Subordinate officers exercising delegated powers remain subject to the Registrar’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 154.

The dispute concerns Flat No. 31 in the Petitioner Society, originally held in the joint names of late Ramlal Dhanuka and Pannadevi Dhanuka

Following the deaths of the original holders, Respondent No. 4 (Radheshyam Dhanuka, son of Ramlal) sought membership in the society

Earlier, a title suit (Suit No. 2485/2007) filed by Pannadevi’s heirs asserting exclusive ownership was unconditionally withdrawn in 2012

Respondent No. 4 subsequently applied for membership, but the Society failed to decide, prompting him to seek a "deemed membership" declaration under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (MCS) Act

The Deputy Registrar rejected the application in 2013 on technical grounds regarding title documents

However, in revision, the Divisional Joint Registrar (Respondent No. 2) set aside that order and granted deemed membership

The Petitioner Society challenged this revisional order, alleging lack of jurisdiction and procedural defects in the membership application

Section 30 of the MCS Act (pre-2019), which mandates that a society shall transfer the interest of a deceased member to a person who "appears" to the committee to be the heir or legal representative

Sections 3, 154, and 158 of the MCS Act regarding the subordination of officers and revisional powers

Precedent from Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack Sales Coop. Society Ltd. v. Secretary, which established that a subordinate officer exercising delegated powers does not lose their identity as a subordinate, preserving the superior’s revisional jurisdiction

Precedent from Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge v. State of Maharashtra, affirming that delegation does not equate a subordinate officer to the Registrar for revisional purposes

The Court reasoned that a cooperative society is not a forum for adjudicating complex title or succession disputes; its role is limited to administrative recognition for internal management

Under Section 30, the Society only needs prima facie satisfaction regarding a claimant's status as an heir

The Court found that Respondent No. 4 established a clear prima facie nexus to the deceased, especially since the competing title suit had been withdrawn

Regarding jurisdiction, the Court rejected the Petitioners' argument that the Deputy Registrar’s order was "the Registrar's order" (making it un-revisable by the Joint Registrar). It held that under Sections 3 and 158, a delegate remains a "subordinate officer" subject to the Registrar’s superintendence and the revisional hierarchy of Section 154

The Court applied the principle of "substance over form," ruling that although Respondent No. 4 used a "transfer" form, the underlying claim was clearly based on "transmission" by inheritance, which the Society had already acknowledged by accepting maintenance dues

The Court held that the Divisional Joint Registrar possessed valid jurisdiction under Section 154 to revise orders of subordinate officers, regardless of whether those officers exercised delegated powers

The Court further held that technical defects in the membership application form cannot defeat a substantive claim of inheritance where a prima facie right is established

The request for continuation of ad-interim relief was rejected