Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 –s.91 – First Respondent (the disputant), an employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) opted for Plot No.2 in the Cooperative Housing Society, meant principally for such employees– Allegedly, in terms of seniority, she was entitled to be allotted the said Plot, however it was illegally allotted to the appellant – Interim order passed by the Cooperative Court injuncting the Society from making any allotment in respect of Plot No.2– Despite the order, registered sale deed executed by the Society in favour of the appellant – Plea of the Society that it was the husband of the disputant who was the original depositor and that she had attended the meeting dtd. 18.12.88 not in her own capacity but as representative of her husband – Cooperative Court inter alia found that the the disputant could not claim to be the Member/deemed Member of the Society and thus, was not entitled to any relief, however, her husband was entitled to get sale deed executed after getting all the formalities completed – Cooperative Appellate Court held that the Disputant was senior Member of the Society as against the appellant and was entitled to Plot No.2 opted by her – High Court affirming the findings of the Appellate Court inter alia held that the allotment of plot in favour of the appellant was illegal and directed the Society to follow the procedure in accordance with law for allotment of the plot – Held: In view of the fact that the Disputant was an employee of LIC and had admittedly deposited Rs.4,750/-, her status was clearly that of Depositor –Thus, in the face of such admission and the findings rendered by the Courts below, the Disputant was a Depositor of the Society and like all other Depositors was entitled to and had attended the meeting dtd.
18.12.88 in her own right – At no stage the husband of the Disputant claimed that he was the Depositor in his own right and entitled to allotment of any Plot – Money deposited by all the Depositors including the Disputant helped the Society to have the requisite land whereafter the Plots could be carved and allotted to the concerned members – On the other hand, at no stage the Appellant made any such contribution – He was neither present in the meeting dtd.18.12.88 nor had he submitted any application along with requisite fees – Disputant opted for Plot No.2 and as on that date there was nobody else apart from the Disputant who opted for the said plot – These aspects of the matter be taken into account by the authorities while acting in terms of the direction issued by the High Court and the allotment be restricted to those who exercised their option as on 18.12.88 and were not otherwise allotted any plot and had not accepted such allotment.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the face of the admitted position that she had deposited Rs.4750/- and the findings rendered by the Courts below, it has to be concluded that the Disputant was a Depositor of the Society and like all other Depositors was entitled to and had attended the meeting dated 18.12.1988 in her own right. At no stage the husband of the Disputant claimed that he was the Depositor in his own right and entitled to allotment of any Plot. Further, it is not the case of the Disputant and her husband that over and above the entitlement of the Disputant, her husband is also entitled to an additional Plot. The submission was always that there was only one entitlement, in exercise of which the option was given for Plot No.2. If between the husband and wife, the claim has always been only with respect to one entitlement, it really made no difference whether the Disputant attended the relevant meeting in her own right or as a representative of her husband. The fact of the matter is, an option was exercised in favour of Plot No.2 and the issue is whether such option ought to have been allowed and accepted or not. The communications addressed by the Society were, normally in printed format where the name of the addressee would be written after the printed prefixes “Mr./Mrs.” and many such communications were addressed to “Mr./Mrs. Makhija”. The record also shows that some meetings were attended by the Disputant while some were attended by her husband. But, considering the facts that the Disputant was an employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India and had deposited Rs.4,750/-, her status was clearly that of a Depositor. It is a matter of record that the Depositors had collectively raised funds with the help of which, the consideration for purchase of the land over which the layout was to be formed, could be arranged. All the required and incidental expenses thus came from the funds raised by the Depositors and to that extent the Disputant had definitely made her contribution. The money deposited by all the Depositors including the Disputant had thus helped the Society to have the requisite land whereafter the Plots could be carved and allotted to the concerned members. On the other hand, at no stage the Appellant had made any such contribution. [Paras 22-24] [816-G-H; 817-A-F]
1.2 It is accepted that the Appellant was neither present in the meeting dated 18.12.1988 nor had he submitted any application along with requisite fees. It is also accepted that he had not deposited anything by way of deposit with the Society before or on 18.12.1988, with the help of which the land could be purchased by the Society. It is true that the tenor of the Resolution passed by the depositors on 24.06.1984 shows that no depositor was willing to take a bigger Plot but that resolution was passed in the year 1984 and it was four years thereafter that the day had arrived for exercise of choices or options. For the employees of Life Insurance Corporation it may be that the Depositors at an earlier stage were not in a position to arrange requisite funds and if the Society had to depend upon funding from an outsider, on the strength of such resolution, the Society could have garnered the requisite finances from an outsider. But the facts on record disclose that no such funding from any outsider was required to arrange the requisite finance towards consideration for purchase of land. If no outsider had contributed in any manner there is no reason why a Plot could be reserved for such an outsider disregarding the claim of a Depositor with the help of whose money the Society had reached the stage where the Plots could be allotted to the concerned. In a situation where none of the other Depositors had even made a claim with respect to Plot No.2 and if the Disputant had exercised such option, the Plot had to be allotted to the Disputant. No outsider could have had a better claim as against any Depositor as regards to that Plot. As on 18.12.1988, the Appellant had not even submitted his application form for membership whereas all the Depositors including the Disputant had submitted such forms along with requisite fees for membership. Even on this count, the claim of the Disputant stands on a better footing as against the Appellant. [Paras 25, 26] [817-G-H; 818-A-E]
1.3 It was accepted by the then Secretary in his crossexamination that:- a) the Appellant had not paid any amount towards the cost of shares of the Society and admission fee towards membership of the Society at any time before or on 18.12.1988. b) the notice calling the meeting dated 18.12.1988 had not mentioned that choice to be exercised by the Depositors was restricted to plots other than Plot Nos. 1 and 2. It was also accepted by the counsel for the Appellant that neither any invitation was received by the Appellant to attend the meeting nor did the Appellant attend the meeting and no payment was made by the Appellant before 18.12.1988. No document was produced or relied upon to say that there was any allotment of Plot Nos.1 and 2 in favour of anybody before the meeting was actually held on 18.12.1988. [Paras 27-29] [818-F-H; 819-A-B]
1.4 In the circumstances, the conclusions drawn by the High Court that the allotment of Plot No.2 in favour of the Appellant was illegal and that the Resolution passed by the Society in its meeting dated 25.03.1990 and the sale deed executed by the Society on 25.04.1989 were required to be quashed, are absolutely correct and fully justified. As regards other conclusions drawn by the High Court, anything need not be said as the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed by the Disputant was disposed of by this Court on 15.01.2016. The Disputant was a Depositor of the Society; that she was entitled to attend the meeting dated 18.12.1988 in her own right; that she had preferred requisite application for membership and had paid requisite fees on 18.12.1988 itself; that she had opted for Plot No.2 and as on that date there was nobody else apart from the Disputant who opted for said Plot No.2. These aspects of the matter shall be taken into account by the concerned authorities while acting in terms of direction (v) issued by the High Court which are quoted by us in para 15 and the allotment shall be restricted to those who had exercised their option as on 18.12.1988 and were not otherwise allotted any plot and had not accepted such allotment. [Paras 30-33] [819-E-H; 820-A-B] Sujata Tarachand Makhija vs. Shivkishan and Ors. Order of Supreme Court dated 15.01.2016 in
SLP(C)No.136 of 2016 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.