THE GREATER BOMBAY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED versus MR. NAGRAJ GANESHMAL JAIN & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 437 · Decided: 26-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2017] 6 S.C.R. 437 
THE GREATER BOMBAY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED. 
A 
v. 
MR. NAGRAJ GANESHMAL JAIN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9777-9778 of2017) 
JULY26, 2017 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.) 
Deeds and Documents: 
Sale deed - Validity of - Recovery proceedings by appellant-
Bank - Against guarantors of credit facility - Property in question 
(flat of Housing Society) owned by the guarantors attached by Bank 
B 
c 
- After the death of one of the guarantors, respondent No.1 claimed 
ownership of the society flat and applied to the Housing Society to 
grant him its membership - Also challenged the attachment stating D 
that he had purchased the flat much prior to the attachment and 
was in possession thereof - Membership denied by the Society -
On challenge to denial of membership, authority concerned finally 
allowed the case of respondent No.1 - Writ petition by Bank - High 
Court set aside the attachment order directing the Housing Society 
E 
to enroll respondent No.1 as member of the Society - On appeal, 
held: The very foundation of the case of respondent No.1 i.e. 
agreement to sell is doubtfal - The vendors had never disclosed the 
fact of alleged sale to anybody including the Housing Society -
The document has been fabricated to wriggle out of the recovery 
proceedings - The document does not transfer any right, title or 
interest in the property. 
F 
Allowing ·the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. Immoveable property can be transferred only 
by a Registered document. There can be no transfer of any right, G 
title or interest in any immoveable property except by way of a 
registered document. [Para 15) [441-G) 
Suraj Lamp & industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana 
(2012) 1 SCC 656 : [2011) 11 SCR 848 - relied on. 
437 
H 
438 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
· A 
2. In the present case, the very foundation of the case of 
the respondent No.I i.e. agreement to sell, is doubtful. The 
original has not seen the light of the day and only photocopy 
thereof was filed. There are doubts with regard to the signature 
of the guarantor (the vendor of the property). The Bank attached 
B 
the property in question in the year 2001. The guarantor died in 
the year 2004 and during these three years, though he and his 
wife had filed various legal proceedings, they never disclosed 
that this flat had been sold by them. Respondent No.I during 
the life time of the guarantor, never claimed ownership of the 
flat. [Para 17) [443-C] 
c 
3. The guarantor and his wife never disclosed the fact of 
the alleged sale of the suit property to anybody including any 
member of the Society. It is more than obvious that with a view 
to wriggle out of the recovery proceedings, after the death of 
. D the guarantor, this document has been fabricated. This document 
does not transfer any right, title or interest of the property and, 
therefore, the Revisional Court and the High Court erred in 
allowing the claim of respondent No.I. Respondent No.I has no 
right, title or interest in the suit property. [Paras 18, 19) 
(443-D-E, F] 
E 
Case Law Reference 
[2011) 11 SCR 848 
relied on 
Para 15 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
F 
Nos. 9777-9778 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2014 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.195 of2014 & Writ 
Petition No.1659 of2014. 
G 
B. H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv., Shridhar Y. Chitale, Vivek R. 
H 
Mohanty, Ajit Wagh, Aditya Gaggar, Apoorv Shukla, Abhijat P. Medh, 
Advs. for the Appellant. 
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Ms. Surabhi Guleria, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
THE GREATER BOMBAY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 
439 
v. NAGRAJ GANESHMAL JAIN & ORS. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals are directed against the Judgment dated 
02.04.2014 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 195 
of 2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the Petitioner-appellant, 
(hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") was dismissed and the attachment 
B 
order dated 14.12.200 I, relating to flat No. 12, 51h Floor, New Shrinath 
Kunj, CHS Ltd, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai, 400056 was set aside and a 
further direction was given to enrol the respondent No.1 as member of 
the New Shrinath Housing Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred 
to as "the Society"). 
C 
3. The undisputed facts are that the flat in question was owned 
by Shri Dhillon P. Shah. Mr. Shah and his wife Smt. Shivangi Shah were 
Directors of a Compa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.