Section 125 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960
125. Mortgages [and other instruments] [These words were inserted by Maharashtra 5 of 1990, Section 11(c).] executed by managers of joint Hindu families.
(1)Mortgages [and other instruments] [These words were inserted by Maharashtra 5 of 1990, Section 11(a)(i).] in respect of loans by [a Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Multi-purpose Development Bank] [These words were substituted for the words 'an Agriculture and Rural Development Bank' by Maharashtra 41 of 2005, (w.e.f. 25.8.2005) Section 8.] or the [State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Multi-purpose Development Bank] [These words were substituted for the words 'State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank', by Maharashtra 41 of 2005, (w.e.f. 25-8-2005), Section 8.] either before or after the commencement of this Act, by the manager of Hindu joint family for the improvement of agricultural land or of the methods of cultivation or for financing any other means to raise the productivity of the land, or for the purchase of land, [or for creation of new movable or immovable assets or for the purpose of acquisition, construction, rebuilding or repairing of a dwelling house in rural area] [These words were inserted by Maharashtra 5 of 1990, Section 11(a)(ii).] shall be binding on every member of such joint Hindu family notwithstanding any law to the contrary.(2)In other cases, where a mortgage [or other instrument] [These words were Inserted by Maharashtra 5 of 1990, Section 11(b).] executed in favour of [a Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Multi-purpose Development Bank] [These words were substituted for the words 'an Agriculture and Rural Development Bank' by Maharashtra 41 of 2005, (w.e.f. 25.8.2005) Section 8.] or [State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Multi-purpose Development Bank] [These words were substituted for the words 'State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank', by Maharashtra 41 of 2005, (w.e.f. 25-8-2005), Section 8.] either before or after the commencement of this Act, is called in question on the ground that it was executed by the manager of a Hindu joint family for purpose not binding on the members (whether such members have attained majority or not thereof the burden of proving the same shall, notwithstanding any law to the contrary, lie on the party alleging it
