Rakesh Sacheti & Anr. v. Doordarshan Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & anr.
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
Summary
A structured summary for this judgment hasn’t been prepared yet. The full text is below.
Precedent status
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.
Original judgment text
He challenged that order before the appropriate authority and it was held that his expulsion was illegal. The order was challenged before the appellate authority and finally in this Court. The finding that Respondent No.2 is a member of the Respondent No.1 society has been confirmed by this Court.
2. Since the flat was allotted to the petitioners by the society, Respondent No.2 filed a dispute before the Cooperative Court contending that the allotment in favour of the petitioners was illegal and that he was entitled to the said flat, being a member of the society. The petitioners were parties to that dispute, besides the society. Several issues were framed by the Cooperative Court. It has been found that the disputant i.e. Respondent No.2 had proved that he had paid the entire cost of construction and that he was therefore entitled to the aforesaid flat. The Cooperative Court found that the Society had not proved that Respondent No.2 had been validly expelled from the membership of the society and that the allotment of the flat in his favour was legal and valid. The Cooperative Court has answered the issue as to whether the petitioners had proved that they were bonafide purchasers of the aforesaid flat, in the negative. The appellate Court has confirmed the view taken by the Cooperative Court. : 3 : In addition, the appellate Court has directed that an enquiry be conducted under Order 20 Rule 1C of the Civil Procedure Code with respect to mesne profits.
3. Mr.Jain, appearing for the petitioners, has raised several contentions. The principal contentions are: (i) that the Cooperative Court has committed a grave irregularity by permitting Respondent No.2 to produce documents on record after the matter was closed for judgment; (ii) that the appellate Court has failed in its duty to decide the appeal on merits by reappreciating the evidence on record; and (iii) that the petitioners in any case were bonafide purchasers of the flat and they had no knowledge about the disputes between the society and the respondent.
4. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh v/s.