In A.O. No. 13 of 2026, Smt. Jyotshana Viren Desai challenged an order dated December 24, 2025, by the Co-operative Court No. IV, Mumbai, which had rejected her application for interim relief in Dispute No. 21 of 2024.

The Appellate Court, presided over by Dr. Srishty Neelkanth, Member-1, delivered its judgment on August 14, 2026, and held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable loss warranting interim protection.

Importantly, the order does not finally determine ownership of the disputed flat. Instead, the Court declined to grant interim relief in the proceedings before the Co-operative Court.

Dispute concerns redeveloped flat in Kandivali East

The dispute concerns Flat No. 503 in Ashok Anand Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Ashok Nagar, Cross Road 3, Kandivali East, Mumbai.

Jyotshana Viren Desai was the original disputant and claimed to be a sister-in-law and co-member along with Respondent No. 1, Kirti Narendra Desai. Respondent No. 3, Priti Kirti Desai, is the wife of Kirti Desai, while the society was Respondent No. 2.

According to the appellant, the society’s old building had undergone redevelopment with AAFCON Developers. Following the redevelopment agreement, individual agreements were executed between the builder and members for the proposed replacement flats.

The redeveloped building was completed and possession of the new flat was given in 2012.

The appellant claimed that she had a 50% right, title and interest in Flat No. 503.

Allegation of ₹24.14 lakh redevelopment proceeds

A major component of the dispute concerns money arising from the redevelopment.

The appellant alleged that total redevelopment proceeds of ₹24.14 lakh had been appropriated by Respondent No. 1 without sharing the amount with her.

She also alleged that Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 removed her belongings from Flat No. 503 and denied her ownership rights in the property.

The dispute consequently involved not merely the cooperative society’s administration but also allegations concerning ownership, possession and financial rights between family members.

Woman sought access to the flat and protection of her alleged share

The appellant claimed that she was being deprived of the use and occupation of the flat despite allegedly holding a 50% interest in it.

She further alleged that she had been forced to live in a licensed flat with her two sons.

She sought an order permitting her respectful and unhindered entry and exit to Flat No. 503 and allowing her to use, occupy and peacefully enjoy the property.

She also alleged that Respondent No. 1 was unwilling to appear before the Sub-Registrar to execute the Permanent Alternate Accommodation documentation relating to Flat No. 503.

Several interim reliefs sought before the Co-operative Court

Along with the main dispute, the appellant filed an interim application under Exh. 5.

Among other things, she sought directions requiring Respondent No. 1 to remain present before the Sub-Registrar and execute the necessary documents with the builder.

She also sought recovery of ₹17.54 lakh with interest at 18% until realization.

In addition, she asked for video footage concerning the removal of her belongings from the flat and sought directions allowing her access to the property.

She wanted the society to follow the applicable cooperative procedure while calling or dealing with her as a member.

The appellant further requested that Respondent No. 1 be directed to deposit 50% of her claim in a separate fixed-deposit account in the name of the Court.

She also sought an injunction preventing Respondent No. 1 from creating third-party rights, raising loans against the property or otherwise dealing with what she claimed was her share in Flat No. 503.

Trial Court rejected interim relief

The respondents opposed the interim application.

After considering the pleadings and documents, the Co-operative Court No. IV, Mumbai rejected the application on December 24, 2025.

The appellant then approached the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court through Appeal from Order No. 13 of 2026.

The appeal was presented on February 26, 2026, registered on March 5, 2026, and ultimately decided on August 14, 2026.

Appellate Court questioned jurisdiction of Co-operative Court

The central observation in the Appellate Court’s judgment concerns the nature of the dispute.

The Court noted that the appellant’s case involved allegations against a co-owner and his wife concerning treatment of the appellant, appropriation of redevelopment proceeds and an alleged attempt to remove her name from the title documents.

According to the Appellate Court, the dispute therefore appeared to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court and to fall within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court.

