Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
In situations where the society is the lawful owner, but the member is in possession or has been allotted the land, the member can act to protect their possession or ownership rights against trespassers, even if the society disinterests itself ["Govind Murari VS State - Rajasthan"], ["S. Palanivelu VS K. Veradammal - Madras"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
Imagine discovering an unauthorized intruder on your housing society's common land, but the society committee drags its feet or outright ignores the issue. As a concerned member, can you step up and file a lawsuit against the trespasser yourself? This is a common dilemma for residents in cooperative housing societies across India.
In this post, we dive deep into the legal nuances of whether a member of a cooperative housing society can institute a suit against a trespasser on the land owned by the society when the society is disinterested and takes no action. Drawing from key judicial precedents and related cases, we'll explore the society's role, members' standing, exceptions, and practical takeaways. Note: This is general information based on case law and not personalized legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
Cooperative housing societies are governed by state-specific Cooperative Societies Acts, the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act being a prominent example in many urban areas. These societies own common lands, open spaces, and amenities collectively for members' benefit. Trespassers encroaching on such land pose a threat to the society's property rights.
However, the law typically vests primary responsibility for protecting society property with the society itself, not individual members. Courts have ruled that a member's right to sue is contingent upon the society's involvementTEDCO Exports Pvt. Ltd. VS Suleman Chambers Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. - 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 985. When the society shows disinterest—by not filing a suit or evicting the trespasser—members generally lack independent standing to proceed.
The cooperative society's bye-laws and governing statutes emphasize its role in managing and safeguarding property. As observed in a key judgment, the society’s object is to provide housing to its members and to ensure proper occupation and management of its land and flats TEDCO Exports Pvt. Ltd. VS Suleman Chambers Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. - 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 985.
This framework prevents fragmented litigation, ensuring cohesive management.
Courts have consistently held that disputes touching society-owned land fall under the society's domain. A member cannot unilaterally sue a trespasser if the society disclaims interest.
In one case, the court dismissed a member's suit because the society had not shown an active interest or taken steps to evict the trespasser, and the member’s action was deemed to be outside the scope of the society’s primary responsibility Narayan Vinayak Desai VS Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. - 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 841. Similarly, disputes touching the land owned by the society, with the society disinterested, are not within the scope of a member’s standalone suit against trespassers TEDCO Exports Pvt. Ltd. VS Suleman Chambers Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. - 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 985.
This principle upholds the society's autonomy in deciding litigation strategies.
Several rulings reinforce this position:
These cases collectively establish that courts prioritize the society's prerogative, viewing member suits as premature or unauthorized without society backing.
While the above precedents are central, related judgments offer nuance:
In IN The Matter Between : Vijay Jayantilal Patel; Shri Hari Ashram, through its Trustees vs Vijay Jayantilal Patel - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1778 involving a cooperative housing society lease, the court noted, The Society need not be concerned with possession of the property belonging to its member and cannot be a necessary party when a member decides to sue a trespasser. However, this applies to member-owned plots, not society land, highlighting the distinction—society land requires society action.
Another case, S. Palanivelu VS K. Veradammal - 1977 Supreme(Mad) 94, addressed a trespasser's good-faith improvements: A trespasser who makes improvements on another's land in good faith may be entitled to compensation for those improvements if the owner of the land is estopped from claiming possession due to their acquiescence. This underscores why societies must act promptly; delay could complicate evictions via estoppel claims.
In The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority VS Addi Housing Industries Limited - 2008 Supreme(Kar) 161, the court defined settled possession for trespassers: A trespasser in settled possession of the acquired land is entitled to defend his possession even against true owner unless he is evicted by due process of law. For societies, this stresses timely intervention to avoid strengthening trespassers' positions The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority VS Addi Housing Industries Limited - 2008 Supreme(Kar) 161.
Cases like S. Govindasamy (died) by LRs. & Others VS Gowthiya Sangam Nagore Rep. By its Secretary M. A. A. Sathakathullah - 2007 Supreme(Mad) 1519 limit suits against societies to members only for compelling performance of objects, not outsiders, reinforcing internal dispute resolution mechanisms.
These insights show that while members can't sue independently, prolonged society inaction may invite equitable defenses for trespassers.
Are there scenarios where members can act?
Alternatives when society is disinterested:1. Convene Special General Meeting (SGM): Rally members to pass a resolution directing the committee to sue.2. Approach Cooperative Registrar: File complaints under relevant Acts for committee negligence.3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Rare, but viable if public interest is involved, as in land resumption cases Komal Chand Patni VS State of Rajasthan - 2005 Supreme(Raj) 3212.4. Joint suit with society: Seek to join as co-plaintiff if society later engages.
Generally, a member cannot institute a suit against a trespasser on society-owned land if the society is disinterestedTEDCO Exports Pvt. Ltd. VS Suleman Chambers Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. - 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 985. The society's active involvement is a prerequisite, protecting collective decision-making.
Protecting cooperative property demands unity. If facing such issues, document encroachments, engage members, and consult professionals promptly. Stay informed, stay empowered.
References: All citations from provided judgments. For full texts, refer to legal databases.
#CoopHousingLaw, #TrespasserSuit, #PropertyDispute
The petitioner is a member of a Housing Co-operative Society which is known as Ramjipura Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., Jaipur. ... Sec. 90A creates a new category of trespasser for the purposes of taking action under sec. 91 of that Act. ... Tehsildar or other revenue authority be restrained from taking any action against the petitioner under sec. 91 of the Rajas than Land Revenue Act. ... Th....
No. 3173/12, which had been allotted to him by the Nammalwarpet Cooperative Housing Site Society of which he is a member. ... The defence was that as a member of the said society he was allotted that land and he had taken possession of the same and put up a brick built construction on the land allotted to him by the Society and is in undisputed possession of the property allotted to him by the Society. ... The appellant is the owner....
S. 3173/12, which had been allotted to him by the Nammalwarpet Co-operative Housing Site Society of which he is a member. ... The defence was that as a member of the said society he was allotted that land and he had taken possession of the same and put up a brick built construction on the land allotted to him by the Society and is in undisputed possession of the property allotted to him by the Society. ... The appellant is the owner....
The Suit is filed by the Trustees on behalf of the Trust. By Indenture of Lease dated 10 September 1962, Jai Hind Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ... The Society need not be concerned with possession of the property belonging to its member and cannot be a necessary party when a member decides to sue a trespasser. The present case involves issue of alleged trespass committed by a co-owner. ... That Society being the lessor, no relief can be sought i....
Learned trial court has while deciding issue no. 1-6 together, held that the land in question belonged to Gulshan-E-Gandhi Housing Co-operative Society, Bhopal and the plaintiffs have purchased the suit land from the society vide registered sale deeds (Ex. P/1 to P/4). ... Asgar and Gulshan-E-Gandhi Housing Co- operative Society, Bhopal. ... However, there is no document available on record to show as to how the land came in the own....
He also became a member of the Society. 5. ... In the said suit, the plaintiff examined the Secretary of Sai Sudama Housing Society, situated at Thane, to develop a Co-operative Housing Society. ... Whether suit is properly valued? 3. ... and the other cause of action being the suit filed by Shirke came to be p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding
In fact Section 90-A creates a new category of trespasser for the purpose of taking action under Section 91. However, Section 90-B has been specially enacted which provides termination of rights, resumption of land and allotment of the same to the persons surrendering the land. ... It was further submitted that there are lands comprised in village Ramjipura developed by Jai Jawan Housing Cooperative Society Limited, Jaipur Industrial Estate Housing ....
In fact Section 90-A creates a new category of trespasser for the purpose of taking action under Section 91. However, Section 90-B has been specially enacted which provides termination of rights, resumption of land and allotment of the same to the persons surrendering the land. ... It was further submitted that there are lands comprised in village Ramjipura developed by Jai Jawan Housing Cooperative Society Limited, Jaipur Industrial Estate Housing C....
It is the case of the Respondent No.1 Society that the Petitioner was presumably inducted by Smt. Aruna Mehrotra however without taking the consent of the Respondent No.1 Society for such induction of the Petitioner in the suit flat. ... The cause of action for filing the Dispute in question was the apprehension of the Respondent No.1 Society that the Petitioner who is not the member of the Society is trying to sell and dispose of the suit#....
Poornaprajna Housing Building Co-operative Society Vs. Bailamma, ILR 1998 Kar 1441. ... 2. Tamilnadu Housing Board Vs. Viswam, AIR 1996 SC 3377. ... 3. M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. ... ... i) Whether plaintiffs prove, that they are the absolute owner of the suit schedule property with a given boundaries and measurement as on the date of filing of the suit? ... ... ii) Whether plaintiffs further prove, that they are in lawful and settled possession of the #HL....
The name of defendant no.1 has not been recorded in the R.O.R. A trespasser can maintain a suit against another trespasser. In the R.O.R., the suit property has been recorded as Debasthali. The plea of adverse possession is not sine qua non for adjudicating the dispute involved in the present dispute.
Any of the real owners can maintain a suit against a trespasser. Now plaintiff claims to have derived title of the suit land on the basis of Ext-1. Of course, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is a trespasser and he does not have any semblance of title with respect to the suit land.
5. Three witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 3 and 47 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A47 on the side of the first respondent herein/plaintiff. 2. Whether the defendant is entitled for decree of delivery of possession as prayed for?” 1. Whether the plaintiff is a trespasser in respect of the suit property?
the Society was a trespasser nor the first plaintiff who purchased the suit property was a trespasser. At this stage, it would be condign to quote Section 71 of the Revenue Act of 1917, which reads thus:- "71. The Settlement Officer shall, in the case of every inhabited village, ascertain and determine the area to be reserved for the residence of the inhabitants or for purposes ancillary thereto, and such area shall be deemed to be the abadi of such village." On bare perusal of the registered document of title of the vendor of the plaintiff which was executed by Miss Elizab....
Only a member of the society can institute a suit against the society, to compel performance of its objects, and not any Muslim of Nagore, as in the case of a trust. However, no such suit would lie, in the case of a society, since Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application thereto.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
