Mumbai: Co-operative Appellate Court Orders Housing Society To Refund ₹1.6 Lakh With 7 Per Cent Interest From 1997

Mumbai, October 27, 2026: The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court has directed Mulund Mayur Sahakari Gruhnirman Sanstha Maryadit to refund Rs 1.6 lakh to a 62-year-old woman who had paid the amount to the society’s chief promoter in 1997 as a promoter member.

The court has directed the society to repay the amount with 7 per cent annual interest from May 6, 1997, until realisation. However, the court observed that although Asha Abasaheb More had established her status as a promoter member and proved that she had paid the amount, she had failed to establish that a flat had been allotted to her.

Court Finds No Proof Of Flat Allotment

“She states that she is entitled to a flat in the building of the society, as she never denied payment of the legitimate amount towards construction cost. From her said paragraph, it appears that the society was having flats admeasuring 625 sq ft in its building. The woman (disputant) has not produced on record any resolution whereby a flat of 625 sq ft was allotted to her. From her cross-examination, it is also seen that she never paid any construction amount of the flat to the society. She has voluntarily contended that as the opponent No. 1 society did not allot her any flat, she did not pay any construction amount to the society. The opponent No. 1 society has also not produced on record any resolution whereby a flat of 625 sq ft was allotted to the disputant,” the order states.

“The facts of the present case in hand are totally different from the facts of the case before the court. As already observed, in the present case, there is no clinching evidence regarding the exact construction cost of the flat. The disputant admittedly has not paid the said construction cost to the society, and there is no evidence regarding the allotment of a flat of a specific area to the disputant. Hence, the precedent laid down in the said case cannot be applicable to the facts of the present case,” the court held.

Payment Established Through Four Receipts

The appellate court held that More had established her status as a promoter member of the society and proved that she had paid Rs 1.6 lakh to its chief promoter through four receipts. It also noted that her name appeared in the list of promoter members submitted by the society to a housing development authority.

The court observed that the trial court had failed to consider the society witness’s admissions regarding the payment and had wrongly held that More was not a member of the society. More had sought the allotment of a 625-sq-ft flat in the society’s building or, alternatively, a refund of her money with interest and compensation of Rs 1.25 crore for the failure to provide her with a home.

Compensation Claim Rejected

However, the appellate court declined to direct the society to allot a flat, observing that there was no conclusive evidence that a 625-sq-ft flat had been allotted to her or that she had paid the construction cost. It also noted that the two flats she had claimed were vacant had subsequently been allotted to other members.

Also Watch:

Rejecting her claim for Rs 1.25 crore in compensation, the court said there was no oral or documentary evidence to establish how the amount had been calculated or to prove the market value of a flat of the claimed size.

In its order dated September 30, 2026, the court directed the society to refund Rs 1.6 lakh with 7 per cent annual interest from May 6, 1997, until realisation. More has been directed to pay the applicable court fee on the refund amount within 15 days of the order.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/