SINDAV HARI RANCHHOD versus JADEV LAIJI JAYMAL & ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 41 · Decided: 23-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SINDA V HARi RANCHHOD 
A 
v. 
.. 
JADEV LAI.JI JA YMAL & ORS . 
JULY 23, 1997 
B 
(S.B. MAJMUDAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
,__,A 
Gujarat : Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 : 
Sections 49(1)(d)(e) and 49(2)-Applicability of 
c 
Cooperative Society-Bo"ower member-Sale transactions by Appel-
/ant purchaser of land-Similar transaction entered by bo"ower member with 
respondent No. 16-Validity of sale questioned by sons of bo"ower-members 
(respondents)-Suit for declaration that sale deeds by their father were null 
and void-Society not joined as a party-Society also not challenged the sale D 
deeds-Suit dismissed by Trial Court-Plaintiffs' appeal before High 
-I 
Court-High Court held that the findings reached by trial court on the 
question of legality and validity of the sale transactions in the light of the 
alleged illegality and immorality underlying these transactions remained well 
sustained on record and called for no interf erence-1herefore, the suit against E 
the defendants-purchasers qua whose transactions Section 49 was not at-
tracted was held to be rightly dismissed-However, so far as the sale deed 
executed in favour of appellant and respondent no. 16 herein, were concerned, 
_.., 
the High Court found that there was no clear evidence as to whether Section 
49 can be attracted-Accordingly it remanded the suit for a fresh decision on 
the limited question of applicability of Section 49( 1)-Challenge to remand F 
before Supreme Court-Though no relief was claimed by the plaintiffs against 
the society yet the grievance made by the plaintiffs in substance was of course 
on behalf of the society-They also failed to lead evidence for showing how 
Section 49(2) was attracted-Consequently they could not legitimately and 
--j 
effectively challenge the sale transactions entered into by their father in favour G 
--< 
of the alienees namely appellant and, respdt. 16 on the ground of violation 
~ 
of Section 49(1) of the Act-Therefore, there was no occasion for the High 
Court for ordering any remand-The plaintiffs' suit against appellant is liable 
to be dismissed-Case of appellant and respondent No. 16 based on same 
. set of facts-Held therefore it was a fit case for the court to exercise power 
under order 41 Rule 4 of C.P. C. read with Article 142 of the Constitution in H 
41 
42 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A his favour-Suit against respondent No. 16 also stands dismissed-Order of 
. remand passed by High Court set aside-Order of Trial Court dismissing the 
suit confinned. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2848 of 
1979 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7.79 of the Gujarat High 
Court in P.A. No. 14 of 1974 
H.S. Parihar for the appellant. 
C 
M.J.S. Rupal, U.A. Rana, Sudhanshu Tripathi and Ashok Tiwari for 
the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal is moved by original defendant No. 15 in Special Civil 
D Suit No. 20 of 1968 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs in the court of the 
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surendra Nagar, for a declaration that 
the sale deeds executed by their father, defendant No. 1 were null and void 
and are not binding on them as defendant No. 1, their father was addicted 
to bad habits and the transactions entered into by him in favour of the 
E purchasers concerned were tainted with illegality and immorality. Learned 
trial Judge recorded evidence offered by the parties and came to the 
conclusion that there was nothing illegal or immoral about the said 
transactions and they were binding on the plaintiffs as their father out of 
necessity had entered into those transaciions. So far as the present 
p 
appellant, defendant No. 15 is concerned, he is said to have purchased twQ 
pieces of agricultural lands being Survey Nos. 1292/2/3. This sale 
transaction in his favour was of January 27, 1965. Similar sale transaction 
was entered into by Defendant No. 1 relating to survey No. 803 on May 4, 
1965 in favour of the respondent No. 16 herein. By amendment to the plaint 
G the original plaintiffs introduced paragraph 15-A as under : 
"15-A. Further it is submitted that whereas defendant No. 1 
executed sale deeds in favou~ of the defendants at that time, there 
was a liability of charge in favour of Rampara Seva Sahakari 
Mandali and on the dates of the sale deeds defendant No. 1 had 
H 
not repaid the loan taken by him so there was a prohibition under 
. .-; 
-
S.H.RANCHHOD V. J.L.JAYMAL 
43 
law to sell th

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