wp1075-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1075 OF 2011 Yasin Mohammad Miya Kazi & Ors .. Petitioners versus Deputy Registrar of Co-op.Societies & Ors .. Respondents Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi for the petitioners. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 and 5. Ms.Aasiya Kazi & Ms.Khadija Kazi, respondent Nos.2 and 3, present in person. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 17th JUNE 2011. P.C.: . Heard both sides. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar dismissing the revision application preferred by the petitioners and confirming the order dated 17th March 2010 of the Deputy Registrar. 2 It appears from the record that there is a dispute between the petitioners and the contesting respondents. They are both claiming through Smt.Saeeda Kazi. Smt.Saeeda Kazi is the mother of the contesting respondent Nos.2 and 3 and petitioner Nos.1 and 3. She is the wife of petitioner No.1. Although she is no more, the direction to admit respondent Nos.2 and 3 as members wp1075-11.doc 2 of the Co-operative Housing Society-respondent No.4 has been issued on the basis that the heirs and successors in interest of the said Saeeda had agreed to give all right, title and interest in the subject immovable property to respondent Nos.2 and 3. On that basis, respondent Nos.2 and 3 applied for membership of the society. On 21st September 2006 an order was made in their favour directing the Society to enroll them as a member. That order was not given effect to. However, on the strength of the No Objection Certificate and the agreement between the parties, said Saeeda executed Gift Deed during her lifetime in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3. On the basis of these documents, the directions to admit the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as members of respondent No.4 have been issued. These directions have been upheld by the Divisional Joint Registrar. 3 In the proceedings that have been initiated by the parties, namely, to admit them as members of the Co-operative Housing Society, the issue of right, title and interest of the parties in the property is not being decided and indeed cannot be decided. wp1075-11.doc 3 4 The argument of Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the Gift Deed is unregistered and, therefore, confers no right in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3. He also submits that section 41 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is not applicable and the registration of the document is, therefore, compulsory. 5 On the other hand, respondent Nos.2 and 3 rely on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1927 Calcutta 197 (Nasib Ali Vs. Wajeb Ali) to contend that the unregistered deed of gift could be relied upon. I do not wish to enter into this controversy and particularly whether under Sunni Muslim Law, it is permissible to rely on this Gift Deed. These are matters which are not and cannot be gone into the limited jurisdiction of the authorities. Once respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been put in possession on the basis of the document that is executed in their favour and produced by them before authorities, that document based on alleged understanding between the family members, then, the concurrent exercise of jurisdiction in wp1075-11.doc 4 this case need not be faulted with and interfered with. 6 The Court cannot in these proceedings decide the issue of right, title and interest of parties in immovable properties and the forum to get adjudication in that behalf is elsewhere. In these circumstances and by clarifying that none of the observations made in the impugned orders so also by this Court conclude the issue of right, title and interest of the parties in the immovable property, this petition is dismissed. 7 The apprehension of Mr.Suryawanshi is that if the ad- interim order of status-quo is not continued, the property may be disposed off by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the light of the fact that there is an ad-interim order operating in favour of the petitioners from 7th February 2011, interest of justice would be served if the same is continued for a period of four weeks but without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)