THE SALSETTE CATHOLIC CO OP HSG. SOC. LTDversusTHE DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR CO OP SOC. AND ORS

Neeta Sawant                                                                WP 9475 of 2026



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 9475 OF 2026

The Salsette Catholic Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd.                                                   …..Petitioner

       : Versus :

1. The Divisional Joint Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division
2. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
H-West Ward
3. Grace Pinto                                                         ….Respondents


Mr. G.S. Hegde, Senior Advocate with Mr. Clive D'souza, Ms. P.M.
Bhanushali and Mr. Arafat Siddiquie, for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi and Mr.
Kashish Chelani and Mr. Niraj Yadav, for Respondent No.3.
Ms. M.S. Srivastav, AGP for State.



                               CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                               JUDG. RESD. ON : 8 SEPTEMBER 2026
                               JUDG. PRON. ON : 30 SEPTEMBER 2026

JUDGMENT :


1)             The Petitioner-Society has filed the present petition
challenging the Orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, H-West Ward under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) directing the Society to grant
provisional membership to Respondent No.3. The Order passed by the
Deputy Registrar is confirmed in Revision by the Divisional Joint
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                    PAGE NOS. 1 of 13
                                    30 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                                WP 9475 of 2026



Registrar vide order dated 20 May 2026, which is also the subject matter
of challenge in the present petition.


2)             The Petitioner-Society is the owner of several plots of land
situated under the scheme popularly known as ‘Kantwadi Scheme’ at
Bandra, Mumbai. The plots are leased to the members of the society by
execution of various lease deeds. By Indenture dated 31 January 1934,
Petitioner-Society leased Plot No. 177 and portion of Plot No. 176
admeasuring 943.33 sq.yds. to one Anthony Gonsalves and Victor Danny
Gonsalves (original lessees), who were admitted as members of the
Society. The original lessees passed away and the legal heirs of the
original lessees executed agreement dated 28 August 1995 in favour of
one Allen D’Silva for redevelopment of the plot. The agreement was
cancelled vide Deed of Cancellation dated 3 September 2004.


3)             By Agreement to Assign dated 27 October 2004 and MOU
dated 28 January 2005 executed with various legal heirs of the original
lessees, Respondent No.3 claims to have acquired interest in respect of
the plot. Allen D’silva filed a suit against the heirs of the original lessees
and the suit remained pending. Petitioner-Society received letter from
Respondent No.3 on 14 March 2023, claiming that all the disputes were
settled. Respondent No.3 filed Suit No. 565 of 2025 before the City Civil
Court against Allen D’silva and others. In the above background,
Respondent No.3 filed Appeal under Section 22 of the MCS Act before
the Deputy Registrar for grant of membership. By order dated 11 March
2026, the Deputy Registrar passed order directing Petitioner-Society to
grant membership to Respondent No.3. Petitioner filed Revision

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                    PAGE NOS. 2 of 13
                                    30 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                                WP 9475 of 2026



Application No. 171 of 2026 challenging Deputy Registrar’s Order dated
11 March 2026.          By Order dated 20 May 2026, the Divisional Joint
Registrar has dismissed the Revision. Accordingly, the Petitioner has
filed the present petition challenging the orders passed by the Deputy
Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar.


4)             Mr. Hegde, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner-Society submits that Respondent No.3 is a rank trespasser on
the property of the Society and cannot be granted even temporary or
provisional membership. That there is no relationship between the
Society and Respondent No. 3, who has not acquired valid title to the
plot. That after the death of the original lessees, the legal heirs never
applied for membership of the Society. That, upon securing membership
of the Society, the legal heirs proceeded to assert multiple rights in
respect of the plot. That, they first sought to illegally create rights in
favour of Mr. Allen D’Silva and others. That the Society’s consent and/or
permission was not obtained while creating such alleged rights in favour
of Mr. Allen D’Silva. Without informing the Society, the alleged rights
created in favour of Mr. Allen D’Silva were cancelled, and fresh rights are
now sought to be created in favour of Respondent No. 3. Again, while
executing unregistered documents with Respondent No.3, Society's
permission is not taken. He submits that only a member can transfer
interest in the property. That since legal heirs were yet to be made
members, they cannot bypass the channel and directly induct someone
into the plot. That Respondent No.3 has not submitted any documents
showing valid purchase of the plot. That the documents on the basis of
which rights are claimed by Respondent No.3 are unregistered and
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                    PAGE NOS. 3 of 13
                                    30 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                                WP 9475 of 2026



unstamped documents. That no lawful transfer of any interest in the plot
has been effected in favour of Respondent No. 3, and consequently, there
can be no question of the Society admitting Respondent No. 3 as its
member. He submits that though the Society had initially objected to the
capacity of Respondent No.3 from being admitted as a member since he
is a non-Roman Catholic, the said ground is no longer pressed. He,
however, submits that there is no valid application by Respondent No. 3,
who neither filled up the prescribed statutory forms nor submitted the
same to the Society. That therefore, in absence of any application, there
cannot be deemed membership under Section 22(2) of the MCS Act. He
therefore submits that the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and the
Divisional Joint Registrar are erroneous and liable to be set aside. Mr.
Hegde submits that the point of absence of registration, despite being
raised, has not been decided either by the Deputy Registrar or by the
Divisional Joint Registrar. In support of his contention that there cannot
be deemed membership in absence of a valid application, Mr. Hegde
relies on judgment of this Court in Jay Anant Sagar Co-op. Housing
Society Versus. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies &
Ors.1


5)             Mr. Anturkar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for
Respondent No.3 opposes the Petition. He submits that Respondent No.3
has acquired valid interest in the plot by virtue of various documents
executed by the legal heirs of original lessees. That the Society cannot go
into the issue of acquisition of valid title. For securing membership of a
society, it is not necessary to conduct a detailed enquiry into the valid

1    2019 SCC Online Bom 1419
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                    PAGE NOS. 4 of 13
                                    30 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                                WP 9475 of 2026



acquisition of title. He further submits that the requirement for
registration of a document for acquisition of interest in the property of
the society is introduced by way of Chapter XIII-B w.e.f. 9 March 2019.
That Section 154B-12 does not have retrospective operation. That
acquisition of rights in the plot is vide agreement dated 21 October 2004
when there was no requirement for registration of the agreement. He
relies on judgment of Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in Mulshanker
Kunverji Gor & Ors. Versus. Juvansinhji Shivubha Jadeja 2 as followed
by this Court in Usha Arvind Dongre Versus. Suresh Raghunath Kotwal3
in support of his contention that in a tenant co-partnership society,
where the society is the owner of both, land as well as structure, transfer
of shares does not require registration of the agreement. He also relies
on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Sadbuddhi Brahmesh
Wagh & Ors. Versus. Satish Raghvendra Wagh & Ors. 4 in support of
his contention that no title is transferred to the purchasers with
purchase of shares and that therefore the documents of purchase of
shares does not require registration. He relies on provisions of Section 41
of the MCS Act in support of his contention that it is not necessary to
register the instrument relating to transfer of shares in the society. He
submits that all documents of purchase are produced before the Society
and Society’s membership was also applied for. Mr. Anturkar submits
that the two authorities have concurrently ruled in favour of Respondent
No.3. Ultimately, what is granted is merely provisional/temporary
membership. That therefore there is no warrant for interference in the
impugned orders. He prays for dismissal of the Petition.

2   1979 SCC OnLine Guj 54
3   1990 Mh.L.J. 306
4   2004 (1) Mh.L.J. 890
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                    PAGE NOS. 5 of 13
                                    30 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                                WP 9475 of 2026




6)             Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for
my consideration.


7)             The Petitioner-Society has challenged Orders passed by the
Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar, which contemplated
grant of provisional membership to Respondent No.3. It would be
appropriate to clarify the reason why provisional membership is granted
by the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar was informed about
pendency of S.C. Suit No. 968 of 2021. Since the said Suit was pending, it
appears that the Deputy Registrar had directed grant of provisional
membership. However, Mr. Anturkar has brought to the notice of the
Court the fact that the said suit has been compromised by filing of
Consent Terms in this Court in Appeal from Order No. 187 of 2021
between Mr. Allen D’silva, Respondent No.3 and legal heirs of the
original lessees. The Consent Terms are placed on record at page-504
along with the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by Respondent No.3. It is not
necessary to go into the details of the Consent Terms. Suffice it to
observe that the Suit appears to have been compromised by the parties.
In any case, grant of membership in a society does not decide the issue of
ownership and the records of the society can always be changed
depending upon the outcome of a civil suit.


8)             Coming to the core issue of grant of membership to
Respondent No.3, the main opposition by the Petitioner-Society for
admission of Respondent No.3 was the objection about she not being a
Roman Catholic. This was the main plea urged by the Society before the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                    PAGE NOS. 6 of 13
                                    30 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                                WP 9475 of 2026



Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar. Even in the present
Petition, the main objection is about absence of capacity of Respondent
No.3 as a Roman Catholic. However, during the course of his
submissions, Mr. Hegde has fairly not pressed this objection and has
submitted that the Petitioner-Society has given up the said objection.


