1. One Smt.Tarabai is the original defendant No.1. Her husband by name Shivram had purchased a plot of land in his own name bearing Plot No.7 admeasuring 5610 square feet from Nav Rajasthan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (original defendant No.2). During his life time, Shivram nominated Tarabai as his nominee and the said nomination was pursuant to Section 30 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act r/w Rule25 of the Rules framed thereunder. Shivram and Tarabai had four children viz. the present appellant by name Ramdas, Krishnadas, Vitthaldas and Sau.Sangita. Ramdas was original defendant No.3 whereas Krishnadas, Vitthaldas and Sau.Sangita were the defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6. After the death of Shivram, Tarabai entered into an agreement of sale with the original plaintiff by name Rameshchandra @ Ramchandra Popatlal Shah. The agreement is purported to have been executed on 11.08.1980. Under the agreement of sale, the suit property viz. the plot of land was agreed to be sold for total consideration of Rs.50,000/. Out of the said Rs.50,000/, Rs.500/have been paid by way of earnest money. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein (original plaintiffs) instituted a suit against Tarabai, so also against her children for specific performance of contract and for declaration that the sons and daughter of Tarabai have no right, title and interest in the suit property. The Society was also impleaded as party defendant No.2. The suit came to be decreed.

2. One event needs to be mentioned for proper understanding of the controversy and the same is that the present appellant Ramdas instituted a Civil Suit No.206/1980 and the said suit was filed against Tarabai and the Society. A compromise decree came to be passed in the said suit and it came to be declared under the compromise decree that in pursuance to the partition effected in 1976 amongst the family members, the plot has fallen to the share of the present appellant Ramdas and thus, he is the exclusive owner thereof. As Ramdas obtained a decree that he is the owner, the plaintiff herein also claimed a declaration that the compromise decree passed in Civil Suit No.206/1980 is not binding on the plaintiff. As stated herein above, the Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and recorded the following findings:

(1) That the decree obtained by the present appellant Ramdas in Civil Suit No.206/1980 is collusive decree obtained fradulently and thus, not binding on the plaintiff.

(2) That the suit property was not partitioned and under the alleged partition, Ramdas did not get title to the suit property.

(3) That Tarabai became absolute owner of the suit property on account of her nomination by her deceased husband Shivram in his place under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act r/w Rule25 of the Rules framed thereunder.

(4) That in view of Tarabai's nomination as she became exclusive owner of the suit property, her sons and daughter have no right, title and interest therein.

3. Aggrieved by the above findings which resulted in passing of the decree for specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff, the present appellant, Tarabai and the Cooperative Society preferred first appeal before the District Judge, Pune. The First Appellate Court rejected the contention of the appellants that the nominee does not acquire right, title and interest in the property in regard to which he is nominated under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and held that a valid nomination empowers the nominee to claim the property.

4. The First Appellate Court has held against the present appellant on the other points as well. It concluded that (a) there was no partition effected amongst the members of the family left behind by Shivram; (b) that the appellant Ramdas did not get the suit plot in the partition as his share and (c) that the compromise decree obtained in a suit filed by Ramdas was fraudulent and collusive and does not bind the plaintiff