The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of following prescribed procedures for membership transfer, the evidentiary value of executed documents, and the consideration of party conduct in determining membership disputes.

1. Heard Mr. Warunjikar for the Petitioners, Mr. L.H. Patil for Respondent No.2 and Learned AGP for Respondent No.3. No one has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 1 though duly served.

2. The controversy involved in this petition is very narrow. Respondent No.1 is the Society registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is also admitted position that prior to its registration, the Petitioner was one of the promoter members. List of members was approved by the Director of Fisheries. It is revealed from the record that on 9th April, 1986 an agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 whereby Petitioner agreed to transfer all his shares and interests in the Society in favour of Respondent No.2. An affidavit to that effect was sworn by the Petitioner. On 10th April, 1986, an application was also submitted by the Petitioner to the Respondent No.1 Society indicating that instead of and in place of the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 should be admitted as a member of Respondent No.1 Society. There is no dispute about signing of this application and about the fact that Respondent No.2 had also submitted an application for being admitted as a member of the Society. The Society was registered on 11th June, 1987. It also appears that a sum of Rs.10,000/-was paid by the Respondent No.2 through cheque issued by his father to the Society for the contribution of price for acquiring the land and that amount was utilised by the Society.

3. Since the Society did not formerly admit the Respondent No.2 as a member, Respondent No.2 filed an Appeal No. 7 of 1991 under Section 23 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies in which the Respondent No.1 Society was impleaded as a Respondent. The Respondent No.1 Society filed a detailed reply and accepted that on 9th April 1986 and 10th April 1986, the Petitioner had submitted his affidavit and application to the Chief Promoter of the Society. Only defence which was taken was that subsequently on 16th August 1987, a resolution was passed by the Managing Committee and General Body of the Society that the promoter member should not be replaced and that is the only reason for not admitting Respondent No.2 as a member.

4. By Judgment and order dated 15th October, 1992, the Learned Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society (Co-operative Cell) Mumbai Housing and Regional Board, Mumbai allowed the appeal filed by Respondent No.2. Aggrieved by this order, Respondent No.1 filed a revision application under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies being the Revision Application No.252 of 1992. The Petitioner filed an application for intervention in the Revision Application and was accordingly allowed to be added as a Respondent in the Revision Application. The Petitioner also filed his own affidavit in Revision Application supporting the Revision Application. It was contended by the Petitioner that the Respondent No.2 allegedly played fraud on him and that Respondent No.2 had allegedly obtained his signature on the affidavit dated 9th April 1986 and application dated 10th April 1986 by playing a fraud. The Petitioner also contended that he had never desired to transfer his membership. It was contended that he had received certain amount from the Respondent No.2 which was sought to be refunded by the Petitioner but Respondent No.2 did not accept the said refund.

5. At the time of hearing of the Revision Application, Advocate Mr. T.K. Patil appeared on behalf of the Applicant therein (Respondent No.1 Society herein). Advocate Mangela appeared for Respondent No. 2 herein. Advocate Sawant, who had been engaged by the Petitioner was, however, absent and, hence, his junior Advocate More requested for an adjournment. The Divisional Joint Registrar however, declined the request as the matter was old and proceeded to hear