RAVISH AND ANR. versus SMT. R. BHARATHI

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 917 · Decided: 07-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 917 
RAVISH AND ANR. 
V. 
SMT. R. BHARAT.HI 
(Civil Appeal No. 3771 of2017) 
MARCH 07, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Suit for permanent injunction - Claim of plaintiff based on 
premise that she was allotted a site no.4307 by the Cooperative 
society and she was the owner of the said site and the appel/antsc 
defendants were trying to interfere with her possession - Summons 
served but defendants did not appear - Trial court passed ex-parte 
decree - Defendant challenged the ex-parte decree on the ground 
that suit property originally carved as site no. 690 was purchased 
by him from original allottee - High Court while noting that suit 
property is site no.4307 but the sale deed of defendants is in respect 
of site no. 690, directed defendants to institute independent 
proceedings to establish their right by filing appropriate suit - On 
appeal, Held: High Court instead of relegating the appellants! 
defendants to file a fresh suit ought to have remitted the matter 
back to the trial court to resolve the dispute after trial -As both the 
parties were claiming right to the registered sale deed originating 
from the Cooperative Society and also claiming right of possession, 
therefore, in the interest of justice, the judgment of the High Court 
as well as the trial court set aside and the matter remitted back to 
the trial court for fresh consideration. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to trial court, 
the Court 
· 
HELD: 1. As both the parties are claiming right to the 
registered sale deed originating from the Cooperative Society 
and also claitning right of possession, in the interest of justice, 
the judgment of the High Court as well as the trial court are to be 
set aside and the matter remitted back to the trial court. It would 
be open -to the trial court to appoint a Commissioner to get a 
report as to the location of the .disputed sites both Site No.4307 
and Site No.690 and their physical features and other relevant 
917 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
918 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017]2 S.C.R. 
A 
facts. It is also open to the trial court either on its own or on the 
application of either of the parties to summon the officials of the 
Co-operative Society and relevant documents for resolving the 
dispute between the parties. [Paras 5, 61 (920-D, F) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3771 
B 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2015 of the High Court 
ofKarnataka at Bengaluru, in Regular First Appeal No. 522 of2015. 
Balaji Srinivasan, Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, Ms. Vaishnavi 
C 
Subrahmanyam, Ms. Srishti Govil,Abhishek Bharti, Advs. for Appelhmts. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Naveen R. Nath, Shrinivas B. S., Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Advs. 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI J. l . Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 20.07.2015 in and by which the High 
Court dismissed the Regular First Appeal No.522of2015 granting liberty 
to the appellants/defendants to institute independent proceedings and 
establish their claim in an appropriate suit. 
3. Briefly stated, case of the respondent/plaintiff as per the 
averments in the plaint is as follows:- Respondent/plaintiff filed the suit 
bearing OS No.4376of2014 for permanent injunction claiming that she 
is the absolute owner of the site bearing No.1077/21. Case of the 
respondent/plaintiff is that the said site came to be allotted in her name 
by Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society (for short 
'VHBC Society') by way ofallotment letter dated 02.08.2004. Pursuant 
to the issuance of site allotment letter dated 02 .08 .2004, VHBC Society 
executed sale deed dated 06.12.2004 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff 
which came to be registered on 09.12.2004. Respondent/plaintiff states 
that the VHBC Society had issued possession certificate dated l 0.01.2005 
in her name. Further case of the respondent/plaintiff is that as there 
was dispute amongst the members regarding allotment of sites, some 
members of the VHBC Society filed a writ petition against VHBC 
Society and in the said writ petition vide order dated 16.11.20 I 0, the 
RAVISH AND ANR. v. SMT. R. BHARATHI 
[R. BANUMATHl, J.] 
High Court stipulated certain guidelines to be followed by VHBC Society 
for allotment of sites to the members. Pursuant to the direction of the 
High Court, VHBC Society issued a paper publication calling upon 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.