Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saiyad Liyakat Ali vs Sanjeev Sardar on 18 August, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 18 th OF AUGUST, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 2058 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SAIYAD LIYAKAT ALI S/O SHRI SHAUKAT ALI, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB, R/O
KATRA ADHARTAL JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SANJEEV SARDAR S/O LATE SHRI VISHAL SINGH
SARDAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O 1280/2021-B,
JAY PRAKASH NAGAR ADHARTAL JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. J.N. KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA, KARMCHARI
GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT
JABALPUR, THROUGH INCHARGE OFFICER
REGISTRATION NO. 42/65, DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
LOHIYA BRIDGE, GOAL BAZAR. JABALPUR MP
3. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
COLLECTOR, JABALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR
(M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI GURDEEP SINGH WADHWA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 1
AND SHRI RAJIV PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
STATE/RESPONDENT 3 )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant 1-
Saiyad Liyakat Ali challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2022
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 8/21/2023
7:39:11 PM
passed by 20th District Judge, Jabalpur in regular civil appeal no.60/2016
reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2016 passed by 2nd Civil Judge
Class-I, Jabalpur in civil suit no.25-A/2013, whereby learned trial Court
dismissed respondent-1/plaintiff-Sanjiv Sardar's suit for declaration of title,
permanent injunction and for declaring the sale deed dated 10.10.2012 null and
void, which in appeal has been reversed by decreeing the suit holding the sale
deed dated 10.10.2012 to be null and void.
2. In short, the facts are that, the respondent 2/defendant 2 J.N. Krishi
Vishwavidyalaya Karmachari Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Jabalpur
(hereinafter in short 'the Society') originally executed a sale deed on 26.09.1970
(Ex.P/1) in favour of one Shri G.N. Kolte in respect of plot No.22, area 5950
sq.ft., who thereafter transferred the plot to Sudhir Shankar Rao on 23.09.1999
(Ex.P/2) and vide sale deed dated 07.03.2005 (Ex.P/3) Mr. Sudhir Shankar
Rao further sold the plot in favour of plaintiff-Sanjeev Sardar's mother
Smt.Suman Sardar (since dead). It is alleged in the plaint that on the basis of
aforesaid sale deed the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the plot in
question and without cancellation of the aforesaid sale deeds, the Society
illegally transferred the plot in question to the defendant 1 vide registered sale
deed dated 10.10.2012 (Ex.D/4) which is null and void as against the rights of
the plaintiff and be declared null and void.
3. The defendant 1 appeared before the trial court and supported his sale
deed on the ground that because transferee purchasers were not member of the
Society and they did not raise construction of the house within stipulated time
of seven years, therefore, the sale deed/allotment being void ab initio was
treated to have been surrendered rightly and due to this reason, the sale deeds
dated 23.09.1999 and 07.03.2005 have automatically lost their significance. In
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 8/21/2023
7:39:11 PM
these circumstances, the sale deed executed on 10.10.2012 (Ex.D/4) in favour
of defendant 1 cannot be said to be null and void.
4. After holding trial, learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated
18.02.2016 dismissed the suit holding thereby that the sale deed executed on
10.10.2012 is a validly executed sale deed and cannot be declared null and void
and in presence of this sale deed the plaintiff cannot be declared owner of the
plot in question.
5. Upon filing appeal by the plaintiff-Sanjeev Sardar, learned first appellate
Court has in absence of cancellation of the sale deeds dated 26.09.1970,
23.09.1999 and 07.03.2005 held that the allotment made by the respondent 2-
the Society in favour of the defendant 1 on 10.10.2012 is not valid and
accordingly declared it to be void and holding the plaintiff to be owner and in
possession of the suit property decreed the suit.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant 1 submits that because the
subsequent purchasers namely Sudhir Shankar Rao and Smt. Suman Sardar
were not members of the Society, therefore, transfer made in their favour was
void being contrary to the bylaws of the Society and treating them to be void
transaction/alienation, the sale deed (Ex.D/4) was executed in pursuance of the
order dated 10.09.2012 passed by Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Jabalpur (copy of which is not available on record). He further submits that
learned first appellate Court has without taking into consideration the aforesaid
legal position and even without recording requisite findings in respect of
possession of the defendant 1 has erred in passing the impugned judgment and
decree. He also submits that the allotment of the plot made in favour of
defendant 1 dated 10.01.2005 is prior in time to the sale deed dated 07.03.2005
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 8/21/2023
7:39:11 PM
(Ex.P/3) executed in favour of the plaintiff's mother Smt. Suman Sardar,
therefore, the plaintiff does not get any right on the basis of sale deed dated
07.03.2005. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for admission of the
second appeal.
7. Learned counsel Shri Wadhwa appearing for the respondent 1 supports the
impugned judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court and prays for
dismissal of the second appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Perusal of the record shows that originally the respondent 2-Society
executed sale deed on 26.09.1970 in favour of G.N. Kolte, who in turn
executed sale deed on 23.09.1999 in favour of Sudhir Shankar Rao and
thereafter Sudhir Shankar Rao vide sale deed dated 07.03.2005 (Ex.P/3) sold
the same plot to plaintiff's mother Smt. Suman Sardar.
10. There is no documentary evidence available on record to the effect that the
Society at any point of time issued any notice to the plaintiff or her mother in
respect of cancellation of the plot in question for want of fulfillment of the
conditions mentioned in the deed and in exparte and without giving any
opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff's mother, the allotment letter dated
10.01.2005 (Ex.D/2) appears to have been issued in favour of defendant 1-
Liyakat Ali, however, the allotment letter (Ex.D/2) itself shows that on the date
of allotment, the defendant 1 was also not member of the Society and
respondent 2-Society allotted the plot to the defendant 1 illegally and till the
date of allotment, the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff's mother as well
as other sale deeds executed in favour of her predecessors, were not cancelled
nor even questioned before any authority.
11. Upon consideration of the aforesaid illegalities committed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 8/21/2023
7:39:11 PM
respondent 2 Society in making further allotment of the plot in favour of
defendant 1, learned first appellate Court has held that the plaintiff is owner and
in possession of the plot in question and the sale deed executed on 10.10.2012
in favour of defendant 1 is void.
12. In my considered opinion, in presence of the sale deeds dated 07.03.2005,
23.09.1999 and 26.09.1970 executed in favour of the plaintiff's mother Smt.
Suman Sardar and her predecessors-in-title, respondent 2 Society had no right
to further alienate the same plot in favour of the defendant 1 that too without
initiating any proceedings in respect of cancellation of the aforesaid three sale
deeds.
13. Resultantly, there being no substantial question of law involved, the
second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 rule 11
CPC. However, no order as to the costs.
14. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 8/21/2023
7:39:11 PM
