IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.)
CHITRA HALDIPUR - Petitioner.
vs.
SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH CHS LTD. and others - Respondents.
w. P. No. 2597 of 2004
Decided on 7-10-2006
Advocates Appeard
For petitioner: Rajiv Wagh with Ms. Nivit Srivastava
For respondent No.1: U. P. Bobade with K. P. Ravi
For respondent No.6: G. Pandit
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 30 - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, Rule 25 - Transfer of share in a co-operative society. - Nomination to a share or interest in a co-operative society is only meant to provide an arrangement between death of original member and full administration of estate.
2. Disputes then arose between the petitioner and the second respondent. The petitioner claims to be the adopted daughter of the deceased member, while the original second respondent stakes her claim as a lawfully wedded wife. From the material on record, it has emerged that the petitioner herein submitted under cover of a letter dated 5th August, 1997 several documents to the Co-operative Society agreeing that the membership should be transferred in favour of the second respondent. Among the documents which were executed by the petitioner were (i) An affidavit dated 9th May, 1997 wherein the petitioner admitted that the second respondent was the lawfully wedded wife of Shri Grover whereas the petitioner herself was a daughter of one Mrs. Madhuri Gharat and that she was not either the adopted daughter of the member or his legal heir; (ii) A declaration-cum-Deed of Indemnity dated 5th August, 1997 submitted by the petitioner to the Co-operative Society in which she referred to an agreement executed between herself and the second respondent on 9th May, 1997; (iii) An agreement dated 9th May, 1997 by which the petitioner admitted that the second respondent was the lawfully wedded wife of the original member; that a lady by the name of Hemal was staying with the original member and that the petitioner was born and brought up as a non-Sikh. In the agreement, the petitioner agreed that it is only the second respondent who was the legal heir entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased member and that there was no adoption of the petitioner by the deceased member and his wife.
3. Acting on the basis of the documents executed by the petitioner, the society transferred the membership of the erstwhile member in the name of the second respondent. The second respondent expired during the pendency of the proceedings. The legal heirs of the second respondent have not been brought on the record. The Sixth respondent claims an interest in the estate of the second respondent under a Deed of Gift. It would appear from the affidavit that was executed by the petitioner on 9th May, 1997, the declaration-cum-deed of indemnity dated 5th August, 1997 and the agreement dated 9th May, 1997 that it was agreed between the petit
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.