Maharashtra Co-operative Appellate Court Orders Housing Society to Refund ₹1.6 Lakh With 7% Interest From 1997

The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court has directed Mulund Mayur Sahakari Gruhnirman Sanstha Maryadit to refund ₹1.6 lakh to a 62-year-old woman, along with 7% annual interest from May 6, 1997, until the amount is repaid. The order recognizes Asha Abasaheb More’s payment as a promoter member of the housing society but denies her claim for a flat and ₹1.25 crore in compensation due to a lack of supporting evidence.

Mumbai Housing Society Dispute: Court Confirms ₹1.6 Lakh Payment

In its September 30, 2026, order, the appellate court found that More had established her status as a promoter member and proved that she paid ₹1.6 lakh to the society’s chief promoter in 1997.

The court relied on four payment receipts and noted that her name appeared on the list of promoter members submitted by the society to a housing development authority.

It also observed that the lower court had failed to properly consider admissions made by a society witness regarding the payment. The lower court had incorrectly concluded that More was not a member of the society.

Why the Court Declined to Order Flat Allotment

Although the court recognized More’s membership and payment, it found insufficient evidence to establish that a 625-square-foot flat had been allotted to her.

More had argued that she was entitled to a flat in the society’s building because she had paid the required amount as a promoter member. She sought the allotment of a 625-square-foot home or, alternatively, a refund with interest and compensation.

However, the appellate court noted that neither More nor the society had produced a resolution confirming the allotment of a flat of the claimed size. The court also found no conclusive evidence of the exact construction cost of the flat or proof that More had paid that cost to the society.

The court therefore concluded that there was no sufficient legal basis to direct the society to provide her with a home.

Society Had Allotted the Disputed Flats to Other Members

The court also considered More’s claim that two flats in the building were vacant and could be allotted to her. However, it noted that the flats had subsequently been allotted to other members.

In view of these circumstances, the appellate court declined to order the society to allot a flat to More.

₹1.25 Crore Compensation Claim Rejected

More had also sought ₹1.25 crore in compensation for the society’s failure to provide her with a home.

The court rejected this claim, observing that she had not submitted sufficient oral or documentary evidence to explain how the compensation amount had been calculated. There was also no supporting evidence to establish the market value of a flat measuring 625 square feet.

The court distinguished the case from the legal precedent cited in the proceedings, noting that the evidence relating to flat allotment and construction costs was different in this matter.

Housing Society Must Pay Interest From May 6, 1997

The appellate court directed Mulund Mayur Sahakari Gruhnirman Sanstha Maryadit to refund ₹1.6 lakh to More, along with 7% annual interest calculated from May 6, 1997, until the payment is completed.

More was also directed to pay the applicable court fee on the refund amount within 15 days of the order.

The ruling provides a clear outcome in the long-running housing dispute. While the court did not grant the requested flat or compensation, it recognized the payment made in 1997 and ordered the housing society to return the amount with interest.