Bombay High Court Rebukes Registrar for Overstepping in Housing Society Succession Dispute
The Bombay High Court has strongly criticized the divisional joint registrar of cooperative societies in Mumbai for exceeding its jurisdictional authority. The court set aside an order that had revoked the membership of a man in a prestigious Peddar Road housing society, highlighting that cooperative officials are not empowered to adjudicate succession matters.
Court's Firm Stance on Jurisdictional Limits
Justice Amit Borkar, in a ruling delivered on February 9, clarified that the authority under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is strictly limited to regulating membership. "It is not a civil court deciding succession disputes," Justice Borkar emphasized. He pointed out that the revisional authority had overstepped by setting aside the membership conferment based on grounds outside its legal scope, thereby acting beyond its mandate.
Background of the Long-Running Legal Battle
The case revolves around Pravinkumar Dave, whose father nominated him as a minor in 1974 for a flat and garage in Alpana CHSL, which was leased to a company at the time. Following his father's death in 1975, Dave sought membership from the society in 2002. When the society refused, he approached the deputy registrar of D ward, who in February 2006 directed the society to grant him membership.
However, the society and an individual claiming tenancy rights challenged this decision before the divisional joint registrar. The registrar overturned the order, citing "overwriting" in the nomination form and arguing that without an unimpeachable and undisputed nomination document, Dave could not be granted membership.
Legal Heirs' Support and Supreme Court Precedent
Advocate Satyavan Vaishnav, representing Dave, revealed that out of ten legal heirs, six issued no-objection certificates supporting Dave's claim. One heir had predeceased, two did not object, and only one heir opposed Dave's membership. Justice Borkar referenced a 2016 Supreme Court ruling, which established that nomination does not confer ownership but merely identifies a person for the society to deal with after a member's death.
Since Dave's father left no will, Justice Borkar explained that succession opens for all ten legal representatives under applicable personal law. "The record shows the majority of the heirs supported Dave," he noted, underscoring the lack of widespread dispute among the heirs.
Court's Decision and Broader Implications
Justice Borkar quashed the registrar's order, stating that the objecting heir did not challenge the membership grant; instead, it was contested by the society and a tenant. "A tenant has no locus standi to question internal arrangements among legal heirs regarding society membership," he asserted. The society also did not dispute Dave's eligibility under the Act or bylaws.
In conclusion, the court ruled that the revisional authority should not have interfered, especially since any dispute was essentially between legal heirs. This judgment reinforces the principle that cooperative officials must confine their decisions to membership regulation, leaving succession conflicts to civil courts for resolution.
