# 12 S.C.R. 26 SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2016] 12 S.C.R. 26
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016-10-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6673 of2014
- **Bench:** RANJAN GOGOi, Prafulla C. Pant, A.M. Khanwilkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/12-s-c-r-26-satya-pal-anand-v-state-of-m-p-ors-31200
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

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 SubRegistrar (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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,848 of 83,853. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39848 for what follows._

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 SubRegistrar (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 Court can be a party to a speculative litigation much less the
High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction - Remedy of writ cannot
H
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
f2016112 S.C.R.
A - be used for declaration of private rights of the parties or enforcement
of their contractual rights and obligations.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court has justly dismissed the writ
petition file~ by the appellant with liberty to the appellant to
pursue stafotory remedy resorted to by him under Madliya
Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 or by resorting to any
other remedy as may be advised and permissible in law. All
questions to be considered in those proceedings will have to be
decided on its own merits. [Para 33] (61-A-B]
2.1 The remedy of Writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is extra-ordinary and discretionary. In
exercise of writ jurisdiction, the High Court cannot be oblivious
to the conduct ofthe party invoking that remedy. The exercise
of discretion to issue a writ is a matter of granting equitable relief.
It is a remedy in equity. The fact that the party may have several
remedies for the same cause of action, he must elect his remedy
and cannot be permitted to indulge in multiplicity of actions. The
High Court declined to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the
appellant, which was essentially to challenge the same
Extinguishinent Deed and subsequent deeds which were sought
by the appellant in the proceedings u/s. ()4 of Madhya Pradesh
Co-oprative Societies Act, 1960 and also before the Deputy
Registrar, Co-operative Societies. No fault can be found with the
approach of the High Court 1in -refusing to exercise .its writ
jurisdiction because of the conduct of the appellant in pursuing
multiple proceedings for the same relief and also because the
appellant had an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy to
which he bas already resorted to. [Para 14) [47-D-F]
2.2 In the present case, the appellant not only entered into
a compromise deed with the Society and the subsequent
purchaser but also resorted to statutory remedy. Having entered
into a compromise deed, it is doubtful whether the appellant can
be heard to complain about the irregularity in the registration of
the Extinguishment Deed, if any. The appellant has not disputed
the execution of the compromise deed, nor has he paid any heed
to the notice given by the other party to refund the amount
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
accepted by him in furtherance of the compromise deed. No Court
can be party to a speculative litigation much less the High Court
in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition filed by the
appellant deserved to be dismissed. [Para 15) f 48-A-C]
2.3 The fact whether the compromise deed~entered into by
the appellant was voluntary and at his own volition or under
duress, is essentially a question of fact. That cannot be
adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Depending on the answer thereto,'
the other issues may become relevant and would arise for
consideration. The only relief that can be granted and which has
already been clarified by the High Court in the impugned
judgment, is to keep all questions open to enable the appellant
to pursue the statutory remedy already invoked by him. Remedy
of writ cannot be used for declaration of private rights of the
parties or enforcement of their contractual rights and obligations.
[Para 16] [48-D-E, H; 49-A]
3.1 Merely because some,irregularity has been committed
in registration of Extinguishment Deed unilaterally presented by
the Society for registration or in respect of the subsequent deeds
registered at the instance of third party without notice to the
appellant, that, by itself, will not result in registration of those
documents due to corrupt motives of the State Authority. More
so, in the present case, the appellant having entered into a
compromise deed with the Society and third party (subsequent
allottees) in respect of the subject plot, it is doubtful whether it.
is open to the appellant to question the act of unilateral execution
and registration of the stated Extinguishment Deed being irregular
much less void and nullity:·{Para 17) [49-F-H; 50-A]
3.2 The respondents-Society is a Co-operative Housing
Society Limited and is governed by its Bye-Laws. The member
is obliged-lo erect a house on the plot allotted to him within
specified time, failing which must suffer the consequence including
cancellation of allotment of plot and removal of his membership.
