Gandhinagar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. Navnath Mahajan & Ors.

said letter. On the pleadings of the parties, the Cooperative Court framed the issues and on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that though the plot was not allotted in favour of the respondent No.1, the plot was reserved by the petitioner-society for the respondent No.1. The Court observed that the entire consideration was paid by the respondent No.1 and the petitioner-society was liable to execute the sale deed in his favour. The petitioner-society was aggrieved by the order 1812wp3854.12.odt 1812wp3854.12.odt 33//66 passed by the Cooperative Court and, therefore, filed an appeal before the Cooperative Appellate Court. The Cooperative Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment dated 27/4/2012, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-society. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner-society that there was no concluded contract between the parties and both the Courts have committed an error in directing the petitioner-society to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1 on the basis of a simple letter reserving the plot in favour of the respondent No.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no agreement of sale executed between the parties and the price of the plot was also not fixed. In such a case, according to the petitioner, the Courts could not have held that the respondent No.1 was entitled to purchase the plot in question. It is submitted that a civil suit is pending before the trial Court and in that suit an injunction is operating against the petitioner-society, thereby restraining the petitioner-society from selling the plots in the layout. It is submitted that, in view of the injunction, the respondent No.1 was not entitled to the relief granted by both the Courts. It is also submitted that since the Cooperative Court had observed that there was no allotment of the plot in favour of the respondent No.1, the Cooperative Court could 1812wp3854.12.odt 1812wp3854.12.odt 44//66 not have directed the petitioner-society to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, supported the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts and submitted that both the Courts have correctly recorded a clear finding of facts that the plot was reserved for the respondent No.1 and since the respondent No.1 had paid the consideration as also the development charges, the petitioner-society was duty bound to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1. The learned Counsel sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned judgments, it appears that the Cooperative Court was justified in directing the petitioner- society to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1. Though, in the letter issued by the petitioner-society to the respondent No.1 the word ‘allotment’, did not occur, it was clearly stated in the communication that the plot was reserved for the respondent No.1. From the communications placed on record, the Cooperative Courts found that the respondent No.1 had paid the amounts as and when demanded by the petitioner-society, The petitioner-society had received an amount of Rs.1,39,750/- (rupees one lac thirty-nine thousand 1812wp3854.12.odt 1812wp3854.12.odt 55//66 seven hundred and fifty only) towards the consideration and an amount of Rs.55,250/- (rupees fifty-five thousand two hundred and fifty only) towards the development charges. If the plot was not allotted to the respondent No.1, there was no occasion for the petitioner-society to demand the amount towards consideration and development charges and there was no necessity for the respondent No.1 to pay the said amount. At no point of time the petitioner-society returned the amount paid by the respondent No.1 to him. In this background, both the Courts rightly held that the petitioner-society could not have backed out from the agreement by which the petitioner- society had reserved the plot for the respondent No.1 and had secured the consideration as well as the development charges for the plot. Merely because the word, ‘allotment’ is not used in the communication, it cannot be said that there was no concluded contract between the parties. The cooperative society cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong and deny the reliefs sought by the petitioner solely because the word, ‘allotment’ is not used in the communication issued by the petitioner-society to the respondent No.1. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner-society that the contract was not concluded is liable to be rejected. Both the Courts found that the petitioner-society demanded certain 1812wp3854.12.odt 1812wp3854.12.odt 66//66 amounts towards the price of the plot and development charges and the respondent No.1 paid the same to the petitioner-society, without any demur. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner- society that the relief could not have been granted in favour of the respondent No.1 in view of the operation of a temporary injunction against the petitioner-society is also liable to be rejected. The petitioner-society can as well raise this issue at the appropriate stage, but the same cannot be a relevant fact for deciding the issues involved in this writ petition. The findings of facts recorded by both the Courts are just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE