1. This appeal is by original defendant nos.7 and 8 from Special Civil Suit No.130 of 1979 filed by respondent nos.1 and 2. The respondent no.1 is dead and he is represented in this matter through his legal heirs. The suit was filed against the cooperative housing society Paramount Apartments, and its managing committee as defendant nos.1 and 2, builder promoter defendant nos.3 and 4, Secretary of defendant no.2, defendant no.5 and one G.H. Shaikh (Defendant no.6) to whom the suit flat was allotted. He was found dead and his legal heirs defendant no.7 and 8 were added. According to the plaintiffs, by virtue of allotment dated 31.12.1973 defendant nos.3 and 4 agreed to allot to them Flat No.A5 of 790 sq.ft area in the proposed building to be constructed as 'Paramount Apartments.' The agreed price was Rs.53,975/-. Out of the same a sum of Rs.34,245/- was given by the plaintiffs to defendant no.4 who received it on behalf of defendant no.3 and gave allotment letter. The plaintiffs claimed that they through brother of the plaintiff no.2, occupied the suit flat no.A5 since 18.3.1978. Thereafter, defendant nos.3 and 4 started committing irregularities and/or fraud by allotment of flats to several persons. Then the flat holders formed a cooperative society which was in the hands of the managing committee i.e. defendant no.1 of which defendant no.5 was the Secretary. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on 18.9.1979 defendant no.5 with the help of defendant nos.1 and 2 forcibly entered the flat and removed the articles of the plaintiffs and dispossessed the caretaker Mr. Francis Pinto brother of plaintiff no.2. Thereafter, the defendant nos. 3 and 4 in collusion with defendant nos.1 and 2 created interest in respect of the flat in favour of defendant no.6. Mr. Francis Pinto lodged a criminal complaint against these illegalities at the police station. The plaintiffs sought membership of defendant no.1 which was declined by defendant nos.1 and 2. The plaintiffs approached the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies who held that the plaintiffs should obtain necessary relief from Civil Court and thereafter membership issue can be determined. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and filed the suit for following reliefs :

(a) A declaration and confirmation of allotment of flat no.A5 to the plaintiff no.1;

(b) A declaration that the defendant no.3 have unlawfully notified or withheld notifying allotment of the flat;

(c) A declaration that the plaintiffs are valid members of defendant no.1 ;

(d) A declaration that the allotment of flat by defendant no.1 society was illegal, malafide and unwarranted.

(e) Direct the defendant nos.1 to 2, 7 and 8 to put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit flat.

(f) To pay full costs.

Or in the alternative (a) if the defendant nos.1 and 3 were unable to give the suit flat, they should give alternative flat of same area and amenities to the plaintiffs in the said building.

(g) to return the amount of Rs.38,245/with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of credit.

2. Defendant nos.1,2 and 5 denied for want of knowledge, most of the rights claimed by the plaintiffs. They challenged the authority of defendant no.4 to grant allotment to the plaintiffs. They further denied that the plaintiffs or their caretaker one Mr. Francis Pinto were in possession of the suit flat. They denied that the plaintiffs were dispossessed by defendant no.5 as allotted. They claimed that the suit flat was allotted to defendant no.6 by defendant nos. 3 and 4 and he was in possession and occupation thereof. They denied the alleged collusion between them and defendant nos.3 and 4. They admitted that the plaintiff no.1's request for membership was declined by them but the said order was not challenged. They denied service of notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. They also challenged the valuation. According to their specifi