wp1431-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1431 OF 2011 Nagesh Atmaram Madaye .. Petitioner versus Dy.Registra, Co-op.Societies & Ors .. Respondents Mr.P.S.Dani with Mr.Rajesh A. Tekale for the petitioners. Mr.Mangesh Khatu, respondent No.3 present in person. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 14th JUNE 2011. P.C.: . Heard Mr.Dani appearing for the petitioner. Perused the orders under challenge and particularly that dated 22nd December 2010 of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai and that of the Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Mumbai. 2 It is not necessary to enter into the factual controversy and particularly arising out of a fact as to whether there was a wp1431-11.doc 2 transfer by the petitioner of the flat in question in favour of respondent No.3. The argument is that there is no conveyance and, therefore, the title was never conveyed and transferred. There was no proper application for membership, yet, the issue of deemed membership is decided on the strength of a letter which has been addressed on 7th April 2006. 3 The remedy of the petitioner is to proceed to assert his title in the property and particularly when he states that he has terminated the Agreement for Sale. If the case is that the flat was never conveyed or sold as alleged, but, there was a mere Agreement for Sale, then, it is absolutely clear that the dispute is beyond the purview of the powers conferred by the statute in question on the authorities. Ultimately, disputes to title of property will be decided by competent Courts and the adjudication in that behalf is binding on the Co-operative Society. Therefore, merely because the respondent No.3 Mr.Mahesh Khatu is found to be in possession of the flat and, therefore, the Deputy Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar has directed that he should be treated as a member by itself and without anything more does not wp1431-11.doc 3 mean that all rights of the petitioner in the property automatically come to an end. The petitioner’s remedy in law is still intact and if the petitioner proceeds in accordance with law to assert his title and succeeds in getting appropriate declaration, the Society as well as the respondent No.3 will have to abide by the same subject of course to the rights of the respondent No.3. All observations and conclusions will not in any manner adversely affect the petitioners proceedings which are likely to be initiated pursuant to the alleged termination of the Agreement of Sale. Petition is disposed off in the above terms. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)