Prafulla Nikhilesh Jhaveri Thr. Poa Shishir Prahladrai Nevatia v. The Divisional Joint Registrar Of Co-Op Soc. Mumbai And ORS

Urmila Ingale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date:

2021.08.06 10:33:39 +0530 URMILA PRAMOD INGALE WRIT PETITION NO. 3174 OF 2021 Prafulla Nikhilesh Jhaveri .... Petitioner Vs.

The Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mumbai and ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Shailendra S. Kanetkar i/b Mr.Rahul Soman & Mr.Shon Gadgil, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr.Vikram Garewal & Mr.Nikhil Apte i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co., for Respondents No.4 & 5. Smt. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondent - State. CORAM :

M. S.KARNIK, J.

DATE :

05th AUGUST, 2021 P.C. :

.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The order impugned in this Petition is passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies dismissing the revision fled by the Petitioner against the order passed by Deputy Registrar. Respondents No.4 & 5 approached the Deputy Registrar by fling an application under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ( for short 'the Act') for membership in 1/4

respect of Respondent No.3 - Society. Briefy stated it is the case of the Respondents No. 4 & 5 that they along with one Ishwarlal Patel, father of the Petitioner are the co-owners of the suit property in question. Ishwarlal Patel died. It is the case of the Petitioner that she is also a co-owner of the suit property and to support this contention, reliance is placed on agreement dated 29/01/1992 at Exhibit A. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further invited my attention to the declaration at page 137 reiterating this fact.

2.

An application was made by Respondents No. 4 & 5 to the Deputy Registrar for membership of the Respondent No.3 - Society. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that without impleading the Petitioner as party respondent, the application was made. The Petitioner contends that even the Petitioner is entitled to become a joint member along with Respondents No.4 & 5. The Deputy Registrar on the basis of the materials produced, granted membership to Respondents No.4 & 5 under section 23 of the Act. In revision fled before the Divisional Joint Registrar by the Petitioner, application for leave to be impleaded was made which came to be allowed. It is the contention of Shri Kanetkar that in these circumstances, the Divisional Joint Registrar should have remitted the matter to the Deputy 2/4

Registrar as order passed by the Deputy Registrar was behind the back of the Petitioner who was a necessary party. 3.

I have gone through the order passed by the Deputy Registrar. Shri Khandeparkar on behalf of Respondents No.4 & 5 submits that he does not dispute that Ishwarlal Patel is a coowner along with Respondents No.4 & 5 and therefore so far as the membership rights of Ishwarlal Patel is concerned, the Respondents No.4 & 5 have no objection, however, Ishwarlal Patel now is no more. It is submitted by Shri Khandeparkar that on the basis of the Will, the Petitioner must obtain probate or at least some family settlement should be produced on record so that the Respondents No.4 & 5 will not have any objection acknowledging the Petitioners ownership and right to become a member. Nonetheless, Respondents No.4 & 5 admit coownership of Ishwarlal Patel. 4.

Considering these facts, I do not propose to interfere with the impugned order for what has been done by the Authorities is that the claim of the Respondents No.4 & 5 who are admittedly co-owners of the property has been accepted and they are admitted as members. Even Petitioner does not dispute 3/4

the right of the Respondents No.4 & 5 to be admitted as member but wants her name also to be included as a member. So far as the Petitioner is concerned, if it is the contention of the Petitioner that she is a co- owner along with Respondent No.5 or in her capacity as legal heir of the Ishwarlal Patel, it is always open for the Petitioner to apply to the Society for membership. If such an application is made, undoubtedly, Society shall consider the application on its own merits after considering the documents which are produced by the Petitioner in support of her claim. Learned Counsel for Respondents No.4 & 5 reiterated that Respondents No.4 & 5 admit the co-ownership of Ishwarlal Patel and that they would not in any manner deal with the share of Ishwarlal Patel in the suit property.

5.

Keeping all contentions of the Petitioner open, the Society shall consider the application for membership made on behalf of the Petitioner without being infuenced by what is observed in the impugned orders. Subject to what is observed hereinabove, the impugned orders are not interfered with. Writ Petition is disposed of.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) 4/4