KARAMSI RAMJI RAMANI Vs. SHEILA BULEHAND KRUPALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original Opponent No. 2 has preferred this Writ Petition to challenge the order passed in Appeal No. 125 of 1975 by the Maharashtra state Co-operative Appellate Court whereby the Judgment and Award passed in No. SR/abn/190 of 1973-74 by the Officer on Special Duty came to be confirmed with modification to the extent that the part of the Award directing the appellant that is the present petitioner to pay Rs. 5,775/- to the present respondent No. 1 stood set aside and that the entire amount was to be recovered by Respondent No. 1 from the Original-Opponent No. 1, the present Respondent No. 2 the Society.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under : the present Respondent No, 1 filed a Dispute claiming that she is a member of Original Respondent No. 2, that she has paid all necessary charges as the Member of the Society, that she has also paid Rs. 30,000/- towards the cost ot the flat, that the Society allotted flat No. 21 in Building no. 12 on 2nd floor of Plot No. 266 Sapilka Lane, Bhavani Peth, Poona-2, that the Society had assured her by a letter that the flat would be delivered to her before Diwali and had also agreed to pay her compensation at the rate of Rs. 275/- per month from 1st February 1969 till the possession of the flat was delivered to her, that the Society has constructed in all 12 Buildings on Plot No. 266 and the buildings have been given separate Numbers in 10,11 and 12 and the flats have also been given Numbers, that flat No. 5 allotted to the disputant was numbered as Flat No. 21 as mentioned in the letter of the Society, that the Society failed to deliver the said flat to her in spite of her efforts, that she claimed that she was entitled to possession of the said Flat No. 5 and she was also entitled to the recovery of rs. 16,000/- which were due to her with interest on the said amount as the society did not deliver to her the flat as stipulated in the letter of the society. The disputant added the present petitioner as a party to the dispute as he is in occupation of the flat.

(3.) The Society filed a written statement and denied the allegations made by the disputant and contended that the description of the property was not correctly given, that the Society had never refused to deliver possession of the flat, but the disputant insisted upon the refund of her money and, therefore, possession was not handed over to her. They also contended that the amount received by them from the disputant was in fact not the amount for the flat but it was a sort of a loan obtained by the society from the disputant.