1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.276/2010 KU. PUJA DINESH UNADKAT ..VS.. DINESH LAXMIDAS UNADKAT =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 15th June, 2010. Heard Shri A.J. Thakar, the learned advocate for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The suit was filed for a declaration that the notice issued by the Special Recovery Officer of the Buldhana Zilla Pagardar Sevakanchya Pat Sanstha Va Sahakari Sangh Buldhana, for auctioning the suit property, was not binding on the plaintiff, as the plaintiff was one of the co-owners of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the suit property stood in the name of her father Dinesh and his mother and they were the recorded owners of the same. After the death of the mother of Dinesh, the father of the plaintiff, the property was recorded in the name of Dinesh. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had a share in the property which was jointly owned by her grandmother. It was not in dispute that Dinesh, the father of the plaintiff had mortgaged the suit property with the Buldhana Zilla Pagardar Sevakanchya Pat Sanstha Va Sahkari Sangh Buldhana, while obtaining the loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. The trial and the first appellate court on an appreciation of the pleadings in the plaint, and on perusal of the prayer clause in the 2 plaint rejected the plaint under order 7 rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. on the ground that the suit was not tenable against the Buldhana District Housing Society, in the absence of any notice to the society under section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The courts held that, on a consideration of the prayer clause, and in view of the execution of the mortgage deed, obtaining of the loan from the housing society, it was clear that the matter related to or was concerned with the business of the Buldhana District Housing Society and hence the plaintiff ought to have issued notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 before filing the suit. The findings recorded by both the courts are just and proper. The courts below observed that the matter involved in the suit related to and concerned with the business of the society and if the plaintiff had any grievance against her father Dinesh she could have simply instituted a suit only against him for a declaration that the execution of the mortgage deed by him in favour of the society was not proper. The findings recorded by both the courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgment reported in 1970 Mh.L.J.301 and relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant can not be made applicable to the facts of this case. The second appeal fails and is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP