: 1 : chs-997-10=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER OF SUMMONS NO.997 OF 2010 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.120 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1955 OF 2008 Jal Hormusji Hansotia .. Plaintiff v/s. M/s. Supreme Sukhdam & Associates & Ors. .. Defendants And Nilin N. Joshi .. Applicant ......... Ms. Madhu Hiraskar i/by Chitnis Saithy & Co. for the applicant Ms. Pragna Patel i/by Bilawala & Co. for the plaintiff ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2010. P.C. : 1. This chamber summons is taken out by the applicant who claims to be the director of defendant nos. 2 and 4 against whom decree is passed. The property more particularly set out in : 2 : chs-997-10=.sxw prayer clause (a) of the chamber summons has been attached and sell thereof is ordered. Applicant wants that said attachment should be raised and order of sale should be set aside. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides. The applicant claims that by Agreement for Sale dated 19th June 1981, defendant no.2 judgment debtor sold the said business premises in favour of the applicant and that the applicant is enrolled as a member of maker chambers No.VI, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 premises co-operative society Ltd. Share certificate showing the present applicant as a member is relied upon. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that on account of Agreement dated 19th June, 1981 and enrollment of the applicant as a member of the said society, it is the applicant who is the owner of the said premises and defendant no.2 has no concern with the said premises. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that warrant of attachment should be raised and the property should not be sold. I am not inclined to accept this argument. The only document produced before the Court is Agreement to Sale by which defendant no.2 had agreed to sell the property to present : 3 : chs-997-10=.sxw applicant. No conveyance is produced before the Court so as to say that title of the present applicant is provoked as the full owner thereof. In my view, enrollment of the present applicant as a member of the society by itself does not confer full ownership rights in favour of the present applicant. The said property continues to be owned by defendant no.2. The attachment levied on the said premises is proper. Hence, this chamber summons will have to be dismissed. Hence, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) The chamber summons is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)