vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5763 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5763 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5763 OF 2008 Ravindersingh Chandok ... Petitioner V/s. The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Rajesh B. Parab for Petitioner Mr.S.D. Rayrikar, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 4 Ms.Alisha Lambay i/b M/s.Lambay & co. for Resp. No.2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 18, 2008 DECEMBER 18, 2008 DECEMBER 18, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition challenges the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 12.10.2007 by which he has dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that by several earlier orders, the authorities below have held that the release deed in respect of Flat No.1, Jeevan Satyakam Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., LIC Building, Bandra (west), Mumbai signed by the petitioner and his mother in favour of his brother Parminder is invalid. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that unless this finding is set aside, Respondent No.2 could not have acted upon that release deed. 2. In my opinion, the Registrar, Cooperative : 2 : Societies has no jurisdiction or power vested in him to declare whether the release deed in respect of certain propery is valid. That power is vested in a civil Court. 3. After the release deed was signed, it appears that the flat was attached in Suit No.311 of 1999. Thereafter, a settlement was recorded between the decreeholder and the judgment debtor i.e. the petitioner and his brother Parminder Singh in which parties agreed to certain terms for settling the suit. It was agreed that Defendant No.2 would pay a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to the decreeholder and the decree will be marked satisfied. Accordingly, the decree was marked satisfied. Undisputedly, there was a release deed signed in favour of Parminder by the Petitioner and his mother. An irrevocable power of attorney was also executed by them in favour of Parminder. These documents have not been challenged before any competent Court by the Petitioner and therefore the Respondents have rightly acted on them. Parminder released the flat to Respondent No.2 and it is in these circumstances, the impugned order has been passed. In my opinion, there is no need to interfere with this order. 4. Petition is rejected.