IMPORTANT POINT
There can be no transfer of any right, title or interest in any immoveable property except by way of a registered document (sale deed).

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the Judgment dated 02.04.2014 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 195 of 2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the Petitioner-appellant, (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”) was dismissed and the attachment order dated 14.12.2001, relating to flat No. 12, 5th Floor, New Shrinath Kunj, CHS Ltd, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai, 400056 was set aside and a further direction was given to enrol the respondent No.1 as member of the New Shrinath Housing Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”).

3. The undisputed facts are that the flat in question was owned by Shri Dhillon P. Shah. Mr. Shah and his wife Smt. Shivangi Shah were Directors of a Company known as M/s. Mahaganesh Texpro Private Limited. The Bank granted a cash credit facility of Rs. 2.25 crores to the Company. The Directors including Shri Dillon P. Shah and Smt. Shivangi P. Shah stood guarantee for the repayment of the cash credit facilities.

4. The Company did not repay the amount due to the Bank and finally on 30.08.2001 recovery certificate for an amount of Rs. 2,98,94,363/-along with interest was issued by the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and proceedings initiated for recovery of the amount from the Company and the guarantors. Demand notice was sent to the Company and also to Shri Dhillon P. Shah and Smt. Shivangi P. Shah on 12.12.2001. In the notice it was stated that the property of these persons including Flat No. 12/5 Gopal Bhuvan, New Shrinath Kunj Co-operative Housing Society Bapubhai Vash Road, Ville Parle (West) Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property) and another bungalow owned by Smt. and Shri Dhillon P. Shah, were to be attached and sold for recovery of the dues of the Bank. Both the properties including the suit property were attached. The bungalow was sold for a sum of Rs. 1.6 crores. That sale is subject matter of separate proceedings.

5. The attachment order was issued on 14.12.2001 and the same was served on Shri Dhillon P. Shah and his wife. They both challenged these attachment proceedings before various fora, but never took the objection that the suit property had already been sold or transferred. Mr. Dhillon P. Shah expired on 20.07.2004.

6. On 01.11.2004, Smt. Shivangi P. Shah, widow of late Shri Dhillon P. Shah, sent a letter to the Society requesting that duplicate share certificate be issued, since the original share certificate was not traceable. In this letter she made no mention of the attachment of the flat or of the fact that dues were payable to the bank. She sent another similar letter on 28.12.2004. Thereafter, on 28.12.2004, the respondent No.1 for the first time claimed ownership of the suit property and, under some amnesty scheme, paid the stamp duty payable on the agreement to sell the suit property.

7. On 20.01.2005, the respondent No.1 applied to the Society praying that he may be granted membership of the Society. This application was rejected by the Society vide letter dated 28.01.2005. In this letter it was clearly stated that neither late Shri Dhillon P. Shah nor Mrs. Shivangi P. Shah had informed the other members of the Society about the fact that they had transferred the flat. This, despite the fact that there had been several meetings between the members of the Society and Shri Dhillon P. Shah and his wife. The respondent No.1 was also informed that the flat had already been attached.

8. It was only thereafter, on 03.02.2005, the respondent No.1 filed objections under Rule 107 (19) (c) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 challenging the attachment order on the allegation that he had purchased the flat through agreement dated 04.10.1995 and was in possession of the same from 12.04.1996.

9. The respondent No.1 also challenged the decision of the Society refusing to grant him membership. The Deputy Registrar vide order dated 18.09.2006 allowed the appeal of the