A bench led by Justices Abhay S.Oka and Pankaj Mittal while dealing with a appeal challenging High Court order observed that: Mere living in a particular house by itself would not mean that the said house is under ownership of the person.
In this case, a cooperative society challenged the sale deal with one of the residents on the grounds that it violated by laws of the sale agreement.
The bye-laws of the society expressly mentioned that a residential plot can only be allotted if one lives or wishes to live in society’s area of operation but there was a condition attached that the person or his family must not hold any plot in the society’s area of operation.
The word “family” included wife, husband or dependent minor children.
When the society referred the case to the arbitrator, it was alleged that the plaintiff had a personal house in the society’s area of operation so he cannot purchase another plot.
The arbitrator thus held the sale needs null and void. The plaintiff further appealed in High Court through a writ petition against the arbitrator’s award.
Then the matter went into Supreme Court and it was found that the society didn’t have any evidence to support it its allegations and that the plaintiff has not violated any condition of the sale deed or the bye-laws of the society.
It was thus held that :
“Mere living in a particular house by itself would not mean that the said house is under ownership of the person living therein in his individual capacity or even that it is within the area of operation of the society”.
Case : Purshottam Bagh Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd v.Sri Shobhan Pal Singh and Anr.
Written by : Vidhi Mahajan , a BALLB Student from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and a Legal Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments