LexMACHHINDRANATH S/O KUNDLIK TARADE DECEASED THROUGH LRS. versus RAMCHANDRA GANGADHAR DHAMNE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 307 : 2025 INSC 795 Machhindranath S/o Kundlik Tarade Deceased Through LRs. A1: Bhagirathibai A2: Ashabai A3: Bhaussaheb A4: Meenabai v. Ramchandra Gangadhar Dhamne & Ors. R1: Ramchandra Gangadhar Dhamne R2: Ashok R3: Chhaya Babasaheb Gadhe R4: Nareshkumar Babasaheb Gadhe R5: Balasaheb (Civil Appeal No. 7277 of 2025) 02 June 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the conveyance of the suit land by the original plaintiff dated 02.11.1971 in favour of defendant no.1 could have been done and, the same having been done, could be sustained in law; whether the subsequent release of the charge created on the suit land by the Society upon receiving the entire dues having been paid by the plaintiff, would give retrospectivity to the said release so as to validate and ratify the Sale Deeds dated 02.11.1971 and 15.07.1972; against whom or between whom, if at all, any alienation under Section 48(e), Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is applicable for the said acts resulting in the same being void. Headnotes† Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – s.48(e) – Plaintiff, a member of the Co-operative Society obtained a loan from the Society and created a charge on his ancestral property (the suit land) in favour of the Society – Later, plaintiff also obtained loan from defendant no.1 and executed a Registered Sale Deed dated 02.11.1971 of the suit land in his favour and defendant no.1 executed a re-conveyance deed – However, defendant no.1 executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour * Author 308 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports of defendant no.2 in respect of certain portion of the suit land – Plaintiff sought possession and re-conveyance of the suit land – Trial Court declared sale deed dated 02.11.1971 as void u/s.48 and ordered re-conveyance of suit land in favour of plaintiff – Eventually, Single Judge set aside the decree of possession and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit – Appeal dismissed by Division Bench – Challenge to: Held: s.48(e) declares void any transaction by a member-loanee against the society, where he/she alienates such immovable property on which a charge is created under declaration – Alienation of any such property on which a charge is created in favour of the concerned co-operative society by way of declaration is beyond the capacity of the owner/member who has declared it as a charged property, until the amount, for which the charge was created along with the interest, is repaid in full – However, even if a part of the amount due is paid then the society may, on an application moved by the member, release from charge such part of the property, as it may deem proper having regard to the outstanding amount – The right to sue or get a declaration qua any alienation made by a loanee is available only to the society in favour of whom the property under a declaration was charged – Thus, with regard to a transaction, unless the society comes forward to seek its nullification/setting aside, the same would be a voidable action and not void ab initio – Neither the amount for which the charge was created was repaid to the Society either in full or in part nor any such application for part-release was either filed before or accepted by the Society prior to the sale deed dated 02.11.1971 in favour of defendant no.1 – The Society had itself resolved to release the charge on the suit land on 27.08.1973 – It never moved before any forum for enforcing its charge over the suit land or raised any grievance w.r.t either of the Sale Deeds – Plaintiff cannot be allowed to benefit from his own wrong – Single Judge and the Division Bench committed no error – No merit in the appeal. [Paras 20-22, 24, 25, 32-34] Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – s.48(e), directory: Held: s.48(e) which says that any alienation made in contravention of the provisions of clause (d) shall be void has to be read as directory to the extent that the same can be acted upon only at the instance of the party aggrieved (viz. the society concerned) upon whom the right has been created under the statute. [Para 25] [2025] 7 S.C.R. 309 Machhindranath S/o Kundlik Tarade Deceased Through LRs. v. Ramchandra Gangadhar Dhamne & Ors. Case Law Cited C S Venkatesh v. A S C Murthy [2020] 2 SCR 676 : (2020) 3 SCC 280; State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal [2019] 10 SCR 243 : (2019) 8 SCC 637; Sindav Hari Ranchhod
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.