In an important ruling, the Bombay High Court has drawn a clear line between society membership rights and property ownership rights. The Court emphasized that cooperative authorities cannot step into succession disputes and that nomination does not automatically make someone the owner of a property.
This judgment provides much-needed clarity for housing societies and legal heirs dealing with membership transfers after a member’s death.
⚖️ Cooperative Authorities Cannot Decide Succession
The Court made it clear that authorities functioning under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act are only empowered to regulate membership matters. They are not civil courts and cannot decide who the rightful owner of a property is.
When disputes arise between legal heirs regarding ownership or inheritance, such issues must be decided through proper civil proceedings — not by cooperative registrars.
📝 Nomination Does Not Create Ownership
Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Indrani Wahi, the High Court reiterated a settled legal principle:
A nominee is merely a representative who can deal with the society after the member’s death. Nomination is meant for administrative convenience. It does not grant absolute ownership rights.
Ownership is determined by succession laws, not by the nomination form submitted to a housing society.
👨👩👧👦 Role of Legal Heirs and Succession
In this case, the deceased member left behind multiple legal heirs and no will. Therefore, succession opened in favor of all heirs according to personal law. The Court noted that the majority of heirs had supported the petitioner’s membership claim.
Importantly, even if membership is transferred to one person, it does not extinguish the ownership rights of other heirs. Their legal remedies remain intact.
🚷 Tenant Has No Say in Heirs’ Internal Matters
A person claiming tenancy rights attempted to challenge the membership order. The Court firmly held that a tenant has no locus standi to interfere in internal arrangements among legal heirs regarding society membership.
This observation strengthens the autonomy of heirs in deciding their internal property arrangements.
⚠️ Registrar Exceeded Legal Boundaries
The divisional joint registrar had set aside the membership order by questioning the nomination document. However, the High Court ruled that the authority exceeded its jurisdiction.
The registrar’s role is limited to examining eligibility for membership — not resolving complex title or inheritance disputes.
🏛️ Civil Court Is the Correct Forum
The Court clarified that if any heir claims exclusive ownership or disputes succession, the proper remedy is to approach a civil court. Cooperative proceedings are summary in nature and cannot conclusively determine property rights.
Source:
click the file below
🏛️⚖️ Nominee Is Not Owner: Bombay High Court Clarifies Limits of Society Membership Powers