At the time of allotment, the member executes an agreement
whereunder he/she undertakes to abide by the \:onditions
specified for erecting a house on the plot. allotted to him/her in
the manner prescri.bed therein. Whether the Society is justified
in proceeding against the defaulting member by cancelling fae
29
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
30
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 12 S.C.R.
allotment of plot as well as membership, is an issue falling within
the purview of the business of the Society. The member is bound
by the stipulation contained in the agreeme1_1t executed by him/
her and in particular the Bye-laws of the Society. Any action by
the Society for breach thereof is just or otherwise can be
questioned before the statutory Forum under the Madhya
Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Those are matters
, which can and must be answered in the proceedings resorted to
by the appellant before the statutory Forum. [Para 17] (50-A-D)
3.3 There is distinction between ultra vires act of the
Statutory Authority and a case of a simple infraction of the
procedural Rule. The question, whether the Society was
competent to unilaterally cancel the allotment of a plot given to
, its member and to cancel the membership of such member due
to default committed by the member, is within the purview of the
business-of the Society. Any cause of action in that regard must
be adjudicated by the procedure prescribed in that behalf. It is
not open to presume that the Society had no authority in law to
. take a decision in that behalf. The right of the appellant qua the
plot of land would obviously be subject to the final outcome of
such action. The appellant being the legal representative of the
original allottee, cannot claim any right higher than that of his
predecessor qua the Housing Society, which is the final authority
to decide on the issue of continuation of membership of its
member. The right of the member to remain in occupation of the
plot allotted by the Society would be entirely dependent on that
decision. [Para 18) [50-E-G)
Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72 : 1964
SCR 733 - distinguished.
4.1 The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands
discharged, once the document is registered. Section 17 of'the
Registration Act, 1908 deals with documents which require
G
compulsory registration. Extinguishment Deed is one such
H
document referred to in Section 17(l)(b). [Para 21) (51-G)
Government of U.P. v. Raja Moha111111ad A111ir Ah111ad
Khan AIR 1961 SC 787:1962 SCR 97 - relied on.
Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Saya111111a AIR 2007
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
Andhra Pradesh 57 [FB) - approved.
4.2 There is no express provision in the Act of 1908 which
empowers the Registrar to recall such registration. The fact
whether the document was properly presented for registration
cannot be reopened by the Registrar after its registration. The
power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter. In
absence of any express provision in that behalf, it is not open to
assume that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would be competent
to cancel the registration of the documents in question. Similarly,
. the power of the Inspector General is limited to do
superintendence of registration offices and make rules in that
behalf. Even the Inspector General has no power to cancel the
registration of any document which has already been registi!red.
[Para 21) [52-A-C]
·
31
A
B
c
4.3 If the document is required to be compulsorily
registered, but while doing so, .some irregularity creeps in, that,
by itself, cannot result in a fraudulent action of the State Authority.
D
Non-presence of the other party to the Extinguishment· Deed
presented by the Society before the Registering Officer by no
standard can be said to be a fraudulent action per se. The fact
whether that was done deceitly to cause loss and harm to theother party to the Deed, is a question of fact which must be pleaded
E
and proved by the party making such allegation. That fact cannot
be presumed. In either case, the party aggrieved by such
registration of document is free to challenge its validity before
the Civil Court. [Para 23) [52-H; 53-A-C]
4.4 Admittedly, the documents in question do not fall within
F
Sections 31, 88 and 89 of 1908 Act. Further, Section 32 of 1908
Act does not require presence of both parties to the document
when it is presented for registration. liI that sense, presentation
of Extinguishment Deed by the authorized person of the Society'
for registration cannot be faulted with reference to Section 34 of
the Act of 1908: That provision stipulates the enquiry to be done
G
by the Registering Officer before registration of the document.
Even this provision does not require presence of both parties to
the document when presented for registration before the
Registering Officer. [Para 24) [53-D-E; 54-F]
H
32
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 12 S.C.R.
4.5 Section 35 of the 1908 Act does not confer a quasijudicial power on the Registering Authority. The Registering
Officer is not expected to evaluate the title or irregularity in the
document as such. The examination to be done by him is
incidental, to ascertain that there is no violation of provisions of
the Act of 1908. [Para 26] [56-G-H; 57-A)
Park View Enterprises " State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1990
Madras 251 - approved.
4.6 In absence of any express provision in the Act of 1908
mandating the presence of the other party to the Extinguishment
c Deed at the time of presentati_on for registration, by no stretch of
imagination, such a requirement can be considered as mandatory.
[Para 27) [57-B-C]
4.7 The error of the Registering Officer, if any, must be
regarded as error of procedure. Section 87 of the Act of 1908
D
postulates that nothing done in good faith by the Registering
Officer pursuant to the Act, shall be deemed invalid merely by
reason of any defect in the procedure. In the present case, the
subject Extinguishment Deed was presented by the person duly
authorized by the Society and was registered by the Registering
Officer. Once the document is registered, it is not open to any
E
Authority, under the Act of 1908 to cancel the registration. The
remedy of appeal provided under the Act of 1908, in Part XII, in
particular Section 72, is limited to the inaction or refusal by the
Registering Officer to register a document. The power conferred
on the Registrar by virtue of Section 68 cannot be invoked to
F
cancel the registration of documents already registered. [Para
28) [58-H; 59-A-C]
~
4.8 The decision in the case of *Tllo/a Ganga Laxmi is with
reference to an express provision contained in the Andhra
Pradesh Rules in that behalf. In absence of such a.n express
G
provision, in other State legislations, the Registering Officer would
be governed by the provisions in the Act of 1908. Going by the
said provisions, there is nothing to indicate that the Registering
Officer is required to undertake a quasi judicial enquiry regarding
the veracity of the factual position stated in the document
presented for registration or its legality, if the tenor of the
H
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
33
document suggests that it requires to be registered. The validity A
of such registered document can, indeed, be put in issue before
a Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, the dictum in this
decision cannot have universal application to all the States (other
than State of Andhra Pradesh). [Paras 27, 31) [60-C-E; 57-DJ
4.9 No provision in the State of Madhya Pradesh enactment . B
or the Rules framed under Section 69 of the Act of 1908 has been
brought to the notice of the Court which is similar to the provision
in Rule 26(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules framed
in exercise of power under Section 69 of the Act of 1908. That
being a procedural matter must be expressly provided in the Act
or the Rules applicable to the concerned State. [Para 28] [58-FC
G)
4.10 In the present case, the document in question no doubt
is termed as an Extinguishment Deed. However, in effect, it is
manifestation of the decision of the Society to cancel the allotment
of the subject plot given to its member due to non fulfillment of D
the obligation by the member concerned. The subject document
is linked to the decision of the Society to cancel the membership
of the allottee of the plot given to him/her by the Housing Society.
Whereas, the case of * Tlwtll Ganga Laxmi was of cancellation of
sale deed •. Even for this reason, the case of * Tlwta Ganga La.xmi
E
is distinguishable. [Para 32) [60-E-F, HJ
_ *Thota Ganga Laxmi & Anr. v. Government of A11dhra
Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 15 SCC 207 - distinguished.
E.R.Kalaivan v. Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai & Am: AIR 2010 Madras 18 - disapproved.
F
MRamakrishna Reddy v. Sub-Registrar. Bangalore
AIR 2000 Kar. 46 - approved.
Arunachalam v. P.S.R.Sadhanantham & Anr. (1979) 2
SCC 297 : 1979 (3) SCR 482; Ganga Kumar Shrivastav
v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211; CAG v. K.S.
Jagannathan (1986) 2 SCC 679 : 1986 (2) SCR 17;
Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami
Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Ruda11i
(1989) 2 SCC 691 : 1989 (2) SCR 697; Hari Vishnu
Kamath v. Ahmad Jshaque AIR 1955 SC 233: 1955
G
H
34
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 12 S.C.R.
SCR 1104; Suo Motu Proceedings against R.Karuppan,
Advocate (2001) 5 SCC 289: 2001 (3) SCR 750; R.S.
Maddanappa (DJ by LRs. v. Chandramma & Anr. AIR
1965 SC 1812 : 1965 SCR 283; Rattan Chand Hira
Chand\( Askar Nawaj Jung (DJ by Lrs. & Ors. (1991)
3 SCC 67 : 1991 (1) SCR 327; Ce111ral Inland Water
Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Brojo Nath
Ganguly & Anr. AIR 1986 SC 1571 : 1986 (2) SCR
278; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union
of India & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 161 : 2011 (9) SCR 146;
Trisha/a Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr.
(2011) 6 sec 47 : 2011 (8) SCR 520; Hamza Haji V.
State of Kera/a & Anr. (2006) 7 SCC 416 : 2006 (4 )
Suppl. SCR 604; S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (D) By
LRs. v. Jagannath (DJ by Lrs. & Ors. AIR 1994 SC 853 :
1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 422 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2010)15 sec 201
distinguished Para 2
AIR 2007 Andhra Pradesh 57 [FB] approved
Para6
AIR 2010 Madras 18
disapproved Para6
AIR 2000 Kar. 46
approved
Para6
1962 SCR 97
relied on
Para6
AIR 1990 Madras 251
approved
Para 7
1964 SCR 733
distinguished Para 8
1979 (3) SCR 482
referred to
Para8
(200~) 6 sec 211
referred to
Para8
1986 (2) SCR 17
referred to
Para8
1989 (2) SCR 697
referred to
Para8
1955 SCR 1104
referred to
Para8
2901 (3) SCR 750
referred to
Para9
1965 SCR 283
referred to
Para9
1991 (1) SCR 327
referred to
Para9
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
1986 (2) SCR 278
referred to
Para9
2011 (9) SCR 146
referred to
Para9
2011 (8) SCR 520
referred to
Para9
2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 604
referred to
Para9
1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 422
referred to
Para 9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6673
of2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2011 of the High Cout1
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 13505 of2008.
Ms. Shashi Juneja, Ms. Sylona Mohapatra, Udit Arora, C. D.
Singh (For Mishra Saurabh, Adv.), Advs. for the Appellant.
Satyajit A. Desai, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Neelmani Pant, Akash
Kakade, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. This appeal has been placed
before a three Judges' Bench in terms of order dated August 25, 2015,
consequent to the difference of opinion between the two learned Judges
of the Division Bench.
2. Justice Dipak Misra took the view that, in the fact situation of
the pres(;Jnt case the Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging the
order passed by the Sub-Registrar (Registration) and the Inspector
General (Registration) was rightly dismissed by the High Court. However,
His Lordship opined that a question would still arise for consideration,
namely, whether in absence of any specific Rule in the State of Madhya
Pradesh, the general principle laid down in the case of Thota Ganga
Laxmi & Anr. vs. Government of Ami/mi Pradesh & Ors. 1 would be
applicable?
3. Justice V.Gopala Gowda on the other hand allowed the appeal
on the finding that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) had no authority to
register the Extinguishment Deed presented by the respondent-Society
dated 9'h August 200 I and his action of registration of that document
was void ab initio. For the same reason, the subsequent deeds in respect
' (2010) 15 sec 207
35
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
36
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 12 S.C.R.
of the property in question registered by the Sub-Registrar dated 21st
April, 2004 and 11 •h July 2006 were also without authority and void ab
initio. His Lordship held that, the High Court should have declared the
above position and set aside registration of the subject documents and
also the orders passed by the Sub-Registrar (Registration) and Inspector
General (Registration). His Lordship allowed the appeal filed by the
appellant with compensation amount to be paid by the respondents
quantified at Rs. I 0 Lakh.
4. Briefly stated, Plot No.7-B at Punjabi Bagh, Raisen Road,
Bhopal was allotted to the appellant's mother Smt. Veeravali Anand by
Punjabi Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
the "Society"), vide a registered deed dated 22"d March 1962. Smt.
Veeravali Anand expired on l 2'h June 1988. After her death, the Society
through its Office Bearer executed a Deed of Extinguishment on 91h
August 2001, unilaterally, cancelling the said allotment of plot to Smt.
Veeravali Anand because of violation of the Bye-laws of the Society in
D
not raising any construction 0;1' the plot so allotted within time. On the
basis of the said Extinguishment Deed, the Society executed and got
registered a deed dated 21st April, 2004 in favour of Mrs. Manjit Kaur
(Respondent No.5) in respect of the same plot. The appellant objected
to the said transaction. However, a compromise deed was executed
E
F
between the Society and Mrs. Manjit Kaur (Respondent No.5) on the
one hand and the appellant on the other hand -whereunderthe appellant
received consideration ofRs.6.50 Lakh (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand)
- Rs.4.50 Lakh (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousand) by a demand draft
and Rs.2/- Lakh by a post-dated cheque). Notwithstanding the
compromise deed, the appellant filed a dispute under Section 64 of the
Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter ri;ferred
to ns the "Act of 1960"), before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
Societies bearing Dispute No. 81 of2005. The appellant challenged the
Society's action ofunilaterally registering the Extinguishment Deed dated
91h August 2001 a11d allotting the subject plot to Mrs Manjit Kaur vide
deed dated 21st April, 2004; and prayed for a declaration that he continues
G
to be the owner of the subject plot allotted by the Society to his mother,
having inherited the same. In the said dispute, the appellant filed interim
applications praying for restraint order and for appointment of a Receiver.
It is not necessary to dilate on those facts to consider the issues on hand.
Suffice it to note that the said dispute is still pending adjudication.
