9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ah. 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 ₹ 50,000/-. Out of the said ₹ 50,000/-, ₹ 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 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a member of the Co-operative Society under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act? Does he become the owner of the property or does he represent the legal heirs of deceased member while dealing with the Co-operative Society and is only empowered to act for and on behalf of the true owners? 6. In view of the controversy the following substantial questions of law emerges for consideration :- (1) Whether, both the Courts below are justified in holding that on account of valid nomination of the defendant No.1 Tarabai, she succeeds to the title of the property of the deceased to the exclusion of the present appellant and other legal heirs of deceased Shivram? (2) Whether, Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act provides for a special rule of succession altering the rule of succession laid down by the personal law applicable to the person concerned? 7. For proper appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 and 25 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961:- Section-30: Transfer of int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking into consideration the claim or objections received in reply to the notice or otherwise, and after making such inquiries as the committee considers proper in the circumstances prevailing, the committee shall decide as to the person who in its opinion is the heir or the legal representative of the deceased member and proceed to take action under Section 30. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon few judgments of the Bombay High Court. First one being in case of Gopal Vishnu Ghatnekar vs. Madhukar Vishnu Ghatnekar, (AIR 1982 Bombay 482). The question that came up for consideration of the learned Single Judge in the case of Gopal Ghatnekar (supra) was squarely touching interpretation of Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act and Rule-16 of the Rules framed thereunder.Dealing with the Section 30, the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.6 of the judgment observed:- It is very clear on the plain reading of the section that the intention of the section is to provide for who has to deal with the society on the death of a member and not to create a new rule of succession. The purpose of the nomination is to make certain the person wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion are not lost and the nominee or the heir or the legal representative recognised by the society, as the case may be holds the share and interest of the deceased for disposal of the same in accordance with law. It is only as between the society and the nominee or heir or legal representative that the relationship of the society and its member is created and this relationship continues and subsists only till the estate is administered either by the person entitled to administer the same or by the Court or the rights of the heirs or persons entitled to the estate are decided in a Court of law. Thereafter the society will be bound to follow such decision. The plaintiff, therefore, cannot be said to have become the owner of the property qua the other heirs merely by virtue of the nomination. 9. The matter did not rest there and was carried to the Division Bench by L.P.A. Bearing No.100/1984. However, during the pendency of L.P.A., an identical question was raised before the another Division Bench in First Appeal No.116/1989. Attention of the Division Bench was invited to the judgment in case of Gopal Ghatnekar (supra). The Division Bench approving the view taken by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law has been approved by the Division Bench of this Court while delivering the judgment in First Appeal No.116/1989. After the judgment delivered by the Division Bench in the said first appeal, L.P.A. filed by the aggrieved party came up for hearing before yet another Division Bench and while dismissing the L.P.A., the Division Bench confirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge in case of Gopal Vishnu Ghatnekar (supra). Independently appreciating the question, the Division Bench has confirmed the view after recording its approval by laying down that in the nomination there is no disposition of the property held by a person making it. Thus, two Division Bench judgments referred herein above approve the view taken by the learned Single Judge, extensively referred to herein above and thus, the position stands concluded in favour of the present appellant that by virtue of nomination of Tarabai by her deceased husband under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, she does not become absolute owner of the property, however, was only empowered to hold the property in trust for the real owners that too for the purpose of dealings with the society. Tarabai, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
