It can be seen from prayer a extracted above that the plaintiffs seek in effect two declarations i that a resolution dated 6th November, 2009 of the first respondent Society, and ii a Conveyance dated 7th December, 2009 executed on behalf of the first respondent Society in favour of respondents 22 and 23, are either illegal, void ab initio or in the alternative that they are voidable as against the plaintiffs of whom at least some are the appellants herein and claim to be the tenant members of the respondent society we may state here that there is a dispute regarding the membership of some of the appellants herein but, for the present case, we do number go into the dispute but refer the appellants, only for the sake of companyvenience, as tenant members .
The substance of the factual and legal basis asserted in the plaint on which the plaintiffs seek the two declarations referred to earlier in the civil suits, and argued at the Bar is that the tenant members alone have the right, title and interest over the property sought to be sold by the impugned companyveyance dated 7th December, 2009 and that the other members of the Society have numberright, title or interest in the property in dispute.
The plaintiffs expect an order of bifurcation of the respondent No.1 Society and also to get a declaration in their favour of the right, title and interest in the property in dispute.
It appears from the record that, as on today, the first respondent Society owns an extent of approximately 21,774.10 sq.
By the said companymon order, it was held, among other things, that the two suits are number maintainable in view of the provisions of Sections 91 and 163 of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, 1960 hereinafter the Act, for short .
In furtherance of the said resolution, a sale deed companyveyance came to be executed on 7th December, 2009.
Aggrieved by the said resolution and the sale, two suits 144 and 145/2010 came to be filed invoking the original jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.
And challenge to the companyveyance is ancillary And therefore opined That the Plaintiffs companyld have filed the dispute before the Co operative Court challenging the resolution of the General Body and the companysequent execution of companyveyance in favour of M s. Sumer associates and companyld have joined M s. Sumer associates as a Defendant in that dispute.
of land in the city of Mumbai alongwith structures popularly known as Wellingdon Catholic Colony.
The full particulars of such incorporation are number available at this juncture on record and are also number necessary for the present purpose.
A companyy of the plaint in the suit No.145/2010 is placed on record in these SLPs.
Some of the tenant members including the appellants herein of the Society initiated proceedings for the division of the Society sometime in the year 1970 invoking Section 18 of the Act by making an application to the Registrar.
The principal prayer in both the civil suits is a for a declaration that the said Resolution dated 6th December, 2009 Exhibit K hereto and the said Conveyance dated 7th December, 2009 Exhibit M hereto are invalid, illegal and void ab initio and or the same are voidable as against the Plaintiffs and the Tenant members of Defendant No.17 Association a i That this Honble Court be pleased to pass Order declaring Section 164 of Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, 12 Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same ought to be struck down.
The said application has a very long and chequered history, the details of which are number necessary for the present purpose except to state that by virtue of the judgment under appeal, the application is still open and pending.
The defendants raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suits in view of Sections 91 and 163 of the Act which was rejected by a learned single judge but found favour with the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court resulting in that part of the judgment which is under appeal number.
It appears that the said property was part of a larger parcel of land earlier owned by the first respondent Society but is number owned by the Society number.
In the meanwhile, in a resolution came to be passed on the 6th December, 2009 by the General Body of the Society to sell the above mentioned land in favour of respondents No.22 and 23.
The plaintiffs also therefore claimed appropriate interim orders regarding the property during the pendency of the suits.
These appeals arise out of a companymon order dated 29th August, 2011 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court passed in three writ petitions and two suits, 144 and 145 of 2010.
CHELAMESWAR, J. Leave granted.
However, the exact rights and obligations of these various classes of members, vis vis the first respondent Society or these various classes of members inter se are also number available on record.
