JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties i.e. Ms Nagotanekar for the Petitioner, the Learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and the Learned Counsel Mr. D'Souza for the Respondent No.4, made returnable forthwith and heard. In so far as the Respondent No.3 is concerned, Committee Member Mr. Pramod Surve is personally present in Court with the record of the society and states that he has no objection to the Petition being decided. 2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 20-1-2014 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar by which order, the Revision Application filed by the Respondent No.4 herein came to be allowed and resultantly the order dated 23-7-2012 passed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies G/N Ward, came to be set aside and the Respondent No.3 society was directed to admit the Respondent No.4 as a member of the said society. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition in brief be stated thus: The Respondent No.3 is a Cooperative Housing Society of which one Dulcine A. D'Souza was a member in respect of flat bearcing No.C101. It appears that the said Dulcine expired on 21-8-2010. The Petitioner is the daughter in law of the said Dulcine, and the Respondent No. 4 is the daughter of the said Dulcine. On her death, the Respondent No.4 herein filed an application for being made a member on the basis of an alleged nomination made by the said Dulcine in her favour. It appears that the Respondent No.3 society did not act upon the said application as a result of which the Respondent No.4 approached the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies G/N Ward, by way of an application under Section 22(2) of the said Act. It appears that before the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies G/N Ward, the society though a party, did not appear before him. It appears that before the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies G/N Ward, the society though a party, did not appear before him. The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies G/N Ward, by his order dated 23-7-2012 rejected the said application inter alia on the ground that the nomination was blank in so far as the names of the witnesses were concerned, the nomination though bears the alleged thumb impression of the original member Dulcine, the same had not been witnessed by the witnesses and that the managing committee of the society has not passed any resolution to accept the said nomination and make an entry of the same in the record of the society. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies G/N Ward, dated 23-7-2012, the Respondent No.4 filed a revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar as indicated above has by the impuged order allowed the said Revision Application and thereby set aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies G/N Ward, and directed the society to accept the Respondent No.4 herein as a member. 4. The gist of the reasoning of the Divisional Joint Registrar was that the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies G/N Ward, had erred in going into the legality and validity of the documents as the said documents could only be gone into by a Civil Court. The Divisional Joint Registrar also held that the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies G/N Ward, erred in rejecting the application in the absence of the society being before him. The Divisional Joint Registrar as can be seen has relied upon the Judgments rendered by Learned Single Judges of this Court in Harish Commercial Premises Coop Soc. Ltd. Vs. Varsha Dinesh Joshi & ors. 2006 CTJ 544 and Usha Jhaveri Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., wherein the Learned Single Judges have held that whilst considering an application for membership, the authorities cannot go into the legality and validity of the documents on the basis of which membership is sought. As indicated above the Divisional Joint Registrar has by the impugned order dated 20-1-2014 allowed the Revision Application filed by the Respondent No.4 herein which order is impugned in the present Petition. 5. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Ms Nagotnekar would reiterate the case of the Petitioner which was urged before the authorities below. 5. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Ms Nagotnekar would reiterate the case of the Petitioner which was urged before the authorities below. The Learned Counsel would contend that the Deputy Registrar had rightly rejected the application filed by the Petitioner having regard to the infirmity in the main document i.e. the nomination allegedly made by Dulcine on the basis of which membership was sought. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel that the Divisional Joint Registrar had erred in setting aside the order on the ground that the legality and validity of the document could not have been gone into by the Deputy Registrar. The Learned Counsel would contend that the document in the instant case is the nomination in form no.14 allegedly executed by Dulcine on the basis of which the membership has been claimed by the Respondent No.4 and not any document of title in respect of which a Civil Court can have jurisdiction. 7. Per contra Mr. D'Souza the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4 would seek to justify the impugned order. However in the teeth of the fact that the nomination form is blank in so far as the names of the witnesses and their signatures are concerned, as also considering the fact that the alleged thumb impression of the original member Dulcine has also not been attested, could not justify the impugned order with any deal of conviction. 8. The Learned AGP would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court may pass appropriate orders. 9. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties I have considered the rival contentions. It is an undisputed fact that the Respondent No.4 had applied for the membership of the Respondent No.3 society which application was based on the nomination which is in form no.14 allegedly executed by the original member Dulcine. I have perused the original of the nomination form from the record which was produced by Mr. Pramod Surve, the office bearer of the Society. A perusal of the nomination form indicates that on the first page the name of the society and the name of the original member appears with the name of the nominee i.e. the Respondent No.4 herein. Pramod Surve, the office bearer of the Society. A perusal of the nomination form indicates that on the first page the name of the society and the name of the original member appears with the name of the nominee i.e. the Respondent No.4 herein. However on the reverse of the page, the column marked for the names of the witnesses and their signatures, is blank. In fact the entire reverse of the said nomination form is blank except for the thumb impression alleged to be that of the original member Dulcine. The thumb impression has also not been identified or attested by any witnesses to be that of the original member. It is also required to be noted that the nomination form filed by the member is to be placed before the managing committee for its acceptance and on such acceptance an entry is required to be made in the records of the society as regards the nomination made by the said member. In the instant case, the said procedure is not followed. The question therefore arises whether the nomination in fact is that of the original member. 10. Be that as it may, the Deputy Registrar on a consideration of the aforesaid facts held that the Respondent No.4 could not be given the membership and has accordingly rejected the application by his order dated 23-7-2012. On the matter reaching the Revisionary Authority i.e. the Divisional Joint Registrar, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar was set aside on the ground that the authorities exercising powers under the said Act whilst considering the application for membership are not required to go into the validity of the document. In my view, the Revisionary Authority i.e. the Divisional Joint Registrar has totally misdirected himself, the question here was not in respect of any document of title by way of any agreement or conveyance. Here the document was the nomination in form no.14 which nomination has to be in terms of the rules applicable to a Cooperative Society and the bye laws of the Cooperative Society. Here the document was the nomination in form no.14 which nomination has to be in terms of the rules applicable to a Cooperative Society and the bye laws of the Cooperative Society. The Deputy Registrar had therefore rightly proceeded to consider the application on the basis as to whether there is a compliance of the rules in the matter of the nomination and on a consideration of the said nomination as also on consideration of the fact that the said nomination had not received the approval of the managing committee and there was no record of its acceptance in the society's record, held that the Respondent No.4 was disentitled to the membership. The Divisional Joint Registrar has erroneously applied the judgments of the Learned Single Judges of this Court. The issues before the learned Single Judges in the said cases were as regards the documents of title on the basis of which membership was claimed or the legality of the structure in respect of which membership was sought. Such are not the facts in the instant case as in the instant case, the membership is sought solely on the basis of the nomination form. In my view therefore, the Divisional Joint Registrar has erred in exercising the revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar. The impugned order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar would therefore have to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. 11. The Respondent No.4 who is the daughter of the original member Dulcine may adopt such civil proceedings as are available in law to assert her right in respect of the flat in question. It would also be open for the Petitioner who is the daughter in law of the said Dulcine to adopt such civil proceedings, claiming a right to the said flat. If such proceedings are filed, needless to state that the same would be tried on their own merits and in accordance with law. Since the Petitioner, who is the daughter in law of Dulcine, is undisputedly in occupation of the flat in question, she would continue to pay the maintenance charges to the society, till she is evicted by due process of law. The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs of the Petition.