JUDGMENT -D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Heard Mr. Naik for the petitioner and Mr. Deodhar for the respondent No. 1 society.

2.The society-respondent No. 1 filed a dispute against the present petitioner in respect of the terrace on the 7th floor of the building in Wing 'A'. That dispute came to be decided in favour of the society against which the petitioner filed an appeal, but the same was also dismissed. Hence, this petition.

3.It was contended by Mr. Naik that the petitioner has purchased from the original builder two bedroom flat on the 7th floor having an area of about 1000 sq.ft. and more along with a terrace appertaining to the said flat admeasuring about 1700 sq.ft. According to him the flat along with the terrace was purchased by the petitioner on 20-6-1966. He contended that the petitioner had proved the title to the said flat along with the terrace and since the flat had two doors opening into the terrace, the ownership of the terrace was required to be accepted in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of the security of her flat.

4.It was also contended by Mr. Naik that the dispute filed by the society against the petitioner did not fall within the ambit of section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as it was not a dispute between the society and its member because according to Mr. Naik the petitioner has purchased the flat in 1966 and he became a member of the society in 1968, therefore on the date of purchase of the flat the petitioner was not a member of the society and consequently, the dispute was not tenable before the Co-operative Court. He relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1970 Mh.L.J. 301(S.C.) Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. M/s Dalichan Jugraj Jain and others)1, in support of his contention. It was also contended by him that as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flat and Apartments Act, 1963, the builder had power to dispose of the terrace and as such there was no illegality in purchasing of the terrace by the petitioner. Lastly, it was also contended by him that the society could not prove its ownership over the terrace because the document of transfer executed by the builder in favour of the society was not registered.

5.On the other hand it was contended by Mr. Deodhar for the society respondent No. 1 that from the sale deed, Exhibit 'A', of the petition itself it was clear that the sale deed was only in respect of the flat initially but subsequently as an afterthought the same was included to cover the terrace. He also contended that all objections to the tenability of the dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is concerned, the same was rightly rejected by both the courts below.

6.So far as the first objection relating to maintainability of the dispute is concerned, the society was registered in 1962, the builder-promoter executed conveyance in favour of the society on 8-2-1963, the petitioner purchased the flat on 20-6-1966, she became member of the society in 1968 and the dispute was filed by the society in 1973.

7.Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act requires that the dispute should be there between the society and its members. It therefore means that the membership of the parties to the dispute has to be considered on the date of filing of the dispute. Earlier, when the petitioner purchased the property in 1966, she may not be a member but she became a member in 1968 and continued to be a member in 1973 when the dispute was filed and therefore whether the petitioner was a member in 1966 or not will be of no consequence and that factor cannot be of any help to the petitioner regarding her objection. Further, the society has filed the dispute in assertion of its right over the terrace. Admittedly, such a dispute is filed for protection of the interest of all its members. It is one of the objective of the formation of the co-operative society to protect the property of the society and to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document