JUDGMENT 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of SA No. 52/08, (Haryana Nagar Grah Ninnan Sahakari Samstha Mydt., Indore v. Prahlad Kishore Mishra, Indore), SA No. 53/08 (Haryana Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samstha Mydt., Indore v. Smt. Kavita Mishra, Indore), and SA No. 54/08 (Haryana Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samstha Mydt., Indore v. Smt. Shilpa Mishra, Indore), as similar question of facts and law are involved. 2. Being aggrieved with the order dated 28.2.2008 passed by the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Indore in FA No. 130/07, the appellant has preferred this Second Appeal u/s 78 (2) of MP Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'). 3. Facts of the case are that the appellant society is a registered Cooperative Society. Respondent purchased plot No.18 from the society by registered sale deed dated 27.1.1984. In violation of the conditions of the Byelaw within the stipulated period, respondent failed to build a house on the said plot. Appellant society filed a dispute before Dy Registrar against the respondent seeking the relief of surrender of plot on the ground of non-construction within the stipulated period. Dy Registrar non-suited the appellant on the ground of jurisdiction. Appellant filed First Appeal, which was registered as FA No.130/07 before Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Indore. Joint Registrar dismissed this appeal vide order dated 28.2.2008. Against this order, appellant filed this Second Appeal. 4. Following substantial question of law were formulated: "Whether the Courts below have committed illegality in holding that the dispute filed by the appellant was not maintainable u/s 64 of the Act?" 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Saxena submits that appellant filed a dispute in the Court of Dy Registrar against the respondent, who is the member of the Society. Respondent purchased a plot by registered sale deed from the appellant, but as per the condition mentioned in the sale deed construction was not raised within the stipulated period. Appellant filed a dispute against respondent for surrender of the said plot in favour of the appellant. Dispute filed before Dy. Registrar was in respect of the business of the society. Hence, the provisions of sect ion 64 attracted in this matter and as dispute is between the society and the member of the society, Dy. Registrar was the only authority, who can adjudicate the dispute u/s 64 of the Act. Dispute filed before Dy. Registrar was in respect of the business of the society. Hence, the provisions of sect ion 64 attracted in this matter and as dispute is between the society and the member of the society, Dy. Registrar was the only authority, who can adjudicate the dispute u/s 64 of the Act. He placed reliance on Nagrik Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Jagdalpur and another v. Anil Kumar Mane, 2000 RN 343, wherein Hon'ble High Court has observed that, "sale deed of plot executed after allotment to its member by the society and same plot again disposed of in favour of another member then the nature of this dispute is covered by section 64 of the Act and no Civil Suit is maintainable." 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that transfer was conditional and due to non-compliance of the condition sale becomes voidable. Appellant is entitled to declaration of title and injunction. He placed reliance on Dev Raj (dead) through LRs v. Harbans Singh (dead), AIR 1996 SC 1566 . 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further relied on Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. M/s Daichand Jugraj Jain and others, AIR 1969 SC 1320 , wherein it is held that, the word, "business" in sub-section (1) of section 91 has been used in narrower sense and it means the actual trading or other similar business activity of the society which the society is authorized to enter into under the Act and the Rules and bye-laws. The nature of business which a society does can be ascertained from the objects of the society, it is difficult to subscribe to the proposition that whatever the society does or is necessarily required to do for the purpose of carrying out its objects can be said to be part of its business. We, however, agree that the word, "touching" is very wide and would include any matter which relates to or concerns the business of a society, but we are doubtful whether the word, "affects" should also be used in defining the scope of the word, "touching". It is not sufficient that there should be a dispute touching the business of the society. What is further required is this that the dispute must be between the society and its member, and proper emphasis has got to be laid upon the expression "member" used in this section. It is not sufficient that there should be a dispute touching the business of the society. What is further required is this that the dispute must be between the society and its member, and proper emphasis has got to be laid upon the expression "member" used in this section. The dispute must be between the society and the member, It must relate to a transaction in which the member must be interested 1S a member. 8. On the basis of the above citations, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the dispute was between the Cooperative Society and member of the society. Hence, only Cooperative Courts are competent to decide this matter. