:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 613 OF 2008 Chandrashekhar N. Gujaran ...Plaintiff Versus Revati C.Gujaran ....Respondent ====== Mr.S.V.Borkar with C.S.Karkera, Adv. for the plaintiffs. Mr.M.G.Patil i/by.N.N.Bhadrashete, Adv. for the Respondent no.1. Mr.R.J.Mane, AGP for respondent nos.3 and 4. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 15TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Admittedly, the petitioner and the Respondent no.1 are Husband and Wife and there are disputes between them. It appears that the wife approached the Authorities under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act requesting that the petitioner-husband has executed a Gift Deed and a General Power of Attorney, so also, an Indemnity Bond. These are :2: :2: :2: executed in favour of the First Respondent voluntarily and willingly and therefore on the basis of these documents she should be enrolled as a Member of the Second Respondent-society. It was contended that the First Respondent had filed a dispute in the Co-operative Court being Dispute No.131 of 2004 and a restraint order was obtained in the same, by the First Respondent-Wife. It is in such circumstances, that the First Respondent’s Application for membership was rejected or not accepted by the Second Respondent-Society. That has compelled her to approach the Registrar under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act by filing an Appeal. 2. The petitioner appeared before the Deputy Registrar and pointed out that he is the owner of the Flat/Tenament and he had agreed to transfer the same in favour of the first Respondent only because they were married and there was a relationship of Husband and Wife. However, without any sufficient cause or valid reason, the First Respondent-Wife is refusing to reside with the petitioner-husband and that is how the objection was raised to her being allowed to occupy the :3: :3: :3: Flat as a Member of the 2nd Respondent-Society. The attention of the Authority was invited to a Suit being Civil Suit No. 3167 of 2004 which was then filed by the petitioner-husband in the City Civil Court at Bombay for cancellation of Gift Deed and Indemnity Bond, etc. 3. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies has in the order passed by him, adverted to these disputes but has accepted the case of the First Respondent-Wife for being enrolled as a Member by the Second Respondent-Society and admitted as such subject to the pending proceedings by the Wife as well as the Husband. In other words, reserving and keeping open all contentions of both sides and without prejudice thereto, he has directed that the 2nd Respondent-Society should enroll and admit the First Respondent as a Member. 4. This order has been upheld by the Revisional Authority on 30.8.2007 on identical pleas. 5. In my view, merely because the order of the :4: :4: :4: Deputy Registrar is confirmed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in Revision, does not mean that the petitioner-husband is precluded from establishing his right, title and interest in the immovable property. All such proceedings are open for being initiated and if initiated for being prosecuted and being proceeded in accordance with law. 6. Needless to state, that any observations of the Deputy Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar do not bind the Husband in any manner. The same also do not conclude the disputes between the Husband and the Wife. It would be equally open for the Wife to dispute the authority of the Husband to put an end to the rights which have been conferred in her favour. All such disputes remain unaffected and merely because the Second Respondent has been directed by the Deputy Registrar to enroll the First Respondent as a Member, does not mean that the petitioner-husband cannot prove his case in such proceedings. The said proceedings can continue independent of the directions and the said directions be read as without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Husband and Wife therein. :5: :5: :5: 7. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, states that, the petitioner-husband is desirous of instituting substantive proceedings and claim the above reliefs. Needless to state, that even institution of the subject proceedings and their prosecution would be independent of the directions of the Deputy Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Authorities cannot and do not decide such matters and their directions must be seen as being restricted to the working and functioning of the Co-operative Society and to enable it to allot the Flats and collect, so also, recover its dues. With this clarification, the petition is disposed off. sd/- *********