9)             Mr. Hegde has, however, raised three objections to
admission of Respondent No.3 as a member of the Society. Firstly, he has
sought to suggest that Respondent No.3 has never applied for
membership and therefore there is no question of taking any decision on
grant of membership to Respondent No.3. Secondly, he has submitted
that Respondent No.3 cannot directly seek membership without the legal
heirs of the original lessees first securing membership of the Society.
Thirdly, he has submitted that the Agreement, on the basis of which
Respondent No.3 claims right in respect of the plot, is an unregistered
instrument.


10)             I proceed to take up the objection of failure to submit any
application or document by Respondent No.3 to seek membership.
Alongwith the Affidavit-in-Reply, Respondent No.3 has produced
Society’s letter dated 29 October 2008, by which the Society clearly
informed the Managing Committee's decision not to approve the sale of
plot to Respondent No.3. The letter dated 29 October 2008 reads thus:


                                                                      Date 29 October 2008

       Ms. Rosanna Maria Noronha
       (for self and as C.A. to
       Mr. Paul James De Souza
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                    PAGE NOS. 7 of 13
                                    30 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                                WP 9475 of 2026



       Flat No. 7, Ish Kripa B'wing
       Mulgaon Near Selma Chicken Center
       Vasai West Thane District.


       Dear Madam,

       Re: Plot No.177 & 176 (part), St. Andrew Road, Bandra

       Thank you for your letter. of 15 October 2008 in response of our letter of 16
       April 2008. At the outset we would not be able to take any action in respect of
       para one in view of Pardiwala & Company Advocates & Solicitors' letter ref.
       MRP/S-573/2028/2008 dated 31 March 2008.

       It is pertinent to note that we have now come to know that Mrs. Nasnim
       D'Souzą still stays on part of the property in an extension built by her at her
       own cost has been given to her on a 99 year lease under Consent Terms filed in
       the High Court by Joe D'Souza and others as part of the divorce proceedings,
       without our consent. This was also not brought to our attention earlier.

       We wish to confirm that the Managing Committee has not approved the
       sale to Mrs. Grace Pinto in view of the various issues raised in our earlier
       correspondence of 16 April 2008 and letter of even date.

       Yours faithfully

       For THE SALSETTE CATHOLIC CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.

       CORNEL K. GONSALVES SECRETARY
                                                                          (emphasis added)


11)            Thus, the application of Respondent No. 3 for grant of
membership is considered and rejected by the Society. It therefore
cannot lie in the mouth of the Society that Respondent No.3 never
applied for membership.


12)            Coming to the second objection of failure on the part of the
legal heirs to secure membership of the Society, in my view, the same
cannot be a ground for denial of membership to Respondent No.3, who
has now secured rights in respect of the plot from the legal heirs of the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                    PAGE NOS. 8 of 13
                                    30 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                                WP 9475 of 2026



original lessees. There may be procedural irregularity in legal heirs not
seeking transfer of membership, which is their right. However, since the
procedure for securing membership with the society is not followed, the
right of the legal representatives in respect of the plot does not get
extinguished. This right in the plot is assigned by the legal heirs in
favour of Respondent No.3. In that sense, mere failure on the part of the
legal heirs to transmit the membership in their names would not render
the transaction of purchase by Respondent No.3 ipso facto illegal. The
case does not involve assignment of plot by a member and such assignee
not applying for membership and directly transferring/assigning the plot
to a third party. What is involved in the present case is the legal heirs of
the deceased member assigning the rights in the plot to Respondent
No.3. Since the assignment has occurred 22 years ago on 27 October
2004, in the peculiar facts of the case, the non-following of the
procedural requirement by the legal heirs first securing membership,
needs to be ignored. Also, the situation is now irreversible. Now, there is
no point in the legal heirs applying for membership with the society for
removal of technical/procedural requirement and after transfer of the
share certificate in their name, the society expecting Respondent No. 3
to apply for membership. Also, there are multiple heirs of the original
deceased member and the society itself would have found it difficult to
grant membership to a particular person. This is not to recognise right in
favour of parties to bypass the society and execute assignments. But the
arrangement is recognised due to peculiar facts of the present case.




