( 1 ) RULE. Mr. I. M. Pandya, Ld. AGP waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. Girish Patel, Sr. Counsel for Mr. Shalin Mehta waives service of rule for respondent No. 2 and 3. With the consent of parties matter is being disposed of finally.

( 2 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Housing Cooperative Society duly registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). One Gopalbhai Narottamdas Mehta was the member of the petitioner-Society and he was allotted shares by the petitioner-society and in capacity as a shareholder of the petitioner-society said Gopalbhai Mehta was also allotted Plot No. 4 in the petitioner-society and he had constructed residential house over the said plot on 8. 1. 1981. Gopalbhai during his life time at the age of about 80 years executed a registerd will for creating a trust after his death for the benefit of members of his family. On 31. 5. 90 Gopalbhai died and as per respondent Nos 2 and 3 the property of Gopalbhai vests with them as the trustees of the trust created under the aforesaid will. In the year 1994 probate was issued by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. Since one of the trustees, i. e. Naresh H. Shah, the respondent No. 2 herein, the permission was obtained by him to work as the trustee of Shri Gopalbhai Narottamdas Mehta Family Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust" ). The trustees as per Indian Trust Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust Act") were holding the property and therefore that they had to for for transfer the aforesaid property and the shares of the society and an application was made by respondent Nos 2 and 3 to the society with a request to transfer the shares on their names. The society continued to make correspondance from 24. 5. 95 onwards. Thereafter, on 27. 8. 95 the Secretary of the pettiioner society addressed a letter intimating that as per the legal opinion the shares can be transferred on the name of the trustees of the trust once such family trust is formed after due permission of the Reserve Bank of India. In response to the same the respondent No. 2 addressed a letter dated 30. 8. 95 stating, interalia, that the permission has been granted by the Reserve Bank of India for respondent No. 2 to work as a trustee since he is a Non-Resident Indian (hereinafter referred to as "nri" ). Thereafter, on 20. 2. 96 the society addressed a letter to the respondent No. 3 to produce fresh set of papers which ultimately came to be submitted by respondent Nos 2 and 3. Not only that but the respondent Nos 2 and 3 submitted written opinion of Juistice B. J. Diwan (Retd), Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court daated 10. 2. 1997 opining that the respondent Nos 2 and 3 can not compel the society to recognise them as executor instead of recognising them as trustees and further tht one of the trusteees alone can not represent the trust property in view of the will. Further opinion of Shri S. N. Shelat, Sr. Advocate, dated 12. 9. 97 was also submitted opining that the respondent Nos 2 and 3 can function as trustees and the society is also bound to transfer the shares in favour of trustees on the basis of probate,. Thereafter, on 2. 2. 98 a letter was addressed by the society to respondent Nos 2 and 3 requesting that their proposal to transfer the property on the name of trustees shall be placed in the next meeting of the Managing Committee and it was also stated that in the meantime the respondent Nos 2 and 3 may sign and return in duplicate the undertaking as per the enclosed draft so that necessary procedure can be taken up as early as possible. On 4. 2. 98 a letter was addressed by respondent Nos 2 and 3 to the society stating that they are not agreeable to sign the undertaking to abide by all the approved rules, regulations and bye laws of the society for transfer of the bungalows on their names. Thereafter, on 30. 4. 98 a letter was addressed by the society to