A subsequent sale by unauthorised office-bearers is void after a valid prior conveyance.

The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of Site No. 86 under a registered sale deed dated 19 April 1985, executed by Mallappa and Munivenkatappa as President and Secretary of the Association.

The defendant claimed the same site under a later sale deed dated 27 December 1989, executed by Rangaswamappa and Varadaraju on the Association’s behalf, and relied on a possession certificate.

Following proceedings concerning competing factions of the Association, the Registrar of Societies’ order dated 2 March 2002 recognised the Mallappa–Munivenkatappa faction as the genuine office bearers; the High Court treated that order as final.

The trial court declared the plaintiff owner in possession, held the defendant’s deed void and liable to be cancelled, granted an injunction, and dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim.

The defendant appealed under Section 96 CPC and also sought, by an application under Section 151 CPC, an order directing the BDA to produce site-release documents.

The appeal was considered under Section 96 CPC and Order XLI Rule 1 CPC; the application for production of BDA documents invoked Section 151 CPC.

The Court applied the principle that title follows possession and referred to Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act in holding that the rights of purchasers under the earlier deeds were protected.

It also relied on the Registrar of Societies’ final determination identifying the genuine office bearers of the Association as relevant to their authority to execute the deeds.

The Court found that the Association, through the office bearers recognised by the Registrar, had conveyed the site to the plaintiff in 1985.

As the later deed was executed by persons who were not the Association’s genuine office bearers, and the property had already been conveyed, they had no authority to transfer it to the defendant.

The Court also relied on the BDA’s 1994 resolution, which cancelled the release of 50 sites to Rangaswamappa and ordered their release to purchasers under deeds executed by Mallappa and Munivenkatappa; it considered that resolution consistent with protecting the plaintiff’s rights under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act.

The Court rejected the defendant’s document-production application because she had not shown prior efforts to obtain the documents from the BDA or an endorsement that the BDA had refused to provide them.

It upheld the plaintiff’s title and possession and found no basis to disturb dismissal of the counterclaim.

The trial court’s decree—including the declaration that the plaintiff was owner in possession, the determination that the defendant’s 1989 deed was void and liable to be cancelled, the injunction, and dismissal of the counterclaim—was left undisturbed.