1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7315 OF 2002 Shri Ravindra Dadasaheb Patil and Ors. .....Appellants. V/s Prakash Upsa Jalsinchan Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit & Ors. .....Respondents. ----- Mr. Umesh Mankapure for the appellants. Mr. P.S. Dani for respondents. ----- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 15 th January, 2008. P.C.: 1. By this appeal, the appellants challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, partly allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondents. 2. The learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed 2 by the authorities below by which the present appellants were granted membership of the original Petitioner - Society. The learned Single Judge has set aside the order of the authorities below in relation to the present appellants because there is no finding recorded by the authorities below that the appellants hold the land within the area of operation of the original petitioner - Society. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is not in a position to point out any finding recorded by the authorities below that the present appellants hold the land within the area of operation of the Society. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the burden was on the Society in view of the list prepared by them to show that the present appellants do not hold the land within their area of operation. 4. In our opinion, as the order was passed by the Assistant Registrar at the instance of the present appellants, the burden was entirely on the present appellants to prove, by leading evidence, that they hold the land within the area of operation of the Society because, according to the bye-laws of the Society, persons holding the land within the area of operation of the Society can only become members. The conduct of the appellants of not establishing before the learned Single Judge that they hold the land within the area of operation of the Society, shows that, in fact, they do not 3 hold the land within the area of operation of the Society. In our opinion, therefore, the present appellants have been rightly denied the membership of the Society. 5. Appeal is rejected. 6. Since the appeal is disposed of, Civil Application No.254 of 2003 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4