1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7764 OF 2008 Usha Yashwant Kelkar .. Petitioner. Vs. The Divisional Jt.Registrar & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.S.S.Kanetkar for the petitioner. Mrs.S.S.Bhende A.G.P. for the State. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 13TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.5.2008 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune, rejecting revision application No.537 of 2004 filed by the petitioner. The revision was preferred against the order of attachment dated 31.8.2000 and the order of auction proclamation dated 23.9.2004 published by Special Recovery Officer on 25.9.2004. The orders of attachment and proclamation were issued in pursuance of the recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”) against respondent no.4 – M/s.Trupti Garments. Yogesh Yashwant Kelkar is the proprietor of Respondent No.4 and he is son of the petitioner. 3. The property attached, as per the order dated 31.8.2000, 2 is a flat being flat No.A-1, CTS, 42/2A, Biharilal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Bhamburda, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, admeasuring about 915 sq. ft. (for short “the said flat”). Respondent No.4 was a principal borrower of the loan availed from respondent no.3 – bank. There is no dispute that at the time of availing the loan, respondent no.4 had executed a registered mortgage deed in respect of the said flat as its owner, in favour of respondent no.3 – bank. The mortgage deed was executed on 12.6.1998. 4. The petitioner’s case is that she is owner of the said flat, which respondent no.3-bank sought to attach in execution of a recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the Act. Mr.Kanetkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was neither a party to the proceedings under section 101 of the Act nor she had any connection with the loan taken by respondent no.4 and, therefore, respondent nos.2 and 3 have no authority in law to execute the recovery certificate against the petitioner’s flat. He then submitted that execution of the mortgage deed, in respect of the said flat, itself was illegal in view of the fact that on the date of execution, respondent no.4 was not owner of the said flat. He then submitted that respondent no.3 ought to have verified at the time of sanctioning the loan as to whether the said flat was of respondent no.4 and having failed to do so they 3 cannot execute the recovery certificate against the petitioner. Mr.Kanetkar invited my attention to the resolution dated 9.8.1997 passed by Biharilal Sahakari Grahrachana Sanstha Ltd. by which, according to the petitioner, the said flat was transferred in her name on 9.8.1997. 5. All contentions urged by Mr.Kanetkar were also advanced before the authorities below, which, in my opinion, considered them in proper perspective and, in the light of documents relied upon by the petitioner have, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, rightly rejected the same. In dealing with the General Body resolution dated 9.8.1997, it has been rightly rejected on the ground that though the resolution was purportedly passed in August, 1997, it was notarised in 2004. Apart from the so called resolution, the petitioner has not placed any other document on record to show that the said flat was in fact transferred in the name of the petitioner prior to 12.6.1998 i.e. the date of mortgage. This petition was heard yesterday. In the course of hearing, I repeatedly asked Mr.Kanetkar to produce any authenticate document issued by the society showing that the society in fact had transferred the said flat in the name of the petitioner and she became absolute owner thereof prior to the execution of registered mortgage deed dated 12.6.1998. His instructing client, who was present in the court, requested Mr.Kanetkar to take time till today to produce 4 some documentary proof in support of the petitioner’s claim in respect of the said flat. Mr.Kanetkar, therefore, requested to keep this petition today to enable the petitioner to produce documentary proof to show that since prior to 12.6.1998 the said flat has been standing in the name of the petitioner and she has been paying monthly outgoings to the society. Even today Mr.Kanetkar could not place any document on record in support of the contention that her son, who executed the mortgage deed on 12.6.1998, had no right in law to execute the same. Keeping this all in view and considering the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below and considering that there is sufficient material on record to sustain the findings of fact and considering extremely limited jurisdiction of this court to disturb the findings of fact in writ jurisdiction of this court, in my opinion, the orders impugned in the petition, cannot be faulted. The writ petition, therefore, fails and dismissed as such. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)