Co-op officials cannot decide flat succession disputes: Bombay HC

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court rapped the divisional joint registrar, cooperative societies (Mumbai), for setting aside an order granting a man membership in a Peddar Road housing society.

Justice Amit Borkar on Feb 9 said the authority under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is concerned with the membership regulation, and that it is not a civil court deciding succession disputes. "Therefore, the revisional authority exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of conferment of membership on grounds which fall outside the limited scope of such proceedings,'' he added.


In 1974, Pravinkumar Dave's father nominated him, then a minor, for the flat and a garage in Alpana CHSL that was let out to a company. Dave's father died a year later. In 2002, Dave wrote to the society to make him a member. But as the society did not accept his request, he approached the deputy registrar (D ward), who in Feb 2006 directed the society to confer membership on him.

The society and a person claiming tenancy rights challenged the order in revision before the divisional joint registrar, who set it aside on the ground that the nomination form contained "overwriting" and held that in the "absence of an unimpeachable and undisputed" nomination document, Dave could not be granted membership.

Dave's advocate, Satyavan Vaishnav, said that out of ten legal heirs, six issued no-objection supporting Dave. One had predeceased, two did not object. Only one objected to Dave's claim. Justice Borkar said the legal position of a nominee was settled. In 2016, the Supreme Court made it clear that nomination does not create ownership in favour of the nominee. It enables the society or authority to deal with one identified person after the member's death.

Justice Borkar noted that Dave's father left no will. "In such a situation, succession opens in favour of all ten legal representatives in accordance with the personal law applicable to them," he explained. The record showed "the majority of the heirs'' supported Dave.

The order granting membership was not challenged by the objecting heir, but by the society and a person claiming to be a tenant."

"A tenant has no locus (standi) to question the internal arrangement among legal heirs regarding membership of the society,'' said Justice Borkar. The society also did not dispute Dave's eligibility under the Act or byelaws. "In such circumstances, the revisional authority ought not to have interfered with the order granting membership, particularly when the dispute, if any, was essentially inter se between legal heirs," said Justice Borkar. He quashed and set aside the order.