Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – ‘NP’Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was in occupation of Flat No.7 in the building in the Co-operative Housing Society (Society-respondent No.7) as a tenant thereof – Dispute inter se parties pertains to Flat No.7 and the claim of the appellants for grant of membership of the society – Allegedly there was disinclination on the part of ‘NP’ to make the requisite contribution be admitted as a member thereof and he conveyed his intention to continue as a tenant of the Society – Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 795 of 2026 initiated steps for being admitted as members of the Society and filed an application before the Authorised Officer of the Society – However, the Authorised Officer informed the appellants that he was not empowered to take any policy decision and, therefore, could not decide the appellants’ application for membership – Appellants filed appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies u/s.23(2) – Deputy Registrar directed the Authorised Officer to convene a Special General Body Meeting (SGBM) of the Society for taking a decision on the appellants’ application for membership within thirty days – Appellants filed Revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar, allowed and the appellants were inter alia directed to be admitted as joint-members of the Society in respect of Flat No.7 – Challenged by three members of the erstwhile society (respondent Nos.1-3 herein), Writ Petition filed before the High Court – In the interregnum, the appellants conveyed the flat in question to one M/s. Capital Mind Advisory Services Private Limited (appellant in Civil Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No.36057 of 2025) – High Court partly allowed the writ petition:
Held: Peaceful possession and occupation of ‘NP’ and, thereafter, his legal heirs, i.e. the appellants in Civil Appeal 795 of 2026, over Flat No.7 has never been in question – The Society, in its AGM held on 30.09.2025, resolved to re-affirm the proceedings and decisions of the AGM dated 11.08.2005, and the membership of the appellants in Civil Appeal 795 of 2026 was accepted by the General Body as being legal and valid – Furthermore, it also accepted and approved the membership of M/s. Capital Mind Advisory Services Private Limited, in respect of Flat No.7 in its AGM held on 30.09.2025 – High Court, while allowing the writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1-3, reasoned that the Joint Registrar had acted in excess of his jurisdiction in directing the Authorised Officer of the society to grant membership to the appellants in Civil Appeal 795 of 2026 – However, such a conclusion cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that the appellants in the said appeal had initially approached the Authorised Officer of the society by way of an application seeking membership, which was refused on the ground that he did not have the jurisdiction to take policy decisions – It was only thereafter that the appellants in the said civil appeal availed of the statutory remedies of appeal and revision provided under the MCS Act, 1960 – Furthermore, in view of the decision taken by the General Body in the AGM dated 30.09.2025, the membership of the appellants in the said civil appeal has already been ratified – Hence, the reasoning adopted by the High Court is unsustainable in law and cannot be upheld – The entitlement of the appellants as members of the Society is recognized – Thus, the subsequent transfer of Flat No.7 in favour of M/s. Capital Mind Advisory Services Private Limited, by a registered Deed of Transfer and the consequential admission of the said transferee as a member of the Society, which has already been ratified by the General Body in its AGM held on 30.09.2025, must necessarily stand recognised in law – Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside to the extent of Para Nos.58 (ii) to (i). [Paras 42-46]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.