Summary and Analysis of Machhindranath v. Ramchandra & Ors. (2025 INSC 795)

Case Details:

2025 INSC 795 (Supreme Court of India)
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

1. Background of the Case

• Parties:
  Appellants: Legal Representatives (LRs) of Machhindranath (original plaintiff).
  Respondents: Ramchandra Dhamne (defendant no.1) and subsequent purchasers (defendant no.2’s LRs).

• Key Dispute:
  Ownership of agricultural land (Survey No.30, 15.17 acres) in Kendal Bk., Maharashtra.
  Machhindranath (plaintiff) mortgaged the land to a cooperative society in 1969 for a loan.
  In 1971, he executed a registered sale deed in favor of his nephew/son-in-law (defendant no.1) for ₹5,000, with an unregistered reconveyance agreement ("Ram Ram Patra").
  In 1972, defendant no.1 sold 10 acres to defendant no.2 for ₹30,000.
  Plaintiff sued in 1973, claiming the sales were void under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Sections 47–48), as the society’s charge was not cleared.

2. Key Legal Questions

1. Whether the sale deeds (1971 and 1972) were void under Sections 47(3) and 48(e) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for lack of society’s permission.

2. Whether the subsequent release of charge (1973) by the society validated the sales retrospectively.

3. Whether the reconveyance agreement created enforceable rights for the plaintiff.

4. Whether defendant no.2 was a bona fide purchaser.

3. Supreme Court’s Analysis

A. Voidability of Sales under Sections 47–48

• Section 48(d) bars alienation of charged land without repaying the society’s dues.

• Section 48(e) declares such alienations void.

• Court’s View:
  The 1971 and 1972 sales violated Section 48(d) as the society’s charge was active.
  However, voidability is enforceable only by the society, not the plaintiff (Sindav Hari Ranchhod v. Jadev Lalji Jaymal).
  The society never challenged the sales and later released the charge (1973), protecting defendant no.2’s bona fide purchase.

B. Reconveyance Agreement ("Ram Ram Patra")

• Plaintiff argued the 1971 sale was a conditional sale (loan transaction).

• Court’s Rejection:
  The agreement was unregistered, unstamped, and lacked terms (timeframe, interest).
  Plaintiff never attempted to repay ₹5,000 or demand reconveyance.

C. Bona Fide Purchaser (Defendant No.2)

• Defendant no.2 bought the land based on registered title (1971 sale deed).

• No evidence of knowledge about the society’s charge or the reconveyance agreement.

D. Plaintiff’s Conduct

• The plaintiff concealed encumbrances in the 1971 sale deed.

• Legal Maxim Applied: Ex injuria sua nemo habere debet (no one can benefit from their own wrong) (Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar).

4. Conclusion and Directions

• Judgment: Appeal dismissed.
  Sales not void ab initio (only voidable at society’s instance).
  Plaintiff’s claim for reconveyance rejected due to lack of evidence and unclean hands.

• Key Precedents Cited:
  Sindav Hari Ranchhod (voidability under cooperative laws).
  Dhurandhar Prasad Singh (void vs. voidable transactions).
  Kusheshwar Prasad Singh (no benefit from one’s own wrong).