Smt. Krishna Chatterjee vs Shankar Prasad Gupta And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4549 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                          CIVIL REVISION No.38 of 2016
     ======================================================

Smt. Krishna Chatterjee, W/o R.K Chatterjee, R/o Mohalla Khas Mahal, Road No.3, Chiraiya Tand, P.S Jakkanpur, P.O. GPO, Town and District - Patna.

Defendant 2nd Set/Petitioner Versus

1. Shankar Prasad Gupta, S/o Late Baidyanath Prasad, R/o Mohalla Rikabganj, Patna City, P.S. - Malsalami, P.O. - Patna City, District Patna.

Plaintiff/Opposite Party 1st Set

2. M/s Indian Bank Staff, Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited Patna, bearing registration No.107/Pat/84

3. Shri Sachidanand Singh, the Honorary Secretary M/s Indian Bank Staff Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited Patna, S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Singh, R/o Binda Bhawan, Punaichak, P.S. - Shastri Nagar, P.O.- GPO, Town and District - Patna.

Defendants 1st Set/ Opposite Parties 2nd Set

4. Shri Binod Kumar Dubey.

5. Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey.

6. Shri Sanjay Kumar Dubey.

All sons of Shri Bijoy Prasad Dubey, R/o village Semari, P.O. - Semari, P.S.- Dawath, District - Rohtas, at present Mohalla - I.T.I. Colony, P.S. - Digha, District - Patna.

Defendants 3rd Set /Opposite Parties 3rd Set ====================================================== with CIVIL REVISION No. 35 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Sri Binod Kumar Dubey

2. Sri Manoj Kumar Dubey

3. Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey All 1 to 3 S/o Sri Bijoy Prasad Dubey, R/o Village- Senari, P.O- Senari, P.S.- Dawath, District- Rohtas, At present residing at Mohalla- I.T.I. colony, P.S- Digha, District- Patna Now Residing at Dananpur Sahjad pur Near St. Karen's School P.S.- Danapur Cantt, District- Patna-801503

Defendant 3rd Set/ Petitioners Versus

1. Sri Shankar Prasad Gupta, S/o Late Baidyanath Prasad, R/o Mohalla-

Rikabganj, Patna City, P.S. - Malsalami P.O.- Patna City, District- Patna

Plaintiff/ Opposite Party 1st Set

2. M/s Indian Bank Staff Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited Patna bearing registration no-107/Pat/84 Patna High Court C.R. No.38 of 2016 dt.18-08-2022

3. Sri Sachidanand Singh, the Honorary Secretary M/s India Bank Staff Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited, S/o Sri Ram Swaroop Singh, R/o Binda Bhawan at Mohalla- Punaichak, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, P.O.- G.P.O. Patna, District- Patna Defendant 1st Set/ Opposite Party 2nd Set

4. Smt. Krishna Chatterjee, W/o Sri R.K. Chaterjee (Ranjeet Kumar Chatterjee) R/o Mohalla- Khas Mahal, Road No.-03, ChiraiyaTand, P.S.- Jakkanpur, P.O.- G.P.O. Patna, District-Patna Defendant 2nd Set/ Opposite Party 3rd Set ====================================================== Appearance :

       (In CIVIL REVISION No. 38 of 2016)
       For the Petitioner/s :        Mr. Laxmi Narayan Das
       For the Respondent/s :        Mr. Ravi Bhatia
       (In CIVIL REVISION No. 35 of 2016)
       For the Petitioner/s :        Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman
       For the Respondent/s :        Mr. Ravi Bhatia

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA CAV JUDGMENT Date : 18-08-2022

These Civil Revision petitions have been preferred against

the order dated 06.02.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 134 of 2007, by

the court of learned Sub-Judge 2 nd, Danapur, whereby and

whereunder the petition of defendant's 3 rd Set under Order VII Rule

11 (d), read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(in short 'CPC') and under Sections 48 and 57 (inadvertently typed

as 54) of Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (in short 'the Act')

has been rejected.

2. The plaintiff has filed a Title Suit for declaration of title

of the plaintiff and non title of the defendants over the suit land and

to hold and declare that sale deed dated 14.12.1988, said to be

executed by defendants 1 st Set in favour of defendants 2 nd Set and

sale deed dated 01.03.2002 purported to be executed by defendants Patna High Court C.R. No.38 of 2016 dt.18-08-2022

2nd Set in favour of defendants 3rd Set are illegal, invalid and

inoperative and also to appoint the Survey knowing Commissioner

for carving out for Society Plot No. 6 B, measuring 1800 square feet

and also for recovery of possession with other ancillary relief.

3. The defendants after appearance filed their written

statement. The defendants 3 rd Set have filed a petition dated 23.

06.2011 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure and Sections 48 and 54 (appropriate Section

57) of Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 for rejection of the

plaint.

4. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties and

considering the material available on record and relying upon the

decision of this Court in CWJC No. 4593 of 2001 reported in 2007

(2) PLJR 525 rejected the said petition vide the impugned order

dated 06.02.2016.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in

accordance with the provision under Sections 48 and 57 of the Bihar

Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, the plaintiff ought to have

approached the Registrar of the Co-operative Society for his

grievances and the Civil Court do not have any jurisdiction to

entertain the suit of the plaintiffs and ought to have rejected the plaint

and direct the plaintiff to take appropriate forum for redressal of his

grievances. It is further submitted that cojoint reading of Sections 48

and 57 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 shows that in Patna High Court C.R. No.38 of 2016 dt.18-08-2022

case of any dispute, touching the business of a registered societies

arise among the members shall be decided by the Registrar Co-

operative Societies and no Civil or Revenue Courts have any

jurisdiction with regard to the same.

