21 April,2026 08:42 AM IST | Mumbai | Vinod Kumar Menon
The Bombay High Court in Fort. File pic
In a landmark ruling on housing society governance, the Bombay High Court has clarified that cooperative housing societies cannot deny membership to legal heirs on technical grounds or adjudicate ownership disputes.
In an order dated April 18, 2026, Justice Amit Borkar upheld a 2014 decision granting deemed membership to Radheshyam Dhanuka, stressing that societies must recognise heirs based on prima facie evidence under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (MCS Act). The court also held that procedural lapses cannot override legitimate succession claims.
>> The case relates to Flat No. 31 in a Malad housing society.
>> The flat was purchased in 1970 by Ramlal Dhanuka
>> He died in 1989, disputes arose among his three sons
>> A 2007 civil suit claiming exclusive ownership was withdrawn unconditionally in 2012
>> Radheshyam Dhanuka, residing in flat, then applied for membership as a legal heir
>> His request was rejected in 2013
>> The Divisional Joint Registrar overturned this in 2014 and granted membership
The housing society approached the HC, citing procedural irregularities:
>> Application filed as "transfer" instead of "transmission"
>> No objections invited from other heirs
>> Alleged lack of due process
>> Questioning of the revisional authority's jurisdiction
The ruling reinforces:
>> Societies must adopt a practical, administrative approach
>> Membership claims based on succession cannot be rejected on technical grounds
>> Ownership disputes remain within domain of civil courts
>> Experts say judgment will have statewide implications
Societies cannot decide ownership
The court held that cooperative housing societies are administrative bodies, not judicial authorities.
Ownership and inheritance disputes must be decided by civil courts.
Prima facie recognition is enough
Under the MCS Act, societies are required only to identify the apparent legal heir on a prima facie basis.
>> This does not confer ownership
>> It does not extinguish competing claims
Substance over technical errors
The court rejected the society's objections on procedural grounds.
>> Minor errors in forms cannot defeat valid claims
>> Incorrect references to by-laws are not grounds for rejection
>> The intent of the applicant was clear
The court noted that the society had already processed the application, showing it understood the nature of the claim.
Transfer vs transmission clarified
The court distinguished between:
>> Transfer: Voluntary transaction
>> Transmission: Succession after death
It ruled that incorrect terminology does not change the nature of a claim based on inheritance.
Conduct of parties matters
The court observed:
>> The earlier ownership dispute had been withdrawn
>> No substantial objections were raised by other heirs
>> The society had accepted maintenance payments from the applicant
>> These factors supported his claim for membership.
The court upheld the authority of the Divisional Joint Registrar to review the case.
>> Delegation of powers does not remove hierarchy
>> Officers remain subordinate to the Registrar
>> Revisional powers can be exercised
>> The 2014 order granting membership was therefore valid.
>> The HC found no illegality in the 2014 order
>> The writ petition was dismissed
>> No interim relief was granted
>> Societies must grant prima facie recognition to heirs
>> Membership can be provisional, subject to safeguards such as indemnity and public notice
>> Final ownership must be determined by legal processes
He added, "Such provisional membership confers no ownership rights. The member holds the flat in trust for all legal heirs and cannot create third-party rights, transfer, or encumber the property until succession is conclusively established." Parab said this ensures continuity in society's functioning while protecting the rights of all heirs.
