-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.9206 of 2007 Smt.Bina Sudhangshu Ray ..Petitioner vs. 1.Probal Sudhangshu Ray and another ..Respondents Shri A.H.Palekar i/b Shri R.B.Jaiswal for petitioner. Shri Yashodhan Sakhare i/b Y.K.S.Legal for respondent no.1. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 14th March, 2008 14th March, 2008 14th March, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai Division dated 27th September, 2007 dismissing the revision application of the petitioner. The Divisional Joint Registrar confirmed the order of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 28th December, 2004. 2. The order passed by the Deputy Registrar in exercise of powers under sec.23 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 directs that the Cooperative Housing Society -2- should accept the application of the petitioner’s son Probal S.Roy and he should be enrolled as a joint member along with his mother, the present petitioner. Even the necessary entries will have to be made in the documents and share certificate. 3. Shri Palekar for the mother submits that the son and mother are locked in litigation. There are suits filed in this Court by both and the said suits are pending. In this Court the issue is whether the petitioner would succeed to the property in question or that the respondent son also has a share therein. The flat initially belonged to the father who has now expired. It is stated that he died intestate. It is further pointed out that the authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act proceeded on the basis of the order passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Suit No.6895 of 2002. That order was passed on the notice of motion. That order was protecting both sides. In such circumstances recording the statement of the mother, that the City Civil Court disposed of the Notice of Motion so also the suit. 4. In my view, merely because a reference is -3- made to these orders does not mean that the Divisional Joint Registrar has conferred exclusive right either upon the mother or son in the subject flat. The mother asserts that she is exclusive owner and son’s case to the contrary or their alternative cases of joint ownership are all matters which do not stand concluded by the orders of the Deputy Registrar or Divisional Joint Registrar. These are the orders issued during the course of consideration of the application for membership. These authorities do not decide the rights to immovable properties. In such circumstances, their orders and directions are subject to adjudication by the civil court so also without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides in the same. With this clarification this writ petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)