Prior allotment and possession prevail over later transferee claims; subsequent possession cannot defeat vested title or liquidator's recovery rights.

Valid allotment and possession documents issued under the society's prescribed procedure were treated as sufficient to establish the company's title to Shop No. 103, and a transferor who had already parted with that interest could not later create a better title in a third party. A subsequent allotment, possession claim, or collateral arrangement in favour of another person was therefore ineffective against the company's prior vested rights. Actual possession alone did not confer ownership where no valid title flowed from the true owner. The liquidator, representing the company's interest, was entitled to recover possession, and the later transferee could not resist that claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the allotment letter and possession certificate issued in favour of the company established its title to Shop No. 103. (ii) Whether the subsequent allotment and possession in favour of the respondent could override the company's prior title and justify refusal of possession to the Official Liquidator.

Issue (i): Whether the allotment letter and possession certificate issued in favour of the company established its title to Shop No. 103.

Analysis: The society's rules required allotment through the prescribed procedure, which had been followed. The allotment letter and possession certificate issued to the company were not challenged as fabricated or invalid. Once the company was constituted the person entitled to the office under those documents, the transferor had no further right to deal with the property. The Court applied the principle that a person cannot transfer a better title than he has, and held that the existence of a later agreement describing the property as collateral security could not defeat the earlier completed allotment in favour of the company.

Conclusion: The company had established title to Shop No. 103, and the transferor had no subsisting right to create a further interest in it.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent allotment and possession in favour of the respondent could override the company's prior title and justify refusal of possession to the Official Liquidator.

Analysis: The respondent's possession and later documents were treated as irrelevant against the prior title already vested in the company. The Court held that actual possession does not confer ownership where the possessor derives no valid title from the true owner. The later arrangement entered into by the same controlling persons was viewed as collusive and ineffective against the company's prior rights. Accordingly, the respondent could not rely on subsequent possession to resist the Official Liquidator's claim.

Conclusion: The respondent had no right, title or interest superior to the company's prior title, and possession was ordered to be handed over to the Official Liquidator.

Final Conclusion: The Official Liquidator's claim to the property was upheld, the subsequent transfer was treated as ineffective, and the respondent was required to surrender possession. The report was disposed of by granting the relief sought by the liquidator.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a society or developer has validly allotted property and issued possession in accordance with its governing procedure, the transferor cannot later confer a better title on a third party, and a later transferee in possession cannot defeat the prior vested rights of the original allottee or the liquidator representing it.

---