( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8095 OF 2007 Vijaykumar s/o. Khanderao Mairal .. Applicant Versus Samata Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. .. Respondent Shri M.V. Deshpande h/f. Shri Milind Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.N. Dhorde h/f. Shri B.G. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 27.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Shri M.V. Deshpande h/f. Shri Milind Patil, Advocate for the applicant and Shri R.N. Dhorde h/f. Shri B.G. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent. In this Civil Revision Application the applicant is challenging the concurrent decisions of the Co-operative Judge, Nanded in C.C.P. 402 of 1994 decided on 18.08.2004, which was confirmed ( 2 ) by the Member, Co-operative Court (Appellate), Aurangabad in Appeal No. 224 of 2004, decided on 28.06.2005. Thereby both the Courts dismissed the dispute raised by the present revision applicant. 2. The dispute raised by the present applicant is only to the extent whether size of Plot No. 158 of Samata Co- operative Society Ltd., Parbhani, owned and possessed by him was 17 x 17 mtrs or 17 x 15 mtrs. The applicant has claimed declaration that he is owner of 17 x 17 mtrs. plot and not 17 x 15 mtrs. plot as claimed by respondent society. He has sought injunction against the respondent society. 3. Some of the dates are relevant at this stage. One Shri Kawathekar was allotted plot No.158 on 30.05.1981. It was admeasuring 17 x 17 mtrs. i.e. 289 sq. mtrs. At Exh. “A” along with the revision application a lay-put plan is submitted. It is stated therein that it was approved on 27.12.1974 by the Dy. Director of Town Planning, Division Aurangabad. It is case of the applicant that he had purchased said plot from said Kawathekar and Kawathekar had given application for transferring said plot in the name of ( 3 ) the applicant. We find one letter dated 30.05.1981 issued by the Secretary of respondent society. Therein it is said that Kawathekar was allotted plot No.158 having area of 289 sq. mtr. and it was given to his custody on 11.01.1981, in the General Body Meeting. Exh. “C” is the document whereby the respondent-society accepted application by Kawathekar for cancelling his membership and accepting the applicant as member and allotting him plot No.158. It is stated in the certificate Exh. “C” that the plot was handed over to the applicant on 23.10.1989. Its total area was 289 sq. mtrs. and on its Eastern side there was 4.5 sq.mtr. Road and on Western side there was open space of shopping center. At Exh. “D” there is “No Objection Certificate” dated 05.11.1989 stating that plot No.158 was given in possession of the applicant and his name may be entered in the City Survey record. Exh. “E” is the document showing that the name of the applicant is entered to plot No. 158 in the Municipal record. At Exh. “F” there is permission granted by the Municipal Council for construction. It is dated 16.09.1993. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant Shri M.V. Deshpande argued that after construction was started the ( 4 ) respondent-society obstructed his possession and therefore he filed dispute in the Co-operative Court. According to him, the applicant is owner and possessor of 17 x 17 mtrs area and the society by its written statement has wrongly stated that the area of plot allotted to the applicant was 17 x 15 mtrs. 5. Adv. Shri Deshpande argued that there was no resolution reducing the area by two meters. He referred to the minutes produced at Exh. “R-2” and said that resolution No. 2A passed in meeting dated 01.04.1988 is to the effect that for shopping center two plots were reserved; each plot is of 1200 sq. mtrs. area. Both plots were on interior side and therefore they were not commercially viable and it was decided that those two plots should be decided equally and allotted to some Government servants for residential purpose. So, it is argued that there was no resolution reducing area of plot allotted to Kawathekar, which was purchased by present applicant and in absence of any resolution, the claim of respondent-society that plot is of 17 x 15 mtrs. should not have been accepted. He also argued that notice of meeting was not given to Kawathekar. No notice was given to the applicant before reducing area of the plot. ( 5 ) 6. On the other hand the learned advocate for the respondent Shri R.N. Dhorde has stated that Kawathekar was allotted plot on 30.05.1981. Thereafter on 01.04.1988 the plans of three societies were revised by resolution. At that time present applicant was not member of the respondent- society. The revised plan was sanctioned on 30.02.1989. The applicant purchased plot No. 158 on 30.10.1989. So, he was bound by the resolution that was passed on 01.04.1988 and revised plan that was sanctioned on 30.02.1989, which was the act prior to his purchase in October, 1989. Now, the applicant cannot challenge the same. He also argued that in 1993 the applicant sought construction permission by submitting old plan and not revised plan. 7. This is a Revision Application and unless there is some substantial question of law or perverse finding, this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Co-operative Court and Co-operative Appellate Court. The limitations of the Revisional Court are well settled. The Co-operative Court in paras 7 to 9 has considered the entire aspect and stated that revised lay-out ( 6 ) plan was sanctioned on 16.02.1989 and therein said plot was reduced by two meters and it was made 17 x 15 mtrs. When the resolution was passed by the General Body, Mr. Kawathekar was plot holder and he never challenged the reduction of plot allotted to him on the ground that he was not given hearing. It is also stated that during pendency of the revision of original lay-out plan, the disputant insisted on allotment of certificate for the sake of getting loan and therefore allotment certificate was issued as per old lay out plan. In my opinion, the basic question that remains is whether Kawathekar the original allottee of the plot was owner of 17 x 17 mtrs. plot or he was owner of 17 x 15 mtrs. When he sought to transfer the plot in the name of present applicant, Kawathekar could not pass more title to the disputant than what he was possessing on the date of the transfer. This view taken by the Co-operative Court and confirmed by the Co- operative Appellate Court, cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. 8. It is observed in para 9 of the Co-operative Court’s judgment that the disputant has not challenged the resolution passed on 01.04.1988 or revised lay-out plan and ( 7 ) the revised lay-out plan was binding on all members unless cancelled. In para 10 it is stated that in absence of pleadings, during evidence and arguments that revised lay-out plan was sought to be attacked on various grounds. It is thus stated by the Co-operative Court in para 10 that there was no necessary pleading for the same. 9. The First Appellate Court has also taken same view and in para 10 and 11 of its judgment, it is observed that respondent-society issued certificate Exh.47 but the respondent-society had already passed resolution for revising size of the disputed plot and other plots. Accordingly, revised lay out plan was approved and no weightage can be given to the certificates those were relied upon and produced at Exhs. 47 & 48. It is further observed that so far as argument that no notice of resolution dated 01.04.1988 was given to the original owner Shri Kawathekar is concerned, Kawathekar is not examined. On perusal of list of members at Exh.67, it was obvious that Kawathekar was served with notice. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was not aware of the resolution and even if Kawathekar concealed this fact, it was necessary for the disputant/applicant to verify his ( 8 ) title before purchasing the plot. 10. Adv. Shri Deshpande for the applicant argued that the revised plan was not produced before the Co-operative Court or the First Appellate Court. However, it appears from the judgment of the Co-operative Court and the Co-operative Appellate Court that said fact of approval of revised lay-out plan in 1989 was in-fact not disputed. 11. Adv. Shri Deshpande argued that the agenda did not include subject of reduction of area of plot. However, main question was whether Kawathekar was aware of the subject. The disputant did not examine Kawathekar as his witness. 12. After going through the judgment of both the Courts, in my opinion, the view taken is reasonable and proper. There is no error of law or perversity. In this view of the matter, this Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 13. At this stage Adv. Shri Deshpande for the applicant seeks continuation of interim relief for a period of four weeks, so that his client may approach the Supreme Court. In ( 9 ) view of this the interim order to continue for a period of four weeks from the date of this order. 14. In view of dismissal of this Civil Revision Application, Civil Application No. 8095 of 2007 does not survive and it is disposed of as such. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/cra151.07