1981 (6) TMI 132 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the property based on nomination.
2. Validity of the nomination as a will.
3. Applicability of Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
4. Rights of heirs under the law of succession.
5. Validity of nomination concerning the structure on the land.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the property based on nomination:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of the shares, land, and building based on a nomination made by their deceased father, Vishnu Narayan Ghatnekar. The defendant, a brother of the plaintiff, contested this claim. The court noted that all heirs of Vishnu became interested in the estate upon his death, and the suit involved questions of title to the property, necessitating the inclusion of all heirs in the suit. The court emphasized that the nomination under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, was intended to identify the person with whom the society should deal after a member's death and not to create a new rule of succession or confer ownership to the exclusion of other heirs.

2. Validity of the nomination as a will:
The plaintiff argued that the nomination, witnessed by two persons, should be treated as a will. The court rejected this contention, stating that a document can be considered a will only if executed with the intention to regulate succession after death (animus testandi). The court found that the nomination form did not exhibit such an intention and was merely a nomination in accordance with the law, not a will.

3. Applicability of Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960:
Section 30 of the Act provides for the transfer of a deceased member's share or interest to a nominee, heir, or legal representative. The court clarified that the section's purpose is to determine who the society should deal with after a member's death, not to confer ownership rights. The nominee or heir recognized by the society holds the share and interest of the deceased for disposal in accordance with the law. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not become the owner of the property merely by virtue of the nomination.

4. Rights of heirs under the law of succession:
The court reiterated that the nomination did not affect the rights of other heirs under the law of succession. The heirs retained their rights to the estate, and the nominee held the property only until the estate was fully administered. The court emphasized that the society's recognition of a nominee or heir did not confer permanent ownership rights, and the rights of heirs or persons entitled to the estate would be determined by a court of law.

5. Validity of nomination concerning the structure on the land:
The court addressed the issue of whether the nomination covered the structure on the land. It concluded that the society's interest was confined to the shares and the land, not the structure. The nomination was valid only concerning the shares and the land, and the structure continued to belong to the estate, devolving according to the law of succession. The court held that the defendant, as an heir, was equally entitled to the structure along with the plaintiff and other heirs.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's decree, and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the suit and the appeal. The judgment clarified that the nomination did not confer ownership rights to the exclusion of other heirs, and the structure on the land remained part of the estate to be inherited according to the law of succession.