The Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of a cooperative court’s decree for specific performance, ruling that subsequent unauthorized constructions and unapproved plot mergers do not render a decree inexecutable. The Court directed the removal of obstructing structures to facilitate the allotment and delivery of vacant possession to the decree-holder, affirming the executability of the award.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, Southern Nagpur Co-operative Society Limited, was directed by the Cooperative Court in a 2000 award to allot Plot No. 5A to its member, respondent Ganpati Yadavrao Kumbhare, a decree upheld in subsequent appeals. During execution proceedings, the appellant society objected, claiming the plot had lost its identity as it was merged with adjoining Plots 4 and 4A in 1985, and that sanctioned constructions now existed on the consolidated land, making execution impossible. The Executing Court accepted this objection in 2011. However, the District Appellate Court reversed this decision in 2015, finding the merger was never duly approved, the constructions were unauthorized, and the decree remained executable. The High Court dismissed the society’s revision in 2017, imposing costs. Before the Supreme Court, the society and intervening shop owners argued the decree was inexecutable due to the changed circumstances and third-party rights. The respondent contended the plot was largely open, the merger was invalid, and obstructing constructions could be removed. The Supreme Court, examining a photographic evidence showing an open plot with only a covered passage, held the decree enforceable and directed the removal of the non-integral structure to deliver vacant possession of Plot 5A to the respondent.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case commenced with the dispute being adjudicated by the Cooperative Court, Nagpur, which passed an award in favor of the respondent in 2000. This award was subsequently upheld by the Cooperative Appellate Court in 2002. The appellant’s writ petition to the High Court was disposed of in 2006, granting liberty to raise executability objections before the Executing Court. The Executing Court sustained these objections and closed proceedings in 2011. The respondent successfully appealed this order before the District Judge in 2015. The appellant’s Civil Revision before the High Court was dismissed with costs in 2017, and its review petition was rejected in 2019. The matter culminated in appeals before the Supreme Court, which were disposed of with specific directions in 2025.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Clarifies: Trustees Can Be Sued for Dishonored Cheques, Even If Trust Is Not Named as Accused
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that a substantial portion of the disputed Plot No. 5A remained open and unoccupied, as evidenced by the photographic record relied upon by both parties. It noted that the only construction on the plot was a covered passage, which was not integral to the main building and whose existence was not in dispute. The Court held that such an unauthorized obstruction could not render a valid decree inexecutable. It further clarified that the rights of intervening shop owners, who were occupants of the adjoining Plots 4 and 4A and not the subject plot, would remain unaffected by the order. Consequently, the Court found no infirmity in the High Court’s decision and directed the removal of the covered passage to facilitate the allotment and delivery of vacant possession to the decree-holder.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals and upheld the order of the High Court. It directed the appellant Society to forthwith remove the covered passage constructed on Plot No. 5A, as it was not an integral part of the main building. Upon such removal, the Society was ordered to allot Plot No. 5A and deliver clear and vacant possession to the respondent, thereby enforcing the original cooperative court decree. The Court clarified that this direction would not affect the rights or possession of the intervening shop owners occupying the adjoining Plots 4 and 4A. All pending applications, including those for intervention, were disposed of accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Title: The Southern Nagpur Co-operative Society Limited Vs. Ganpati Yadavrao Kumbhare and Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 1226 Civil Appeal No: (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 22904-22905 of 2019) Date of Judgement: October 09, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Download The Judgement Here