Back
High Court Of Delhi
CHIEF COMMISSIONER (NOW LT.GOVERNOR) DELHI - Appellant
Versus
KITTY PURI - Respondent
L.P.A. 195 of 1971
Decided On : 01/10/1972
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - MEMBERSHIP - NOMINATION - TRANSFER OF SHARE OR INTEREST - DISCRIMINATION - RIGHT OR INTEREST IN LAND.
Fact of the Case:
The Diplomatic Enclave Extension Co-operative House Building Society Limited granted membership to Shri H. S. Puri on 13-2-1959. The latter transferred the membership to his father Shri B. S. Puri on 12-11-1969. When Shri B. S. Puri died on 3-2-1961 the name of Shri H. S. Puri was found in the books of the society as the nominee of the deceased member. On 31-10-1961, the Society informed Shri H. S. Puri that he could become a member if, inter-alia, he or his dependents did not have any plot of land in Delhi. Shri H. S. Puri apparently could not avail of this opportunity of becoming a member as he already owned a house in Delhi. After a long time he wrote to the Society on 21-4-1964 that his right as a nominee to become a member should be transferred by the Society to his daughter Mrs. Kitty Puri who did not have any plot or house in Delhi. This request was further supported by a joint letter dated 15-10-1964 by Shri H. S. Puri and Shri S. S. Puri, the sons and heirs of the deceased member Shri B. S. Puri. On 28-4-1964, the Managing Committee of the Society informed the Deputy Housing Commissioner as well as Sarvashri H. S. Puri and S. S. Puri that it had decided that membership be transferred to Mrs. Kitty Puri as requested by Sarvashri H. S. Puri and S. S. Puri, heirs of the late Shri B. S. Puri. On 16-9-1964 however, Shri H. S: Puri withdrew his consent to the transfer. On 28-9-1964, the Deputy Housing Commissioner informed the Society that neither Shri H. S. Puri nor Shri S. S. Puri could become a member of the Society as both possessed houses in Delhi. Sarvashri H. S. Puri and S. S. Puri could not, therefore, nominate Mrs. Kitty Puri. On 20-10-1965, therefore, the Society cancelled the decision to transfer the membership to Mrs. Kitty Puri.
Finding of the Court:
The action of the Society in transferring the share and interest of Shri B. S. Puri in the Society to the petitioner Respondent No. 1. was contrary to section 27 (1) of the Act being made after the expiry of the period of one year specified therein.
Issues: 1. Was Shri H. S. Puri a nominee of the deceased member Shri B. S. Puri? 2. Could he further nominate the petitioner for membership? 3. Did the Society legally transfer the membership to the petitioner? 4. Whether the Government discriminated against Shri H. S. Puri or the petitioner? 5. What right, if any, did the petioner or her predecessors in title have in any particular piece of land?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A nominee of a member and his nominee could not co-exist. In the presence of the member, the nominee would have no place. It is only on the death of a member that his nominee could be considered for the purpose of eligibility to become a member. 2. Section 27 (1) of the Act confers a privilege or benefit on the nominees and heirs and legal representatives of a deceased member to apply for membership within one year. It would be reasonable to think that a person who wishes to avail himself of this benefit must comply strictly with the terms of the statute to get the benefit. If he fails to do so, the benefit would be denied to him. 3. The complaint of the petitioner Respondent No. 3 is that on 9-10-1959 the Society passed a resolution by which members who were barred from getting a plot from the Society due to their previous possession of a house or a plot would be able to transfer their membership and their assets to their nominees and that pursuant to this resolution a number of transfers were recognised by the Society. The persons possessing lands and houses in Delhi who had already become members of the Society were till then legally entitled to remain members. They could, therefore, be allowed to transfer their share and interest to other persons under section 29 (2) of the Act. Similarly, the share and interest of deceased members could be transferred by the Society under section 27 (1) of the Act. The Society was to follow the law and treat every person equally in accepting such members. The petitioner Respondent No. 1 does not fit in any of these categories.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed and the writ petition is ordered to be dismissed.
( 1 ) IN this fast growing capital of India, all land which can be used for construction has been acquired by the Government to prevent profiteering by private persons. Government has further adopted the policy of leasing such land only to cooperative housing societies. Thus the only way for any one to get land for house building has been to become a member of such a society. It is important, therefore, both for the members of the public and for the Government to understand properly the law governing such membership and this is precisely what is involved in this appeal.
( 2 ) THE Diplomatic Enclave Extension Co-operative House Building Society Limited (hereinafter called the Society) granted membership to Shri H. S. Puri on 13-2-1959. The latter transferred the membership to his father Shri B. S. Puri on 12-11-1969. When Shri B. S. Puri died on 3-2-1961 the name of Shri H. S. Puri was found in the books of the society as the nominee of the deceased member. On 31-10-1961, the Society informed Shri H. S. Puri that he could become a member if, inter-alia, he or his dependents did not have any plot of land in Delhi. Shri H. S. Puri apparently could not avail of this opportunity of becoming a member as he already owned a house in Delhi. After a long time he wrote to the Society on 21-4-1964 that his right as a nominee to become a member should be transferred by the Society to his daughter Mrs. Kitty Puri who did not have any plot or house in Delhi. This request was further supported by a joint letter dated 15-10-1964 by Shri H. S. Puri and Shri S. S. Puri, the sons and heirs of the deceased member Shri B. S. Puri. On 28-4-1964, the Managing Committee of the Society informed the Deputy Housing Commissioner as well as Sarvashri H. S. Puri and S. S. Puri that it had decided that membership be transferred to Mrs. Kitty Puri as requested by Sarvashri H. S. Puri and S. S. Puri, heirs of the late Shri B. S. Puri. On 16-9-1964 however, Shri H. S: Puri withdrew his consent to the transfer. On 28-9-1964, the Deputy Housing Commissioner informed the Society that neither Shri H. S. Puri nor Shri S. S. Puri could become a member of the Society as both possessed houses in Delhi. Sarvashri H. S. Puri and S. S. Puri could not, therefore, nominate Mrs. Kitty Puri. On 20-10-1965, therefore, the Society cancelled the decision to transfer the membership to Mrs. Kitty Puri.
( 3 ) MRS. Kitty Puri, therefore, filed Civil Writ Pettition 857-D of 1965 praying that the cancellation of her membership by the Society at the instance of the Government be quashed. Her case was that first Shri H. S. Puri and then Shri B. S. Puri was a member of the Society. On the death of Shri B. S. Puri, Shri H. S. Puri was the nominee of the deceased member and as such he could transfer his right to become a member to the petitioner. The Society accepted the petitioner as a member and it could not thereafter cancel her memberhip at the instance of the Government. Moreover, the Society with the consent of the Government had allowed other similarly situated persons to become members of the Society and they could not therefore, discriminate against the petitioner by cancelling her membership.
( 4 ) THE petition was defended by the Government but not by the Society. In pursuance of Government policy, the Society was told as long ago as on 19-6-1959 by Annexure R-1 at page 88 of the record that the Government had decided that every co-operative House Building Society who wished to approach the Government for the acquisition of land under the land Acquisition Act should give an undertaking that their members did not possess any residential house or plot in Delhi. The Society was asked to give such an undertaking to the Government. It was also asked to amend its bye-laws to ensure that only those persons could become its members who did not possess any land or house in Delhi. After the acquisition of the land, the Government had entered into an agree3 700 ment wit
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
