ash 1 wp-8932.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8932 OF 2010 Shri Gangadhar Sheena Payyade .. Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents -- Shri S.S. Lanke for the Petitioner. Smt. Aparna Vhatkar, AGP for Respondent No.1. Shri S.G. Mendon for Respondent No.2. Shri B.M. Thokal for Respondent No.3. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 20TH JULY, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The 2nd Respondent is the original member of the 3rd Respondent society and by virtue of membership, he was holding a premises in which a restaurant is being run. On the basis of family arrangement dated 30th April, 1996, the Petitioner applied for transfer of membership in his name to the 3rd Respondent society. An application was made under Section 22 read with Section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) with the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies for grant of a deemed membership. The membership was granted to the Petitioner by an order dated 4th August, 2009. In a revision application preferred by the ash 2 wp-8932.10 2nd Respondent, the said order has been set aside by passing the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that there is enough evidence to show that the Petitioner is in possession of the restaurant premises on the basis of a family arrangement. He pointed out that during the pendency of this Writ Petition, the family arrangement has been duly registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. He submitted that the application for membership filed by the Petitioner was not replied within the statutory period and, therefore, the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies was well within his powers to grant membership to the petitioner. He submitted that no interference could have been made with the said order by the Revisional Authority especially when the Petitioner is in possession of the suit premises as the owner. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The Petitioner applied for membership relying upon the family arrangement. It is not in dispute that the 2nd Respondent was a member of 3rd respondent society. The case made out by the 2nd Respondent is that the family arrangement has been terminated. Admittedly, when the orders were passed by the Deputy Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar, family arrangement was not registered. There is a dispute regarding ash 3 wp-8932.10 enforceability of the family arrangement raised by the 2nd Respondent. The family arrangement has been lodged for registration during the pendency of this Petition. Moreover the 2nd Respondent was admittedly the member of the 3rd Respondent Society. If the Petitioner was claiming a right on the basis of the family arrangement which was disputed, it was for the Petitioner to establish his right by approaching the Court of law. The issue of title could not have been decided by the Deputy Registrar or Divisional Joint Registrar. Therefore, the Divisional Joint Registrar was justified in interfering with the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. It is for the Petitioner to establish his right on the basis of family arrangement by approaching the Competent Court. Only after establishing his rights, the Petitioner can always make a fresh application for grant of membership. It must be also recorded that the finding recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrar about the ownership of the disputed premises is not proper as the Divisional Joint Registrar could not have decided the issue of title. . Subject to what is above, no case for interference is made out in writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is rejected. ( A.S. OKA, J )