SHANTIBAI KHARE Vs. S R SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.8.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No.8-A/2002, by the XII Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2001, passed in Civil Suit No.15-A/2001, by the VII Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of this Second Appeal in short are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the Civil Suit for declaration that the disputed plots No. G-10 to G-12, situated on the land of Khasra No.156 and 160 Badanpur, Jabalpur, were purchased by the respondent No.1/ plaintiff from the Sainik Grah Nirman Samiti, a registered Co-operative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as Housing Society for brevity), the respondent No.2 by a registered sale deed. The said plots were transferred by a subsequent sale deed in favour of appellant and respondent No.3. It was contended that such a sale deed were not binding on the respondent No.1/plaintiff, therefore, the title of the respondent No.1/plaintiff over the disputed plots be declared and a decree of permanent injunction be granted in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

(3.) The written statement was filed by the Housing Society, the respondent No.2 herein, which was the defendant No.1 before the trial Court to the effect that the respondent No.1/plaintiff was required to make the construction of a house over the plot purchased by him within a period of three years and at the best the said period could have been extended by two more years on an application made by the plot holders. It was contended that since the house was not constructed within the said period, the matter was referred to the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, who cancelled the sale deeds in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff, granted permission to resell the plots and, therefore, the sale deeds were executed in favour of the appellant and respondent No.3 herein by the Housing Society. It is contended that in view of such a fact, the respondent No.1/plaintiff was not entitled to any decree and the suit was liable to be dismissed.