A nomination made under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and the society's rules and bye-laws does not confer exclusive ownership on the nominee, but serves as a provisional arrangement for the transfer of shares and interest upon the member's death, without affecting the rights of the legal heirs under the law of succession.

Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - NOMINATION - EFFECT - SUCCESSION - WILL - CONSTRUCTION - STRUCTURE ON LAND - OWNERSHIP.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff and defendant are brothers whose father, Vishnu Narayan Ghatnekar, died in 1969, leaving behind shares in a co-operative society, a leasehold land from the society, and a building constructed on the land. Vishnu had nominated the plaintiff as his nominee to inherit the property upon his death. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the entire property and sought possession from the defendant, who was in occupation by virtue of a license granted by their father.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the nomination did not confer exclusive ownership on the plaintiff, as the purpose of the nomination was to facilitate the transfer of shares and interest to a designated person upon the member's death, not to create a new rule of succession. The society's role was limited to determining who would be recognized as the heir or legal representative for the purpose of transferring the shares and interest, and this did not affect the rights of the legal heirs under the law of succession.
Issues: 1. Whether the nomination made by the deceased member conferred exclusive ownership of the property on the plaintiff, excluding the other heirs? 2. Whether the nomination could be construed as a will, given that it was witnessed by two persons and complied with the formal requirements of a will? 3. Whether the nomination extended to the structure built on the land, or was limited to the shares and land held by the deceased member in the society?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The purpose of the nomination under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and the society's rules and bye-laws was to provide for the transfer of shares and interest upon the member's death, not to create a new rule of succession. 2. The nomination did not confer permanent rights on the nominee, but only served as a provisional arrangement until the estate was administered or the rights of the heirs were determined by a court. 3. The society's role in recognizing a nominee or heir was limited to facilitating the transfer of shares and interest, and did not affect the rights of the legal heirs under the law of succession. 4. The nomination could not be construed as a will, as the intention of the deceased was to make a nomination in accordance with the law, not to regulate succession after death. 5. The nomination did not extend to the structure built on the land, as the society's interest was limited to the shares and land held by the member, and the structure was not considered a share or interest in the society.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the trial court's decree was set aside, and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the suit and the appeal.

JUDGMENT - A.N. MODY, J.:---The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. Their father Vishnu Narayan Ghatnekar died on 9-5-1969 leaving behind him the plaintiff, the defendant and other children as his heirs. At the time of his death Vishnu hold shares in a co-operative society and was an allottee of a place of land under a lease from the society on which he had put up a building. Vishnu also had filed a nomination with the society nominating the plaintiff as his nominee to whom the shares, the land and the building should be transferred after his death. By virtue of this nomination the plaintiff claims to be the owner of the entire property consisting of shares, land and building. He also claims possession from the defendant by virtue of the said ownership and on the ground that the defendant was in occupation of the property by virtue of a licence granted by the father and that the same had been terminated.

2. It is admitted that the property is that of the father Vishnu. At the time of his death all the heirs of Vishnu become interested in the estate and in ascertainment of what property goes to whom on his death. The suit, therefore, could not have been filed without all the heirs being on record inasmuch as the suit really involves a question of title to the property of the deceased. The suit, therefore, ought to have been dismissed on that ground alone. However, other points hereinafter decided have been argued exhaustively on both sides and it is but fair that I should decide them also.

3. The plaintiffs contention is that by virtue of section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 read with Rule 25 framed under the said Act and bye-law 16(1) of the society, a nominee acquires titles to the shares and the property to the exclusion of all the heirs of the deceased and that with the result the plaintiff has become owner of the property and the defendant has no title or interest in the property and is liable to be evicted. It is contended that in any event the nomination paper having been witnessed by two witnesses and all the other formal requirements of a will having been complied with it should be treated as a will and in that circumstance also the plaintiff becomes the exclusive owner of the property and as such entitled to evict the defendant.

4. Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 reads as follows :---

"30(1) On the death of a member of a society, the society shall transfer the share or interest of the deceased member to a person or persons nominated in accordance with the rules, or, if no person has been so nominated to such person as may appear to the committee to be the heir or legal representative of the deceased member;

Provided that, such nominee, heir or legal representative, as the case may be, is duly admitted as a member of the society;

Provided further that, nothing in this sub-section or in section 22 shall prevent a minor or a person of unsound mind from acquiring by inheritance or otherwise, any share or interest of a deceased member in a society.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) any such nominee, heir of legal representative, as the case may be, may require the society to pay to him the value of the share or interest of the deceased members, ascertained in accordance with the rules.

(3) A society may pay all other moneys due to the deceased member from the society to such nominee, heir or legal representative, as the case may be.

(4) All transfers and payment duly made by a society in accordance with the provisions of this section shall be valid and effectual against any demand made upon the society by any other person."

5. Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 reads as follows :---

"25. Nomination of persons.---(1) For the purpose of transfer of his share or interest under sub-section (1) of section 30, a member of a society may, by a document signed by him or by making a statement in any book kept for the purpose by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis