MOHD JIYAWUL HAKH Vs. TRILONCHAN SINGH CHOPDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved with the order passed by the Joint Registrar Cooperative Socieites, Jabalpur in FA No.78-214/05 dated 30.12.2006, the appellant has preferred this second appeal u/s 78(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act").

(2.) FACTS of the case are that appellant has purchased plot bearing No. 16, KhasraNo. 63,64 measuring 40 x 60, situated in village Baitala, Tahsil and District Jabalpur settlement No.52 from one Shri Kemchand Jain S/o Shri Kundanlal Jain, by a registered sale-deed, who were the members of the respondent No. 2 society. The said Kemchand Jain had purchased this plot by registered sale-deed dated 9.3.1977 from the society. The appellant had obtained the possession of the said plot from Shri Kemchand Jain. Appellant had submitted an application before the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur alongwith the proposed map for raising construction on the said plot. However, permission was not granted to the appellant as the said society was illegal. Respondent No.2 society published General Notice dated 14.8.1998 and 6.9.1998 in the daily newspaper, 'Nav Bharat' informing the members of the society that those members who have not constructed the house within the stipulated time on the plots allotted to them by the society then they were directed to surrender their plots in favour of the society respondent No.2, so that these plots may be allotted to some other members. Thereafter vide order dated 29.10.1998 society forfeited the disputed plot to the appellant (Jiyawul Hakh) vide registered sale-deed dated 30.10.1998.

(3.) LEARNED Deputy Registrar returned the suit on the ground that the dispute filed by the respondent No. 1 does not come into the purview of section 64 of the Act and directed the respondent No. 1 to file a dispute before the competent Court, i.e., civil Court. Against this order plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed First Appeal No.78-214/05. Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies vide order dated 30.12.2006 allowed the appeal. Against this order, the appellant filed this second appeal.