The Court observed that the dispute appeared to be more of a family dispute than a dispute contemplated under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

This observation is significant because the mere involvement of a cooperative housing society does not necessarily mean that every dispute concerning a flat automatically falls within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court.

Ownership and possession issues require trial and evidence

The Appellate Court also made it clear that, at the interim stage, it could not conclusively decide issues concerning possession or dispossession.

The Court held that such questions were matters requiring trial and evidence.

Therefore, the judgment should not be interpreted as a final finding that the appellant had no ownership interest in Flat No. 503.

Equally, the Court did not declare Respondent No. 1 to be the exclusive owner of the flat.

The decision was confined to whether the appellant was entitled to the interim reliefs sought in the present proceedings.

No prima facie case established

The Appellate Court considered the three conventional requirements for granting interim injunctions.

The first was whether the appellant had established a prima facie case.

The Court answered this question in the negative.

The second was whether the balance of convenience favoured the appellant.

Again, the Court answered in the negative.

The third was whether the appellant would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction was not granted.

The Court found that she had also failed to establish this requirement.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to interim protection.

Court could not direct execution before Sub-Registrar

Another important finding concerned the appellant’s request to compel Respondent No. 1 to appear before the Sub-Registrar and execute the redevelopment-related documents.

The Appellate Court held that such a direction was beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the Court in the present proceedings.

Thus, the appellant could not obtain such a mandatory direction through the interim application before the Co-operative Court.

CCTV footage request also rejected

The appellant had also sought video footage relating to the removal of her belongings from the flat and their subsequent placement in the common area maintained by the society.

The Appellate Court noted that she had not explained what steps she had taken to obtain the footage from the society in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

The Court therefore did not grant the requested interim direction regarding the footage.

Society’s alleged role also did not change the outcome

The appellant had alleged that the housing society failed to protect her interests and was allegedly acting in concert with Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 while ignoring her rights as a co-owner and member.

However, the Appellate Court did not find these allegations sufficient to justify interim intervention.

The core dispute, in the Court’s view, continued to revolve around the relationship and property rights between the individuals involved.

Appeal dismissed

After considering the record, the Appellate Court concluded that the Trial Court’s order dated December 24, 2025 was legal and correct and did not warrant interference.

The Court answered the issue of whether the Trial Court’s order was in accordance with law in the affirmative, and the question of whether appellate interference was required in the negative.

The final order stated:

A.O. No. 13 of 2026 was dismissed.

The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

What the judgment means for the disputed flat

The immediate consequence is that Jyotshana Viren Desai does not receive the interim protections she had sought through the Co-operative Court proceedings.

She did not obtain an interim order securing her alleged 50% share, preventing Respondent No. 1 from dealing with the property, directing access to the flat, securing the claimed ₹17.54 lakh, obtaining the CCTV footage or compelling execution of redevelopment documents.

However, the judgment is not a final adjudication of title.

The Appellate Court’s principal concern was whether these reliefs could be granted at the interim stage in a dispute which, on its face, involves substantial questions of family property, co-ownership, possession and title.

The Court’s conclusion was that these issues require appropriate adjudication and evidence and that the dispute appeared to fall within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court rather than being a dispute properly determined under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

Judgment details

Case: A.O. No. 13 of 2026

Appellant: Smt. Jyotshana Viren Desai

Respondents: Kirti Narendra Desai, Secretary, Ashok Anand Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., and Priti Kirti Desai

Original Dispute: Dispute No. 21 of 2024

Impugned Order: December 24, 2025

Court: Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai

Coram: Dr. Srishty Neelkanth, Member-1

Date of Judgment: August 14, 2026

Final Outcome: Appeal dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.

Also Read: Society Must Repair Flat Damage from Terrace Leakage, Rules Mumbai Co-op Court

The post Cooperative Court Can’t Decide Family Property Dispute appeared first on Square Feat India.