of the Civil Court, ownership of the subject property remains in favour of the plaintiff and he is de jury possession holder of the subject property. Thereby, the decree has passed in favour of the plaintiff and it has been declared that he is the owner of the subject property i.e. plot No.B-473 and order of permanent injunction has been passed against the appellant/defendant Society. 10. Considering the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court and perusing material available on record, this Court is of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is just, proper and legal. The findings recorded by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and there is no illegality or perversity in the same and same does not call for any interference. 6 11. Consequently, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 12.No order as to cost(s). 13.Decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay.