ssp 1 LPA 172 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.172 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9135 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.224 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.172 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9135 OF 2009 Mitramandal Co-operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Anr. .....Appellants versus Shamprasad Vishwanath Deo and Anr. ..... Respondents Mr.P.S.Dani, for the appellants. Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/by Mr.S.B.Deshmukh, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 26 th JULY, 2011 P.C. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd September, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No.9135 of 2009. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant society, has confirmed the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar as well as the Divisional Joint Registrar. 2. The dispute is in connection with the plot of land belonging ssp 2 LPA 172 of 2011 to the appellant society. The plot was originally held by father of respondent No.2, who was member of the co-operative society. The nomination was made by the original member in favour of respondent No. 2, who was one of his sons. After the death of original member, a dispute arose between the heirs of original plot holders. The dispute ended in a settlement before the Civil Court by which respondent No.2 was permitted to be treated as a member of the society and other heirs were to be treated as nominal members. The share certificate was ordered to be transferred in favour of respondent No.2. It is not in dispute that the share certificate is already transferred by the society in favour of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 thereafter, sold his part of share to respondent No.1. After the said purchase, which is by way of registered document, respondent No.1 applied to the said society for enrolling him as a member. It is not in dispute that the society had not taken any decision within the stipulated period as contemplated in Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The society had not passed any order refusing the admission as a member so far as respondent No.2 here is concerned. In view of the provisions of Section 22 (2) of the said Act, if the society does not communicate any decision to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application, the applicant shall be deemed to have been admitted as a member of the ssp 3 LPA 172 of 2011 society. Since share certificate was not transferred in favour of respondent No.2, he raised a dispute under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Deputy Registrar passed an order allowing the application of respondent No.1 and directed to enroll him as a member of the society. That order was challenged by the society in revision application before the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who rejected the said revision, against which writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, against which Society has field the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously submitted that the society was not party to the consent decree and therefore, consent decree is not binding to the society. It is submitted that the original plot cannot be allowed to be bifurcated in favour of four heirs of the deceased member. It is submitted that the society is not expected to give share certificate in favour of the heirs by bifurcating the area of the plot. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that respondent No.1 had already applied for transferring share certificate and enrolling as a member and the said applications admittedly have not disposed of within a period of three months and therefore, as per the provisions of Section 22(2) of the said Act, the respondent No.1 is deemed to have been enrolled as a member of the society. ssp 4 LPA 172 of 2011 5. We have heard both the sides at length. It is not in dispute that the application submitted by respondent No.1 was not disposed of. If that be so, by deeming fiction under Section 22 (2) of the said Act, respondent No.1 can be said to have been enrolled as a member of the society. It is required to be noted that as per consent decree the respondent No.2 was conferred full membership and share certificate was also ordered to be transferred in his favour. Respondent No.2 accordingly became member of the society and subsequently, transferred his rights in favour of respondent No.1. The society has never challenged the consent decree, as recorded by the learned Single Judge and the society has not taken any decision on the application of respondent No.1 within the stipulated period. Considering the said fact, we would not like to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the two authorities below in this appeal. This court is not required to examine all other rival claims of heirs of deceased plot holders. The only point is required to be decided is as to whether the learned Single Judge as well as other two authorities have committed any error in allowing the original application filed by respondent No.1 in view of the provisions of Section 22(2) of the said Act, which is regarding deemed transfer of membership. The learned Single Judge by giving cogent reasons, rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant society. Respondent No.1 has merely ssp 5 LPA 172 of 2011 stepped into shoes of respondent No.2 and he cannot get any better rights and title than respondent No.2 while getting membership in the society. 6. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is devoid of any merits, which is accordingly dismissed. 7. In view of dismissal of the appeal, civil application No.224 of 2011 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )