The High Court on Tuesday directed a House Building Cooperative Society (HBCS) that had allotted a single site to two different persons, to pay Rs one lakh to the second purchaser who lost rights over the site...
The Court also held the Society liable to bear the litigation costs of the two contesting purchasers.
Justice A C Kabbin passed this order while dismissing an appeal filed by V Aruna, second purchaser of a site in a layout formed by Manjunatha House Building Cooperative Society(HBCS) in Srinivasanagar, Bangalore. Appellant had challenged a 1999 civil court order directing Gowramma to give vacant possession of a site she had purchased in 1981. Gowramma, a resident of Rajajinagar, who was found to have purchased it in 1978 from the same Society. Gowramma had filed a suit in 1985 after she had found Aruna residing in a small house put up on the site.
However, Court observed that the HBCS had remained away from court hearings without terming any of the two claimants as the real purchaser or denying either of the two sale deeds.
Non existent site
“The act of the Society in selling a non-existent site to the appellant making her to believe that the property of the plaintiff Gowramma was the property sold to her, requires that Society compensates her suitably,” Court observed and ordered the Society to pay Rs one lakh to Aruna, provided she paid requisite court fee in civil court, within six months.
Inherent powers
In course of the judgement, HC opined that Courts can use their inherent powers under section 151 Civil Procedure Code for providing equitable remedy to an aggrieved party in such cases, despite absence of a specific prayer seeking such relief.
Justice Kabbin observed: “In such civil suits, Court will not normally consider granting an equitable relief unless sought for it. But in cases like present one, there is no need to drive the aggrieved party to file another suit to recover the damages suffered.
Court finds that claim of one party is genuine and alienation in favour of the other by the HBCS is to dupe that person.” Court can, in appropriate cases, by exercising inherent power, direct to make good the loss, notwithstanding that no such prayer is made by the duped party, in the suit.” “It is also time that State Government must think of introducing a legislation to curb such menace,” The judge added.