6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

opposite party no. 1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for

opposite party that the suit filed by the plaintiff does come within the

purview of the Sections 48 and 57 of the Bihar Co-operative Housing

Society Act, as a relief sought in the plaint filed by the opposite party

no. 1 is in regard to declaration of his title and recovery of possession

on the basis of registered sale deed dated 07.07.1988, executed in

favour of the plaintiff and cancellation of subsequent sale deed dated

14.12.1988, executed by defendant 1st Set in favour of defendant 2nd

Set and sale deed dated 01.03.2002 executed by defendant 2 nd Set in

favour of defendant 3rd Set which cannot be done by the Registrar of

the Co-operative Society and it requires adjudication by the Civil

Court of competent jurisdiction which has the power to cancel the

forged and fabricated sale deeds and declare the same to be null, void

ab-initio, non-operative and not binding upon the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further submits

that the learned Trial Court rightly relied upon the ratio laid down in

Smt. Swati Pandey and Ors. Vs. The Registrar Co-operative

Societies, Bihar, Patna and Ors. reported in 2007 (2) PLJR 525

and there is no jurisdictional error and there is no illegality and / or Patna High Court C.R. No.38 of 2016 dt.18-08-2022

irregularity while passing the impugned order and the petitioners

have not made out any valid ground for interfering into and setting

aside the impugned order.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears

that the learned counsels for the petitioners have based their

argument on the point that Sections 48 and 57 bars the jurisdiction of

civil court with respect to the matters related to registered

cooperative societies and the Registrar has only jurisdiction to decide

the dispute between the members of Society accordingly, suit of the

plaintiff is barred by law and liable to be rejected under Order VII

Rule 11 (d) of CPC. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 48 of

Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 provides jurisdiction of

Registrar with respect to disputes touching the business of a

registered society whereas Section 57 of the said Act relates to bar of

jurisdiction of Court i.e. Civil or Revenue Court.

9. In the said judgment CWJC No. 4593 of 2001,

reported in 2007 (2) PLJR 525 it was observed:-

"Although the Registration Act, 1908, does not specifically provide any mode or manner by which any deed of transfer earlier registered before the Registrar of document could be cancelled by a subsequent deed of annulment, but even if the Registrar of document had the power to admit such a deed of annulment for registration, it had to be done as per the requirement of principles of natural justice and cannot be done to the detrimental of the person in whose favour the earlier deed of transfer was registered. Furthermore, once a property is transferred by a registered document, a vested civil right devolves Patna High Court C.R. No.38 of 2016 dt.18-08-2022

upon the transferee and to nullify such vested right only a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction has the authority and the Registrar has no such power or authority of a civil court to decide right and title of a party."

10. It is further observed that Section 48 of the Act

provides that Registrar acts as a Court in respect of disputes between

the parties, but the said provision cannot be extended beyond the

limits of the Act, nor the Registrar has been authorized to exercise

the jurisdiction vested in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for

the determination of right and title of the person with respect to a

property.

11. A cojoint reading of Section 48 and 57 of the Act

clarified that any dispute touching the business of a registered society

arises amongst the members shall be decided by the Registrar and no

Civil or Revenue Court shall have any jurisdiction with regard to the

same.

12. The execution and registration of a sale deed involves

a question of right, title and interest which is beyond the competence

of Registrar. In the common judgment dated 24.06.2016 of this court

in CWJC No. 12255 of 2007 with CWJC No. 3277 of 2009 and also

in judgment dated 30.04.2019 of this Court in CWJC No. 17984 of

2015, the aforesaid judgment passed in CWJC No. 4593 of 2001 was

referred. It was observed therein that Registrar is also vested with the

power of Civil Court while adjudicating on a dispute under Section Patna High Court C.R. No.38 of 2016 dt.18-08-2022

48 of the Act but such adjudication is restricted to a dispute touching

a business of a society but where it come to interpretation of a

document e.g. registered sale deed especially on its validity or

legality or to set it aside then such jurisdiction stands transferred with

the court of competent jurisdiction.

13. As discussed above, it is clear that the Registrar of the

Co-operative Society has no jurisdiction to annul sale deed executed

in favour of the petitioner or opposite party, accordingly, the Civil

Court has the jurisdiction to decide and declare the sale deed as null

and void.

14. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides for the

remedy of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, on certain

specifically stated grounds. Rejection of plaint weeds about

frivolous, vexatious and improper plaint at the very outset, thus,

saving judicial time and resources. The entire purpose of conferment

of such powers under Order VII Rule 11 is to ensure that a litigation,

which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive is not permitted to

occupy the time of courts. Such a remedy is necessary to put an end

to the sham litigation, so the further judicial time is not wasted.

15. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, provides that the plaint

shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the

plaint to be barred by any law. In the present case, the Trial Court has

found that the plaint is not barred by any law and accordingly,

rejected the application.

Patna High Court C.R. No.38 of 2016 dt.18-08-2022

16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, as

discussed above, this court does not find any infirmity or

jurisdictional error in the impugned order requiring any interference

by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The reasoning given by the

learned trial court cannot be said to be suffering from any patent

illegality or irregularity.

17. Accordingly, both these revision petitions i.e. Civil

Revision No. 38 of 2016 and Civil Revision No. 35 of 2016, are

dismissed as being devoid of merit, but make no order as to cost.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) khushbu/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                06.07.2022
Uploading Date          23.08.2022
Transmission Date