LexMARGRET ALMEIDA & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus THE BOMBAY CATHOLIC CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2012] 2 S.C.R. 366 A MARGRET ALMEIDA & ORS. ETC. ETC. B c v. THE BOMBAY CATHOLIC CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS. ETC. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 1175-1177 of 2012) JANUARY 30, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] · Co-operative Socieites: Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - ss. 91 and 163 - Maintainability of suits - Initiation of proceedings for the division of the Co-operative Society by tenant members (including appellant) - Meanwhile, resolution 0 passed by General Body of the Society in favour of respondents (3rd party) - Dispute arising out of a decision of the society to alienate the property of the society - Suits filed by appellants and others before the High Court - High Court holding the suits not maintainable on the ground that the E dispute was amenable to the exclusive jurisdiction u/s. 91 to the Co-operative Court - Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - s. 94 (3)(a) does not enable a person other than enumerated persons (specified under clauses (a) to (e) to sub · section (1) of s. 91) to refer a dispute to Co-operative Court- Property in which the 3rd party acquired interest must bear F some relationship with the dispute pending before the tribunal - To hold otherwise would be to enable the Co-operative Court to examine questions unconnected with the dispute pending before it and wholly unconnected with the. affairs of the Society ...,. From the language of the sub section (3)(a}to Section 94 G it is clear that the legislature intended the Co-operative Court to deal with only the cases of acquisition of interest in the propE~rty during the pendency of the litigation before it - If any. party such as the appellants disputes the validity of the title conveyed thereunder, necessarily such a dispute would have H 366 MARGRET ALMEIDA & ORS., ETC. v. BOMBAY CATHOLIC 367 COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. to be adjudicated by a competent court u/s. 9 CPC wherein, A · necessarily, the question whether a valid title was conveyed in favour of 3rd party by the society would arise for determination - Thus, the ordP.r passed by the High Court set aside - Suits are maintainable and are to be tried by the High Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction - Code of Civil B Procedure, 1908 - s. 9. First respondent is a Housing Co-operative Society. The society has different classes of members known as owners, lessees, alottees, tenants etc. Some of the tenant members including appellants of the Society initiated C proceedings for the division of the Society, invoking Section 18 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 by making an application to the Registrar. Me while, the General Body of the Society passed a resolution to sell the said land in favour of respondent D Nos. 22 and 23. Thereafter, a sale deed/conveyance was executed. The appellants filed two suits seeking declarations that a resolution of first respondent Society and Conveyance executed on behalf of the first respondent Society in favour of respondent Nos. 22 and E 23 is illegal and void ab initio in the alternative voidable against the plaintiffs of whom some are appellants (tenant members). The plaintiffs also filed an interlocutory application seeking an interim order. The defendants raised a preliminary objection regarding the F maintainability of the suits in view of Sections 91 and 163 of the Act. The High Court held that the two suits are not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sections 91 and 163 of the Act. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals. G Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Civil Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate civil disputes is unlimited, subject only to the limitations imposed by law either expressly or by necessary H 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R. A implications. Section 163 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 bars the jurisdiction of Civil and Revenue Courts. Section 163(1)(b) and Section 91(3) are complimentary to each other. Section 163 only excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with reference to the B disputes arising out of the registration. A dispute arising out of a decision of the society to alienate the property of the society is not expressly covered under Section 163 of the Act. [Paras 16, 17, 18 and 19] [380-G-H; 382-B-E-F] 1.2. Section 91 makes it mandatory that certain C disputes, the nature of which is specifie
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.