Pravinkumar Jethalal Dave v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 23(2)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Nomination versus ownership in cooperative property: The reported judgment distinguishes nomination from beneficial ownership/succession and considers the limits of the cooperative authority's jurisdiction. Full official text should govern the precise proprietary effect.

Material facts and background

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2317 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2320 OF 2011 Pravinkumar Jethalal Dave V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2026.02.09 14:35:09 +0530

Mr. Satyavan N. Vaishnav with Ms. Nupur J. Mukherjee i/by M/s. N.N. Vaishnawa & Co., for the petititioner. Mrs. M.S. Srivastava, AGP with Ms. Savina R. Crasto AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3-State. Mr. Aditya Mehta with Ms. Chaitra Rao for respondent No.5. CORAM

Constitution of India, assail the legality and correctness of the orders passed in proceedings under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. By the impugned orders, the revisional authority allowed the revisions preferred by the respondent society and by a person claiming to be a tenant, thereby setting aside the order of the appellate authority which had granted membership to the petitioner in respect of Flat No. 12 and Garage No. 12 situated in Respondent No. 5 Society.

member of the respondent society and had executed a valid nomination in his favour. It is asserted that out of ten legal representatives of the deceased member, six have issued written no objection in support of the petitioner’s claim. One legal representative had predeceased, while two others did not dispute or object to the conferment of membership upon the petitioner. The objection to the petitioner’s claim has been raised only by one legal representative. 3.

Act directed that membership be conferred upon the petitioner. The said order was challenged by the respondent society and by a person claiming tenancy rights by filing revisions. The revisional authority, upon consideration, set aside the order of the appellate authority primarily on the ground that the nomination form relied upon by the petitioner contained overwriting. It was held that in the absence of an unimpeachable and undisputed nomination document, the petitioner could not be granted membership. 4.

Indrani Wahi vs. The Registrar, West Bengal and Others, 2016 6 SCC 440, after considering the earlier decision in Smt. Sarbati Devi vs. Smt. Usha Devi, 1984 1 SCC 424 , has made it clear that a nomination does not create ownership in favour of the nominee. A nominee does not become the absolute owner merely because his name is recorded. The nomination serves a limited purpose. It enables the society or authority to deal with one identified person

after the death of the member. The nominee holds the property for and on behalf of the legal heirs. He acts as a representative. He does not take the property to the exclusion of others unless succession law independently supports such claim. 5.

Appellant / assessee submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

petitioner was the sole member and owner of the flat. He died leaving behind ten legal representatives. It is also not in dispute that he did not leave any will. In such a situation, succession opens in favour of all ten legal representatives in accordance with the personal law applicable to them. The record shows that six out of ten legal representatives have expressly given their consent to record the name of the petitioner as member in the society’s register. Two others have not raised any objection. Only one legal representative has opposed the petitioner’s claim. Therefore, the majority of the heirs have supported the petitioner. Even otherwise, the order granting membership was not challenged by the objecting heir. Instead, the revision was pursued by the society and by a person claiming to be a tenant. A tenant has no locus to question the internal arrangement among legal heirs regarding membership of the society. The society also did not dispute the eligibility of the petitioner under the Act or the bye laws. In such circumstances, the revisional authority ought not to have interfered with the order granting membership, particularly when the dispute, if any, was...

his share or title. He may also seek associate membership in accordance with the bye laws of the society. The issue of title or succession cannot be conclusively decided in summary proceedings under the MCS Act. The authority under the Act is concerned with regulation of membership. 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. 7.

Operative decision and relief

exclusive right in the property, the law provides an adequate remedy. He may institute appropriate civil proceedings to establish

his share or title. He may also seek associate membership in accordance with the bye laws of the society. The issue of title or succession cannot be conclusively decided in summary proceedings under the MCS Act. The authority under the Act is concerned with regulation of membership. 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. 7.

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

• Indrani Wahi vs. The Registrar
• Smt. Sarbati Devi vs. Smt. Usha Devi

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on Nomination versus ownership in cooperative property. The operative result is classified as Quashed / set aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Nomination versus ownership in cooperative property. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

• Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
• Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
• For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the clean local judgment copy

Related Finin2min guidance