Dismissed

Mr. Dattaram Vinayak Mahale v. Mrs. Priti Prashant Mahale and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jun 2013WP/2786/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the refusal of authorities to examine the validity of a registered gift deed, directing the petitioner to seek relief in civil court. The petition was dismissed as no further directions were required given the absence of a judicial challenge to the deed's validity.

What did the court decide?

No further directions issued; petitioner to approach civil court for rights; possession protected pending civil litigation.

Mr. Dattaram Vinayak Mahale Vs Mrs. Priti Prashant… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP2786-13.sxw

¶2

JP CHAVAN

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2786 of 2013

¶5

Mr. Dattaram Vinayak Mahale ... Petitioner Versus

¶6

Mrs. Priti Prashant Mahale and others ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Prashant P. Kulkarni for the petitioner Ms. Sumedha Rao for Respondent No.1

¶8

CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 17 JUNE 2013

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

¶11

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai dated 18 October 2012, rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 20 April 2011.

¶12

By the impugned order, the authorities allowed the application filed by respondent no.1 under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and directed that respondent no.1 be made member of the respondent no.2 society. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the authorities allowed the application of the respondent no.1 on the ground that husband of respondent No.1 viz. Prashant Dattaram Mahale who was member of the respondent no.2 society had executed a registered gift deed dated 21 November, 2009 in favour of the

¶13

1/2

¶14

WP2786-13.sxw

¶15

respondent no.1. Objections raised by the petitioner as regards gift deed were not considered by the authorities on the ground that it was beyond their jurisdiction to do so. The approach of the authorities, while passing the impugned order of not examining the legality and validity of the registered gift deed cannot be faulted with. The petitioner will have to get his rights decided from the competent Civil Court.

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that during the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent no.1 has no intention of disturbing the possession of the petitioner over the suit flat. The statement is accepted. Thus, as on today the possession of the petitioner is protected in view of the statement made the leaned counsel for the respondent No.1. It will be open to the petitioner to get his right adjudicated from the competent Civil Court and once the competent Civil Court gives decision on merits, it will be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate orders from the Cooperative Authorities.

¶17

In view of the above position, no further directions are required to be issued in this petition. Considering the fact that the registered gift deed has not been set aside by any Court as on today, there is no impediment in the way of the authority to implement the order, which will be subject to the out come of the Civil litigation.

¶18

The Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶19

(N. M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶20

2/2

Mr. Dattaram Vinayak Mahale v. Mrs. Priti Prashant Mahale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Dattaram Vinayak Mahale v. Mrs. Priti Prashant Mahale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Santosh Baban Daswadkar Vs Shri. Chandrakant Hanuwati Shendkar and Ors.

Namdeo Shantaram Kurup Vs State of Maharashtra, by Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Anr.

M/S.B.N. Enterprises, Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. Vs M/S. K. S. Hirlekar and R. K. Hirlekar and Anr.

Pandharinath Bhikaji Joshi (Since Decd) through Heir Shri. Nandakumar Pandharinath Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Hansraj Ramdas Kasare Vs Honble Minister for Co-Operation, Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.