H
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
37
5. During the pendency of the said dispute, the Society permitted
A
. transfer of the subject plot in favour of Mrs. Meenakshi and Mr. S.C.
Sharma (Respondent Nos. 6 & 7) vide registered Deed dated JI th July
2006. Sin.ce the appellant was perseverating the dispute and resorting to
multiple proceedings in relation to the subject plot, the respondents issued
a notice on 12th July 2007 asking the appellant to refund the consideration
amount accepted by him in furtherance of the compromise deed dated
6th July 2004. The appellant did not pay any heed to that demand and
instead continued with the multiple proceedings resorted to by him before
B
the Authority under the Act of 1960, including criminal proceedings. The
appellant also moved an application before the Sub-Registrar
(Registration) calling upon him to cancel the registration of C
Extinguishment Deed dated 9'h August 200 I and the subsequent two
deeds dated 21" April 2004 and 11th July 2006 respectively. This
application was filed on 4rh February 2008 by the appellant. The SubRegistrar (Registration) by a speaking order rejected the said application
on 28th June 2008 mainly on two counts. Firstly, a dispute was pending
D
between the parties with regard to the same subject matter. Secondly,
he had no jurisdiction to cancel the registration of a registered document
in question. For, his jurisdiction was limited to registration of the document
when presented by the executant before him for that purpose. The
appellant then approached the Inspector General (Registration) by way
of an application under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1908"). The Inspector General
(Registration) vide order dated I 9
1h September 2008 rejected the said
application on the ground that powers conferred on him were limited to
the general superintendence of the Registration Offices and making
Rules.
6. The appellant thereafter approached the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Judicature at Jabalpur, by way of Writ Petition No. I 3505/2008
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order
passed by the Inspector General (Registration) dated 15•h September
2008 as also the order passed by the Sub-Registrar (Registration) dated
28th June 2008. The appella~1t further prayed for a declaration that the
Extinguishment Deed dated 9'
11 August 200 I as well as the subsequent
two deeds dated 2JSI April, 2004 and 11th July 2006 are void ab initio
with a further direction to the Inspector General (Registration) and the
Sub-Registrar (Registration) to record the cancellation of those
E
F
G
H
\
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
f20161 12 S.C.R.
A documents. This Writ Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of
the High Court primarily on the ground that the appellant had already
resorted to a remedy (a dispute) before the appropriate Forum under the
Act of 1960, which was pending; and the declaration, as sought, can be
considered in those proceedings after recording of the evidence and
B production of other material to be relied on by the parties therein.
Accordingly, the High Court held that since an alternative remedy before
a competent Forum was available and was pending between the parties,
it was not feasible to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Indeed, the High Court adverted to the reported
cases relied on by the parties to buttress their stand. The High Court
C took note of the decision of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in the case of Ymu1/a Mal/eshwari vs. Ammthula Sayamnw2
and the decision of Madras High Court in E.R.Ka/aivan vs. Inspector
General of Registration, Clte111wi & Anr. 3 The High Court held that
the arguments of the appellant deserve to be negatived in light of the
D majority view of the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court and that
the dictum in the case before the Madras High Court was distinguishable.
The High Court also referred to the decision of the Karnataka High
Court in M.Ranwkrisluw Reddy vs. Sub-Registrar, Bangalore~. In
para 15 and 16, the High Court observed thus:
E
F
G
H
"15. In view of aforesaid discussion we are of the view
that after registration of the extinguished deed or other
documents by the Sub-Registrar, if any application is
moved by any of the affected party of such document
stating that the same was not registered by practicing
the fraud with his right then Sub-Registrar in the lack
of any specific provision in this regard could neither
entertain nor adjudicate such application under the
provisions of Section 17, 18 or 69 or some other
provisions of the Act.· Section 69 of the Act only confers
the superintending power of registration offices and to
make rules to the Inspector General respondent No.2.
It does not give any rights to cancel the earlier
registered documents or modifying any entries in the
index or in other record at the instance of any of party.
2 AIR 2007 Andhra Pradesh 57 [FB]
3 AIR 2010 Madras I8
'AIR 2000 Kar.46.
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
So, Section 17(l)(b) read with 69 of the Act is also not
helping to the petitioner in this writ petition.
Consequently, it is held that Sub-Registrar as well as
Inspector General have not committed any fau/1 in
dismissing the application of the petilioner with direction
to approach the competent forum for adjudication of
his dispute.
16. Apart the above the alleged dispute and allegations
of the alleged fraud could not be adjudicated by this
Court under the writ jurisdiction. The same could be
adjudicated by the Civil Court under the common law
after recording the evidence of the parties and on
appreciation of the same in a duly constituted suit."
The High Court then adverted to the decision in the case of
(
Government of U.P. vs. R£~i" Molwmnuul Amir Ahmad Klum 5• It
held that since the Registering Officer registered the document presented
to him for registration, his function is exhausted. He would then become
functus officio and no power to impound the document under Section
33 of the Act. This decision of the High Court is the subject matter of
challenge in the present appeal.
7. When this appeal came up for hearing before the Division
Bench of the two learned Judges, as aforesaid, His Lordship Justice
Dipak Misra found that the High Court
0
did not commit any error in
dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. His Lordship, however,
adverted to all the relevant provisions of the Act of 1908 and also analysed
the decision of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
Mal/esltwari's case (supra) and also of the.Madras High Court in
Kalaivan (supra) and of the Karnataka High Court in M.R.Reddy
(supra). Finally, His Lordship considered the decision of this Court in
Tlwta Gang" Laxmi (supra) and noted two aspects. That, in that case,
the Court had opined that a unilateral cancellation deed cannot be
registered with reference to Rule 2(k)(i) of the Rules framed by the
State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the Act of 1908. His Lordship
was of the view that the dictum of the Cou11 in Tlwt" Ganga L"xmi
(supra) must be considered in the context ofa specific Rule framed by
the State of Andhra Pradesh, which had come into force after the
pronouncement by the Full Bench in the case of Malleshwari (supra).
His Lordship then observed that the principle stated in the case ofTlwta
'AIR 1961 SC 787
39
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
40
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 12 S.C.R.
Ganga Laxmi (supra) cannot be made applicable to the case on hand
in absence of a specific Rule in that regard in the State of Madhya
Pradesh. Further, on a careful reading of the provisions of the Act of
1908, there is no prohibition to register a document of cancellation of a
deed of extinguishment; and that the procedure under Section 35 of that
Act cannot be construed to confer a quasi judicial power on the Registering
Authority. His Lordship also referred to the decision of the Madras High
Court in Park View Enterprises vs. State of Tamil Nadu6 wherein it
has been observed that the function of the Sub-Registrar for the purposes
ofregistration is purely administrative and not quasi-judicial. He cannot
decide whether a document which is executed by a person has had title
as is recited in the given instrument. His Lordship found it difficult to
agree with the general principle stated in the case of Thota Ganga
Laxnii (supra) that the Registering Authority cannot register a unilateral
deed of cancellation or extinguishment, in absence of any specific Rule
in that behalf. Therefore, His Lordship opined that the general observation
in that case required reconsideration by a larger Bench. Having said
this, His Lordship also noted that the validity of the action taken by the
Society in execution of the extinguishment deed dated 9'h Augu~t 2001,
cancelling the deed in favour of the appellant's mother dated 22"d March
1962 was the subject matter of a dispute filed by the appellant wherein
all relevant issues could be answered appropriately. For, that Authority
is competent to consider the validity ofaction of the Society to unilaterally
cancel the allotment of the plot made in favour of the appellant's mother.
His Lordship also adverted to the other proceedings between the parties
including the order passed by this Court in SLP (Civil) No. 13255/2012
dated July 12, 2013, taking note of the Inspecti~n Reports submitted by
the Sub-Registrar dated !31h March 2007 mentioning that two duplex
were constructed and two more were near completion standing on the
subject plot on the date of inspection. His Lordship also adverted to the
factum of compromise deed entered by the appellant with the respondents
and having received consideration in that behalf from the subsequent
purchaser and yet the appellant was pursuing remedy before the SubG
Registrar for cancellation of the Extinguishment Deed.
8. His Lordship Justice V.Gopala Gowda, however, formulated a
question in para 12 of the judgment as to whether the appellant was
entitled to seek relief of cancellation of the registered documents dated
9•h August 2001, 21"April2004 and l J 'h July 2006, registered in respect
H
'AIR 1990 Madras 25 l
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
of the immovable property in question. His Lordship, inter-alia, following
A
the exposition in Tlwta Ganga Laxmi (supra) found that the Registrar
could not have permitted registration ofExtinguishment Deed dated 9'h
August 200 l, unilaterally cancelling the allotment of the subject plot made
to the appellant's mother. His Lordship held that the Extinguishment
Deed was a nullity, in law. His Lordship then considered the dictum in
Kalaivan ~case of the Madras High Court and opined that it aptly applied
B
to the facts of the present case and held that as the Extinguishment
Deed was unilaterally registered it ought to be rescinded. His Lordship .
proceeded to examine the issue in the light orSection 62 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872. It provides that ifthe parties to a contract agree to
substitute a new contract for it, or to rescind or alter, the original contract
C
need not be performed. Thus, for any novation, rescission and alteration
of the contract, it can be made only bilaterally and with amicable consent
of both the parties. His Lordship then adverted to the scope of Clause_
43(1) of the Bye-laws of the Society as amended in the year 1991 and
opined that the said Clause can have no retrospective effect for D
cancellation of the allotment of the plot in the name ofappellant's mother
vi de Extinguishment Deed dated 9'h August 200 I . The latter is only a
subterfuge. Reference is then made to Section 31 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 to hold that unilateral cancellation of the deed would be in
violation of the said provision read with Article 59 of the Limitation Act,
1963, which requires cancellation of any instrument witl1in 3 years. In
the present case, the deed in favour of the appellant's mother was
executed on 22nd March 1962 and registered on 30'h March 1962
concerning the subject plot; and for whiclh reason extinguishment of the
said deed after lapse of 39 years was impermissible in law. On this
finding, it has been held that the Sub-Registrar had no authority under
the Act of 1908 nor by virtue of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 read with Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to unilaterally cancel
the said deed; and consequently, registration of the Extinguishment Deed
by the Sub-Registrar amounts to playing fraud on the power vested in
the Authority under law. Exercise of power of registering a document
E
F
by the Sub-Registrar, in the present case, was ultra vires the relevant
G
provisions and the Constitution oflndia. Reference is then made to the
decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Pratap Sing/I vs.
State of Punjab' to hold that the respondent-Society had no authority to
re-allot the subject plot to respondent No.5 by cancelling the registered
7 AIR 1964 SC 72
H
42
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 12 S.C.R.
deed which has become absolute and been acted upon by the parties.
As a consequence of this conclusion, His Lordship held that the deed
executed in favour of respondent No.5 or for that matter respondent
Nos.6 and 7 was also void ab initio; and also because respondent No.5
could not be allotted the subject plot as her husband was already allotted
another plot by the same Society. His Lordship then went on to observe
that the appellant has got a valid Constitutional right over the said plot of
land as guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution oflndia and
could not be deprived of that property without authority of law. His
Lordship was of the view that merely because the Extinguishment Deed
_ could be challenged by approaching the Civil Court cannot denude the
appellant of the relief, as sought in the Writ Petition, qua the
Extinguishment Deed dated 9•h August 2001 which was void ab initio;
and for the same reason order could be passed against respondent No.5
to 7 - as the deeds in their favour rested on the Extinguishment Deed.
For that, His Lordship adverted to the dictum in the case of Aru11achalam
vs. P.S.R.&ullmmmtlmm & Anr.8 and Ga11ga Kumar Shrivastav vs.
State of Bi/1ar9• Further, having noticed that the septuagenarian appellant
had been litigating for last 14 years because of the untenable action of
the Society and also of the Sub-Registrar, affecting his valuable
Constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution oflndia, His
Lordship was of the opinion that the relief claimed by him in the Writ
Petition deserved to be granted. As regards the observation made by
this Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition No.13255/2012 vi de
order dated l 7'h July 2013, His Lordship held that the same will be of no
avail much less to denude the appellant of the reliefs due to him. His
Lordship then held that the compromise executed by the appellant on 6th
July 2004 also cannot denude the appellant of the relief - because it is an
admitted position that the respondent No.5 through Advocate had sent a
legal notice dated 12th July 2007 to rescind the said agreement and called
upon the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.6.50 Lakh received by
him with interest. His Lordship also adverted to the decisions of this
Court in CA G vs._K.S.Jaga1111atlu111 10; A11di M uklfi Sa(/guru Shree
Muktajee Va11das Swami Suvama Jayallli Malwtsav Smarak Trust
vs. V.R. Rudfmi" and Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Almuul lslwque12 to
'(1979) 2 sec 297
' c2oos) 6 sec 211
'° (1986) 2 sec 679
" (1989) 2 sec 691
"AIR 1955 SC 233
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
[A. M.