Mumbai, April 18, 2026: Emphasising the limited role of cooperative housing societies, the Bombay High Court on Saturday held that such bodies cannot decide ownership or succession disputes amongst family members, and are only required to recognise a member on a prima facie basis for administrative purposes.
Court dismisses society’s petition
Justice Amit Borkar dismissed a petition filed by The Malad Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., challenging a 2014 order that granted deemed membership of a flat to one of the legal heirs.
Background of long-standing family dispute
The case concerned a long-standing dispute over a flat in Malad (East), originally held jointly by late Ramlal Dhanuka and Pannadevi Dhanuka. They had three sons.
After Pannadevi’s heirs withdrew a civil suit claiming exclusive ownership in 2012, Radheshyam Dhanuka – one of the sons – applied to the society seeking membership as a legal heir. With no decision forthcoming, he approached the authorities, and the Divisional Joint Registrar (DJR) ultimately allowed his claim.
Society raises procedural objections
The society challenged this order, arguing that the application was procedurally defective, incorrectly framed as a “transfer” instead of “transmission”, and that consent of all heirs was necessary before granting membership.
HC clarifies limited role of housing societies
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court clarified that the core issue before the society was not title, but recognition for its internal records. “A cooperative housing society is not a forum constituted for adjudicating title disputes, succession claims or proprietary entitlements between legal heirs,” the court observed.
Recognition does not determine ownership
It further noted that the law only requires the society to identify, on a prima facie basis, the person who “appears to be the heir or legal representative” of the deceased member.
“The recognition granted by the society neither creates title nor extinguishes title,” the court said, adding that such disputes must be resolved by competent civil courts.
Substance over procedural technicalities
On procedural objections, the court held that substance must prevail over form. Even if the application referred to the wrong bye-law or form, it was clearly based on inheritance and could not be rejected on technical grounds alone. “Procedural forms… are not intended to become instruments of injustice,” the court said.
Revisional authority’s jurisdiction upheld
The bench also upheld the jurisdiction of the revisional authority, ruling that officers exercising delegated powers remain subordinate and their decisions can be reviewed under the statutory framework.
Court notes conduct of parties
The court also took note of the conduct of the parties, observing that no strong objections were raised by other legal heirs at the relevant time. It pointed out that even earlier litigation over the flat had been unconditionally withdrawn, reducing the scope of dispute before the society.
Also Watch:
Petition dismissed by High Court
Finding no illegality in the DJR’s order, the court said there was no reason to interfere under its writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition. It reiterated that writ courts do not re-examine facts unless there is clear perversity or jurisdictional error. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
