LAXMAN SHARMA Vs. MAJOR GEN S S PANTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved of the orders dated 6.12.1994 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indore in appeal No. 48/93, the appellants have filed this second appeal under the following circumstances.

(2.) APPELLANTS are members of the respondent No. 3 cooperative housing society and respondent No. 1 & 2 at the relevant time were its office bearers. Respondent No. 1 & 2 in an illegal manner sold plot No. 1 of the society to Major Pillai and executed registered sale deed in his favour. This plot as per approved plan of the society was to be kept vacant and was not at all meant for sale and raising construction thereon. Similarly there was no any plot No. 52-A in existence on land of the respondent No. 3 society. But the plot No. 52A of area of about 800 sq. ft. was illegally carved out by the respondent No. 1 & 2, contrary to the approved plan of the society and the same has been illegally sold to Col. Mehta and his wife. Mrs. Mehta is already owning a plot No. 52 of the respondent No. 3 society and as per Bye law No. 4 & 5 of the society she was not entitled to any other plot. Similarly, wife of Major Pillai is owning a plot, which has been sold by the respondent No. 3 society to her and therefore Major Pillai was also not entitled to any other plot.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 entered its appearance before the Dy. Registrar and filed his reply for the stay application of the appellants, filed under section 67 (1) of the Act. In this reply they have controverted all the facts as pleaded in the dispute and also raised objection that the appellants have no any right to raise such dispute. Dispute is also not covered under section 64 of the Act. They have also objected that in the absence of Major Pillai, Col. Mehta and his wife no any relief can be granted to the appellant. Appellants thereupon filed an application before the lower Court to implead these persons in the dispute case. Record of the Dy. Registrar shows that the notice on Major Pillai was served but he remain absent. No any notice was served on Col. Mehta and his wife.