SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Cal) 422

High Court Of Calcutta
BABOO LALL JAIN
KUSUM DEBI JHINJHANI - Appellant
Versus
PUSHPA DEVI KHURDA - Respondent
Suit 312  Of  1984
Decided On : 08/21/1989

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - NOMINATION - TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP AND FLAT - EFFECT - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956.

Headnote:

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - NOMINATION - TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP AND FLAT - EFFECT - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff and the defendant are two sisters, Ram Kumar Changil, father of the parties, died intestate on 12th day of January, 1978. The two daughters, who are the plaintiff and the defendant in this suit are the only heiresses and/or legal representatives under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The suit as initially instituted was for partition of several other assets also and for claiming an equal half share in all the properties and assets left by the said deceased.

Finding of the Court:

The dispute between the parties, relates to the affairs of a Co-operative Society. Furthermore, the parties to the present dispute come within the category of the persons described under Section 86 (1) (b), the plaintiff is basing its claim through a deceased member of the society and the defendant is a member or is claiming through a deceased member of the society. It cannot be denied that the dispute between the parties is a matter capable of being the subject of civil litigation and that it comes within the definition of the word dispute as defined under Section 2 (q) of the said Act.

Issues: 1. Has the plaintiff one-half share in the properties mentioned in item No. 9 of the Schedule `a' and Schedule `b' of the plaint? 2. a) was the defendant nominated by Ram Kuamr Changil in relation to flat No. 3c of the Embassy Building? b) If so, did the nomination constitute valid disposition of the flat in favour of the defendant? 3. Has the defendant become the sole and absolute owner of the said flat as well as 7 shares as alleged in paragraph 1 (p) and paragraph 4 of the written statement? 4. Is the suit barred by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 and/or West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 in so far as it relates to the claim in, respect of Item No. 7 of Schedule A and the property in Schedule B to the plaint. 5. To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled.

Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 have an overriding effect and the Disposal and;' or transfer of shares and the disposal and/or transfer of interest in favour of the nominee operated irrespective of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. It was also submitted that the word used was disposal and/or transfer of the share in favour of the nominee and acceptance of the nominee as the member of the society and also for transfer of the flat in favour of the said nominee. It was also provided in the rules that all transfers shall be valid and effectual against any demand by any other person.

Final Decision: The suit in so far as its relates to the said two items is barred by virtue of the provisions of The West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973.

BABOO LALL JAIN, J.


( 1 ) THE plaintiff and the defendant are two sisters, Ram Kumar Changil, father of the parties, died intestate on 12th day of January, 1978. The two daughters, who are the plaintiff and the defendant in this suit are the only heiresses and/or legal representatives under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The suit as initially instituted was for partition of several other assets also and for claiming an equal half share in all the properties and assets left by the said deceased.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed that the plaintiff and the defendant were and are entitled to one equal half share each in the properties left by the said deceased excepting two items of property as mentioned hereunder. The parties are also agreeable that a decree be passed for partition of all such assets mentioned in the said Schedule `a' and B', save and except the said two items as mentioned hereunder :-1. Seven shares in Embassy Co-operative Housing Society Limited, 4, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta-700017. 2. All that the flat bearing No. 3 C on the 3rd floor of the building known as Embassy building at No. 4, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta-17, containing an area of 1250 sq. ft. and comprising two bed rooms with attached bath rooms, two store rooms, dining hall, verahdah and kitchen.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that the said Ram Kumar Changil was a member of the Embassy Co-operative Housing Society Limited and had purchased/ acquired the flat bearing No. 3 C on the 3rd floor of the said premises No. 4, Shakespeare Sarani Calcutta, upon payment of full consideration for the same. The plaintiff further states that since before the death of the mother of the plaintiff and defendant, Smt. Shanti Debi Changil, in 1972, the defendant had been residing at the said flat at No. 4, Shakespeare Sarani and has continued to do so. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Ram Kumar Changil, the defendant assumed exclusive occupation and enjoyment the said flat at No. 4, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta. Despite requests by the plaintiff, the defendant refused to permit the plaintiff to occupy and enjoy any portion of the said flat.

( 4 ) THE further case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff came to know on enquiry that the defendant has even got her name mutated in the records of the said Embassy Co-operative Housing Society, in respect of the said flat, at Embassy building, purportedly, as the nominee of the above named Ramkumar Changil. According to the plaintiff such nomination does not constitute a valid disposition of the said flat in favour of the defendant and the parties as legal heirs are equally entitled to the said flat. According to the plaintiff under the Bye-laws of the said Society a member is entitled to make a nomination in favour of an person to whom or to whose credit his share or interest in the society would on his decease, be paid or transferred by the society but the said provision only authorises and empowers the' society to transfer the share of the deceased member to the nominee but does not and cannot have the effect of altering the succession to the property left by the deceased including the right title and interest of the society in the Co-operative Society and/or the said flat. Since the parties, inspite of requests by the plaintiff, could not come to an amicable settlement in respect of the said flat and/or the shares in the said co-operative, the dispute still subsists and the relief is claimed in respect thereof in the instant suit.

( 5 ) THE case of the defendant in the written statement is that the father of the parties became a member of the Embassy Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the said Society' ). The said Society was the sponsor of the multi-storied building known as Embassy and the father became a member thereof for the purpose of acquiring a flat in the said building subject to the terms and conditions set out in they Byelaws of the, said Society. According to th



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top