_____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                    PAGE NOS. 9 of 13
                                    30 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                                WP 9475 of 2026



13)            So far as the aspect of registration is concerned, Section 41
of the MCS Act provides for exemption from compulsory registration of
instruments relating to shares. Section 41 of the MCS Act provides thus:


               41. Exemption from compulsory registration of instruments
               relating to shares and debentures of society.—

               Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1), of section 17, of the
               Indian Registration Act, 1908, shall apply-

               (a) to any instrument relating to shares in a society, notwithstanding
               that the assets of the society consist in whole or in part of immovable
               property ; or

               (b) to any debentures issued by any society and not creating, declaring,
               assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest to or in
               immovable property, except insofar as it entitles the bolder to the
               security afforded by a registered instrument whereby, the society has
               mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its
               immovable property, or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for
               the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or

               (c) to any endorsement upon, or transfer of, any debentures issued by
               any society


14)            However, Chapter XIII-B has been added to the MCS Act
w.e.f. 9 March 2019 and provisions of Section 154B-12 now require
registered document for the purpose of transfer of shares, right, title and
interest in the property of the society. Section 154B-12 of the MCS Act
provides thus:

               154B-12. Transfer of share, right, title and interests:

               A Member may transfer his share, right, title and interest of his
               property in the society by way of registered document by following the
               due procedure as provided in the rules or bye-laws




_____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                   PAGE NOS. 10 of 13
                                    30 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                                WP 9475 of 2026



15)            However, the transaction in the present case has occurred
on 27 October 2004, when provisions of Section 154B-12 did not find
place in the MCS Act and transfer of shares was governed by the
provisions of Section 41 of the MCS Act. Mr. Anturkar has relied upon
judgment of Gujarat High Court in Mulshanker Kunverji Gor (supra) and
judgments of this Court in Usha Arvind Dongre (supra) and Sadbuddhi
Brahmesh Wagh (supra) in support of his contention that registration is
not compulsory for purchase of shares in a tenant co-partnership society
since transfer of shares does not include transfer of interest in the
property. Petitioner has not clarified in the petition as to whether it is a
tenant-co-ownership society or tenant-co-partnership society. The
objection of absence of registration is not specifically raised in the
Petition. In ground clause (j), it is vaguely sought to be suggested that
Respondent No.3 ‘did not produce’ any lawful ‘registered title
documents’. Ground clause (j) of the Petition reads thus :

               j. The Respondent Nos.1 & 2 failed to consider that Respondent No.3
               had illegally acquired the plots and that she was a rank trespasser on
               the property of the Society. The Respondent Nos.1 & 2 committed
               grave error in holding that by various documents the Respondent No.3
               had acquired Plot Nos. 177 and 176 (part), without the Respondent
               No.3 having produced any 'lawful registered title documents' which had
               written approval from the Petitioner Society.


16)            Thus, emphasis in ground clause (j) is about ‘non-
production of title documents’ and not about ‘absence of registration’.
Therefore, in the facts of the present case, it is not necessary to delve
deeper into the aspect of non-registration of the Agreement dated 27
October 2004. The Petitioner society’s main objection was about
Respondent No. 3 not being Roman Catholic. The objection of non-

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                   PAGE NOS. 11 of 13
                                    30 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                                WP 9475 of 2026



registration of the Agreement was neither specifically raised before the
Deputy Registrar and the Divisional joint Registrar nor the same finds
place in the present petition. Also, while rejecting the request of
Respondent No. 3 for admitting her as member, the Petitioner society
did not raise objection about non-registration of the Agreement. The
resistance by the society for admitting Respondent No. 3 as a member
was essentially due to the legal heirs entering into two transactions (with
Respondent No. 3 and with Mr. Allen D’silva) and some extent to the
structure and recognition of leasehold rights in divorce proceedings
without society’s consent. Non-registration of the Agreement was not
even remotely suggested in the society’s letter dated 29 October 2008. If
the instrument of transfer shares and interest in the immovable property
of the society required registration in the year 2004, the Petitioner ought
to have pleaded the exact class for which it is registered (tenant co-
partnership or tenant co-ownership) and raised a specific plea to that
effect. In absence of foundational pleadings in the Petition, the oral
objection raised before me is incapable of being adjudicated. The issue is
therefore left open to be decided in an appropriate case.


17)            Both, the Deputy Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar
have concurrently ruled in favour of Respondent No.3 by directing grant
of provisional membership to Respondent No.3. As observed above, the
main reservation by the Petitioner-Society was about Respondent No.3
not producing any valid document of she being a Roman Catholic. Now
that the said objection is given up, there is no warrant for interference in
the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint
Registrar.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                   PAGE NOS. 12 of 13
                                    30 September 2026
                        Neeta Sawant                                                                WP 9475 of 2026




                        18)    Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.




                                                                               [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

           Digitally
           signed by
           NEETA
NEETA      SHAILESH
SHAILESH   SAWANT
SAWANT     Date:
           2026.09.30
           16:30:32
           +0530




                        _____________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                           PAGE NOS. 13 of 13
                                                            30 September 2026