:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.86 OF 2004 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.86 OF 2004 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.86 OF 2004 The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. ...Applicant. v. Smt. Sharmila Sharad Joshi ...Respondent. Mr.Siddharth Karpe , adv. for the Applicant. Mr.G.H.Keluskar , adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 26th March, 2008. DATE: 26th March, 2008. DATE: 26th March, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No.278 of 2002 seeking a declaration that she is owner of certain property, which is allegedly mortgaged with the applicant no.1/bank by her son and further declaration that the recovery certificate obtained by the respondent no.1 against her son is not binding on her. The applicant, who is original defendant no.1 challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court contending that in view of the provisions of Section 91 and 101 read with Section 163 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned trial Court framed preliminary issues about jurisdiction and came to conclusion that civil Court has no jurisdiction. That :2: order was challenged in the appeal by the respondent no.1 and the appeal was allowed. Therefore, original defendants have preferred the present Revision Application. 3. On perusal of the record, it is clear that certain immovable property belongs to present respondent. According to the bank, property is jointly held by the respondent and her son Anant. Anant and Sandip were partners of M/s. Orion Graphics. That firm had taken loan from the applicant no.1/Bank and it is alleged that Anant son of the respondent no.1 had mortgaged the immovable property, which according to her belongs to her. Applicant/bank secured recovery certificate for recovery of the loan amount and intended to attach and dispose off the said immovable property. In view of these circumstances, respondent filed suit. Admittedly, she is not member of the society nor she is a borrower nor she is a guarantor for the borrower. In view of the provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, such a dispute could not lie unless the dispute is between the society and one of the members or a surety of the member, who is borrower. Similarly, under Section 101 also the Registrar could not issue recovery certificate against a person, who is not a member or borrower or surety. Even if the property is jointly held by the respondent and her son, naturally she will be entitled to protect her share in :3: that property and the Special Recovery Officer can not proceed to recover the amount on the basis of recovery certificate from the property belonging to the respondent. In view of these circumstances, she was entitled to file a suit in the Civil Court seeking declaration and perpetual injunction in her favour. Taking into consideration the circumstances, I find no fault in the impugned order passed by the District Court in appeal. 4. In the result, Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)