- (1.) The plaintiff is in appeal before this court against the judgment of learned Additional District Judge (I), Faridabad dated 25.07.1985. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 01.02.1980 executed by Ravinder Mittal in respect of a plot measuring 500 square yards, situated in khasra No. 78 & 20 near Civil Hospital, Ballabgarh, detailed by boundaries in para No. 1 of the plaint is illegal and void abnitio and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove any construction found or proved to be over the plot or any part of the same. The plea of the plaintiff in this regard is that the defendant has got the sale deed executed through its own official named Ravinder Mittal for an ostensible sale price of Rs. 15,000/-. Mr. Ravinder Mittal is said to have no right or authority to do so. The plaintiff has even questioned the authority of the then committee of the Society to authorise the transfer or alienation of the suit property vide resolution dated 16.02.1979. It is further averred that no approval of the general body of the plaintiff or of elected committee or Managing committee was ever taken in this behalf. Ravinder Mittal is said to have secretly executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant. Claiming that the plaintiff is owner of the plot in dispute and that the defendant has fraudulently got a fake and sham document executed, the plaintiff had claimed the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction.
(2.) The defendant had resisted the suit and took various preliminary objections. The defendant questioned the maintainability of the suit in the present form. Valuation of the suit is also questioned. It has also been averred that the dispute between the two cooperative societies registered under Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and as such, civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Arbitration is pleaded to be the proper course for the parties to get their dispute resolved. The suit is also claimed to be bad for want of statutory notice. In reply on merits, it is admitted that the plaintiff was owner of the property in dispute. It is further averred that the sale deed was executed and got registered in favour of the defendant by the plaintiff by authorizing Ravinder Mittal by way of resolution dated 16.02.1979 passed by the Board of Directors. The sale deed is claimed to be legal and valid. The other averments of the plaintiff are denied. The plaintiff is claimed to be estopped from filing the present suit. It is further averred that the suit for mandatory injunction or declaration is not maintainable as the plaintiff at present is neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property. The suit is consequently prayed to be dismissed.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court on 06.01.1982:- 1- Whether the impugned sale of the suit land vide sale deed dated 1.2.1980 is wrong, illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff on the grounds alleged? OPP 2- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as claimed OPP 3- Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4- Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit? OPD 5- Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit? OPD 6- Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 7- Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD 8- Whether the suit is liable to be stayed and the matter is liable to be referred to arbitration, as alleged? OPD 9- Whether the suit is bad for want of notice? OPD 10-Relief.;