Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vishwabharti Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Limited, a cooperative housing society, challenged the judgments and orders of the Cooperative Court and the Cooperative Appellate Court which directed it to execute a transfer deed and deliver possession of Plot No.14 from its layout in Khasra No. 45/4 of Mouza Manewada in favour of the respondent, Vinayak Shankarrao Parkhe. The dispute originated in Dispute Case No. 476/1990 under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The Cooperative Court, by judgment dated 11.07.1994, directed the society to execute the necessary transfer deed and give possession upon payment of requisite amount on par with other members. The society's appeal under Section 97 of the Act was dismissed by the Cooperative Appellate Court at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, on 30.09.2005. The society then filed the present writ petition. The main contention of the society was that the respondent was a permanent resident of Madhya Pradesh, not of Nagpur, and his name was not included in the list of members. However, the trial court had referred to a membership list marked as Article-A and an allotment letter dated 16.01.1984 marked as Article-B, which were not proved. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, noted that the matter was listed for admission and interim orders on 06.08.2012, and a detailed order was passed. The court observed that the Cooperative Court and Appellate Court had concurrently found in favour of the respondent based on the evidence. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no perversity in the findings and no interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Dispute under Section 91 - Membership and Allotment - The Cooperative Court and Appellate Court concurrently found that the respondent was a member and entitled to allotment of Plot No.14 based on documentary evidence including membership list (Article-A) and allotment letter (Article-B). The High Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction as findings were not perverse. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of the Cooperative Court and Appellate Court directing the petitioner society to execute a transfer deed and deliver possession of Plot No.14 to the respondent.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the judgments of the Cooperative Court and Appellate Court.
Law Points
- Cooperative Court jurisdiction under Section 91
- Section 97 appeal
- concurrent findings not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction
- membership and allotment letters as evidence
