Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Order Date: 16 September 2026 (judgment pronounced); judgment reserved on 29 August 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Sabruddin Hussain Ali Shaikh (Writ Petition No. 7706 of 2026)
- Respondents: 1. Vijay Vitthal Sonawane; 2. Malvani Sahajivan CHS Ltd (the Society)
- Nature of proceedings: Petition challenging the judgment and order dated 9 July 2025 of the Co‑operative Appellate Court, which dismissed Appeal No.4 of 2022 and upheld the Co‑operative Court’s award dated 22 November 2021 directing the petitioner and the Society to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the D‑5 tenement to Respondent No.1, together with costs of Rs.1 lakh each.
- Background of the dispute:
- The Society, formed for construction of houses on a plot allotted by MHADA, allotted D‑5 premises (40 sq.m.) in Plot No.141 at Malvani, Malad to Respondent No.1.
- Respondent No.1 allegedly sold D‑5 to Mr. Tahir Akhtar Qureshi for Rs.1,50,000; Qureshi paid Rs.1,80,000 to the Society for construction.
- On 22 July 2005 Qureshi sold the tenement to Mr. Sayyed Irshad Mendhi for Rs.5,60,000.
- Mendhi, short of funds, approached the petitioner, who assisted him; Mendhi then transferred all right, title, interest and possession of D‑5 to the petitioner in 2005.
- Respondent No.1 filed Dispute CC‑IV/101/2004 seeking possession of D‑5 from the Society; after learning of the petitioner’s claim, he amended the dispute (renumbered CC/III/295/2014) and impleaded the petitioner.
- The Co‑operative Court, on 22 November 2021, ordered possession of D‑5 to be handed over to Respondent No.1 and imposed costs of Rs.1 lakh each on the petitioner and the Society.
- The petitioner appealed (Appeal No.4 of 2022) before the Co‑operative Appellate Court; the appeal was dismissed on 9 July 2025.
- Contentions raised:
- Petitioner argued lack of jurisdiction of the Co‑operative Court (as he is not a Society member) and limitation defence, asserting his lawful ownership from 2005.
- Respondent No.2 (Society) highlighted that construction costs were borne by Qureshi, not Respondent No.1, and that Respondent No.1 had an FIR lodged against him.
- Respondent No.1 contended that the Co‑operative Courts ruled in his favour and that the petitioner was in illegal occupation, seeking mesne profits.
- Legal points considered by the High Court:
- Section 94(3)(a) of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960 permits the Co‑operative Court to implead a third party who acquires an interest in the property of a party to the dispute.
- The Apex Court’s interpretation in Margret Almeida & Ors. vs. Bombay Catholic CHSL & Ors. confirms that such impleadment is permissible during pendency of the dispute.
- The petitioner’s acquisition of interest in D‑5 occurred in 2005, i.e., after the dispute was filed on 3 February 2004, satisfying the statutory condition.
- The limitation objection was rejected because the petitioner’s alleged acquisition was not through a registered instrument and the suit was filed before any such acquisition.
- The Court held that the transactions involving Qureshi and Mendhi lacked legal basis as they were not effected through registered instruments; consequently, the petitioner could not claim any right in the tenement.
- The High Court distinguished the petitioner’s reliance on Sanjaykumar Amrutlal Shah & Ors. vs. Uttamlal Ratilal Shah & Anr. as inapplicable, noting the present dispute concerned possession of an allotted tenement, not the society’s business of letting a bungalow.
- Allegations regarding another MHADA allotment to Respondent No.1 were deemed irrelevant to the specific relief sought (possession of D‑5) and therefore not considered.
Final Outcome
- The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.
- No further order as to costs is made.
- The earlier orders of the Co‑operative Court (possession to Respondent No.1) and the Co‑operative Appellate Court remain effective.
Topics: Court Judgment, Co‑operative Society Dispute, Possession Order