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain these types of suits. Dispute touches the constitution, management and business of the society, the exclusive jurisdiction to decide them vested with the Registrar/Dy. Registrar and the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit. 9. Refuting the aforesaid arguments the learned counsel for the respondent Shri Nimgaonkar submitted that respondent is still the owner and in possession of the disputed plot and the appellant does not get any right, title or interest on the said plot. The society exfacie had parted with its interest in the plot in dispute with the execution of the sale deed 27.1.1984. The transaction of sale of the plot stood complete with the registration of the sale deed. In case, this sale, deed was voidable its effectcotltd-onlybe1'aken-away by avoiding the same and getting it cancelled through a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. So long as a voidable sale deed is not cancelled, it continues to remain valid and effective. It is not the case of the appellant that the sale deed dated 27.1.1984 was void which could be ignored. Business of the society as has already been noticed herein above was to acquire the land and after carving out the plots sell them to its members for raising residential houses. In a case where the transaction of sale is claimed by the society to be voidable and further in all such cases where the relief claimed by the plaintiffs such which cannot be granted by the Registrar or any Forum contemplated under the Act, even in those cases the bar of section 84 of the Act cannot be said to have been attracted. Relief of cancellation and permanent injunction can only be granted by the civil Court. 10. In support of his contention he has relied on a judgment of our High Court in Rathan Singh v. Radhe Shyam and seven others passed in Appeal No. 218/98 judgment dated 23.4.1998. In this case the honourable High Court has held that the Registrar could not go beyond the scope of section 64 of the Act as jurisdiction conferred by this section only in relation to the nature of dispute mentioned therein. None of the clause under section 64 of the Act confer this jurisdiction upon the Registrar to decide the question to declare the sale deed as null and void, granting permanent injunction on the basis of easementary rights. This is cognizible only by the civil Court and the jurisdiction of civil Court is wider and general under section 9 of the CPC. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on two mote judgments of Hon'ble High Court which may usefully be referred hereunder: (i) Smt. Sunita Gupta v. Chandra Devi and others [1996 RN 361]. In this case it has been held that if the plot is transferred to the plaintiff again transfer to third person by same Cooperative Society, civil Court is not barred under section 82 of the Act and remedy under section 64 of the Act cannot be availed. (ii) Second case is reported in Dr. Kusum Verma and others v. Prietam Singh and others [1998 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 203 = 1998 (1) MPLJ 578]. In this case it has been held that the dispute in regard to invalidity of the sale deed and its cancellation on the ground of it being voidable can only be determined and adjudicated by the civil Court. Dispute relating to the transaction of sale can be referred to the Registrar only up to the stage anterior to the passing of title and not thereafter. 12. Initially in the plaint the relief of cancellation of sale deed was claimed, but later on during the pendency of second appeal, this relief of cancellation of sale deed was withdrawn byway of an1endrnent in the plaint. Now the question will again arise whether without claiming the relief of cancellation of registered sale deed the suit will be maintainable or not? 13. Now the question will again arise whether without claiming the relief of cancellation of registered sale deed the suit will be maintainable or not? 13. Looking to the facts of this case mere relief of declaration is not sufficient because the sale deed dated 27.1.1984 is voidable and not void. One cannot be permitted to snatch the jurisdiction of any forum by artistically drafting his plaint. It is the duty of the Court to see what actual relief the plaintiff wants from the Court. In this case mere declaration will not serve the purpose because sale deed is voidable. In Nagrik Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti case (supra), Hon'ble High Court has not considered the earlier view of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1996 RN 361 and 1998 (l) Vidhi Bhasvar 203 = 1998 (1) MPU 578. Relying on the earlier view of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1996 RN 361 and 1998 (l) Vidhi Bhasvar 203 = 1998 (l) MPU 578, I am of the view that Cooperative Court has no jurisdiction in this matter and the view taken by the Dy. Registrar and Joint Registrar is hereby confirmed. 14. However, taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and the nature of the claim as set forth in the plaint and in the appeal it is obvious that the dispute raised by the plaintiff cannot by any stretch of imagination be taken to be a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of the society. Only civil Court is competent to grant the relief claimed by the plaint. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and declaration as sought for by the plaintiff could not have been granted in any Forun1 provided under the Act. 15. Without cancellation of the earlier registered sale deed no relief can be granted to the plaintiff by the Court of Dy. Registrar and the relief of cancellation and permanent injunction can only be granted by the civil Court. Hence, as a result, what had been said above, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies dated 28.2.2008 in FA No. 130/07 is hereby confirmed. Record of the lower Court be returned along with the copy of this order. Hence, as a result, what had been said above, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies dated 28.2.2008 in FA No. 130/07 is hereby confirmed. Record of the lower Court be returned along with the copy of this order. Copy of this order be placed in the record of SA No. 52/08 (Haryana Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samstha Mydt., Indore v. Prahlad Kishore Mishra, Indore), SA No. 53/08 (Haryana Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samstha Mydt., Indore v. Smt. Kavita Mishra, Indore) and SA No.54/08 (Haryana Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samstha Mydt., Indore v. Smt. Shilpa Mishra, Indore). Parties to bear their own costs. C.C. as per rules.