In a significant ruling clarifying the limited powers of cooperative authorities, the Bombay High Court has held that officials under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act cannot adjudicate succession disputes while deciding membership in a housing society.
Justice Amit Borkar, in an order dated February 9, quashed the decision of the divisional joint registrar who had set aside an earlier order granting membership to a nominee in a Peddar Road cooperative housing society.
Background: Nomination and Membership Dispute
The case revolved around a flat and garage in Alpana CHSL at Peddar Road, Mumbai. The petitioner’s father had nominated him for the property when he was a minor. The father passed away a year later without leaving a will.
In 2002, the petitioner applied to the society for membership based on the nomination. When the society failed to act on his request, he approached the deputy registrar (D Ward), who in February 2006 directed the society to confer membership on him.
However, the society and a person claiming tenancy rights challenged the order before the divisional joint registrar. The registrar set aside the membership grant, citing “overwriting” in the nomination form and the absence of an unimpeachable nomination document.
Majority of Legal Heirs Supported Membership
The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Satyavan Vaishnav, submitted that out of ten legal heirs:
-
Six issued no-objection certificates supporting the petitioner
-
One had predeceased
-
Two did not object
-
Only one heir opposed
The High Court noted that the order granting membership was not challenged by the objecting heir, but by the society and a person claiming to be a tenant.
Justice Borkar firmly observed:
“A tenant has no locus standi to question the internal arrangement among legal heirs regarding membership of the society.”
Nomination Does Not Create Ownership
The court reiterated the settled legal position that nomination does not confer ownership rights. Referring to a 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Borkar explained:
-
Nomination merely identifies the person with whom the society can deal after the member’s death.
-
It does not determine title or override succession laws.
-
In the absence of a will, succession opens in favour of all legal heirs as per personal law.
The judge clarified that any ownership dispute must be resolved in a competent civil court, not by cooperative authorities.
Registrar Exceeded Jurisdiction
The High Court strongly criticised the divisional joint registrar for overstepping statutory limits.
Justice Borkar held that authorities under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act are concerned only with membership regulation, not succession disputes.
The court observed:
-
The society did not dispute the petitioner’s eligibility under the Act or its byelaws.
-
The dispute, if any, was essentially inter se between legal heirs.
-
Revisional authorities cannot adjudicate complex inheritance issues.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed and set aside the revisional authority’s order.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
-
Cooperative authorities cannot decide succession disputes.
-
Nomination does not create ownership, but only facilitates society dealings.
-
Tenants have no locus standi in internal disputes among heirs.
-
Membership decisions must remain within the limited scope of statutory powers.
The ruling reinforces the principle that cooperative bodies are administrative regulators, not civil courts for inheritance matters.
