SATYA PAL ANAND versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 12 S.C.R. 26 · Decided: 26-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2016) 12 S.C.R. 26 
SATYA PAL ANAND 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6673 of2014) 
OCTOBER 26, 2016 
[RANJAN GOGOi, PRAFULLA C. PANT AND 
A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.) 
Registration Act, 1908 - ss.17(1){b), 32, 34, 35, 69 and, 87 -
C ,Allotment of plot by Housing Co-operative Society - After the death 
of allottee, the society executed Deed of Extinguishment unilaterally 
cancelling the allotment - On the. ground of violation of Bye-laws 
of the Society- Thereafter, the Society allotted the plot to respondent· 
No.5 - Objection to the subsequent allotment by the appellant (son 
of the allottee) -
By a Compromise Deed between the Society and 
D .respondent No.5 on one side and the appellant on the other, 
appellant received Rs. 6.50 lakh - Appellant raised dispute uls.64 
of Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act challenging Society :S 
action of unilaterally registering Extinguishment Deed and also 
claimed to be owner of the plot having inherited the same - During 
E 
pendency of the dispute the plot was further ,transferred to 
respondent Nos. 6 and 7 - Demand of the Society to. refund the 
amount received in furtherance of compromise, was not heeded to 
by the appellant - Appel/am_ also moved application before Sub-
Registrar (Registration) for cancelling the registration of the 
Extinguishment Deed - The application was rejected on the grounds 
F 
that dispute was pending with regard to the same subject matter 
and that the Sub-Registrar had no jurisdiction to cancel the 
registration - Application before Inspector General (Registration) 
was also rejected - Writ petition seeking declaration that 
Extinguishment Deed and also two subsequent deeds were void ab 
G 
initio and sought direction for the Sub-Registrar and the Inspector 
General to record "cancellation of those documents - The petition 
was dismissed by High Court - Difference of opinion between the J 
iudges of Division Bench of Supreme Court - One Judge, following 
the exposition in Thota Ganga Laxmi case held that registration of 
Extinguishment Deed was a nullity in law - Another Judge upheld 
H 
26 
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 
the High Court judgment and opined that the general principles 
laid down in Thota Ganga Laxmi case cannot be made applicable to 
the present case in absence of specific Rule in that behalf - Matter 
referred to larger Bench - Held: The Co-operative Society was 
competent to unilaterally cancel the allotment made to its members 
and to cancel the membership of such member due to default 
_ committed by the member - Any cause of action in that regard must 
be adjudicated by the procedure prescribed in that behalf~ The 
right of the appellant qua the plot would be subject to final outcome 
of such action - The appellant being the legal heir of the a/lottee 
cannot have any right higher than that of his predecessor -
Extinguishment Deed required compulsory registration u/s. 17(1)(b) 
of the Registration Act, 1908 - 1908 Act does not empower to recall 
such registration - In absence of any express provision in that behalf. 
Sub-Registrar (Registration) would not be competent to cancel the 
registration of documents in question - Even the Inspector General 
(Registration) does not have power to cancel the registration - The 
1908 Act does not require presence of both the parties to the 
document when presented for registration - Non-presence of the 
other party to the Extinguishment Deed cannot be said to be 
fraudulent action per se - However, the party aggrieved by such 
registration is free to challenge its validity befo~ the Civil Court -
The decisi_on in Thota Ganga Laxmi case is with reference to an 
express provision contained in Andhra Pradesh Rules in that behalf 
and in absence of such express provision in other State legislations, 
the Registering Officer would be governed by the provision in 1908 
Act - High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition with liberty to 
pursue statutory remedy resorted to by him under 1960 Act or by 
resorting to any other remedy - Madhya PradeshCo-operative 
Societies Act, 1960. 
Constitution of India : 
Art.226 - Jurisdiction under - Nature and scope of - Held: 
27 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The remedy of writ u!Art. 226 is extra-ordinary and discretionary -
G 
The exercise of discretion to issue a writ is a matter of granting 
equitable relief - In exercise of writ jurisdiction, the High Court 
cannot be oblivious to the conduct of the party invoking that remedy 
- No

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