Liability of heir to housing society

Sir , I have already put up data / information on record with the consent of heir which is 100% true.and accurate.The M.ST.COOP. SOC.ACT 1960 , provides resolution of disputes under sec 91 of act .The dispute must be between certain class of persons as enumerated in sec 91 of act.Can a heir of deceased member be equated with  " a person claiming through a member " or " a person claiming to be a member " ?  What is the difference between these two terms ? Is a heir a person as required under sec 91 of act ?      Associate membership expires with the death of the member . A heir gets only a  "right to become a member "  Does it mean that  as soon as a member expires , his relatives / dependents lose their right ( if any ) over the house?         If this is so , it will then allow a group of members ( called Managing Committee )  to harrass and to deny Transmission of house to heir on any filmsy ground to extract money from heir very much against the spirit of sec 30 of the act . Is there any way to stop such misuse of sec 30 of the act ?         Hence the query--- What is the liability of heir for payment of outgoings of a housing society ?

The Society has a charge on the flat for amounts due to them. In other words, anyone who claims ownership of the flat has to pay the dues to the Society.  If the heir abandons the claim or does not want to claim ownership of the flat, he has no liability to the Society. What is the dispute of the heir (1) the flat is not transferred to his name (2) he is asked to pay the arrears with interest or both (1) and (2)?

Section 30. Transfer of interest on death of member.(1) On the death of a member of a society, the society shall transfer the share or interest of the deceased member to a person or persons nominated in accordance with the rules or, if no person has been so nominated, to such person as may appear to the committee to be the heir or legal representative of the deceased member.

In your case there is no valid nomination. So the underlined provision becomes operative. The underlined words give discretion on the part of the committee to accept you as heir or not.

As "you do not appear to be the heir" to committee, the only alternative available to you is to obtain a succession certificate.

Under Section 91(b)

a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or a deceased member of the Society, or a society -------

The underlined words will apply to your case.

In sum and substance you cannot do anything until you obtain a succession certificate. After obtaining the succession certificate even before going to the co-operative court, you can file your complaint with the Registrar.

There is no other alternative available to you. Without doing your own home work, do not blaim the Registrar.

Sir, there is now some confusion.       Heir states that in July 1983 ,the auditors who audited the soc. a/c reported that the deceased member had nominated someone for his house in society . The managing committee of the material time also admitted that the deceased member in fact , had nominated for his house .Heir had submitted copies of these papers to M.C. and asked it to disclose nominee.Society avoided to disclose the nominee saying that the records were destroyed by white ants . They however , ACCEPTED the son of deceased member as Heir and there is no dispute about it .

The question of  heir claiming through a member , past member doesn't arise because the member or the past member should be alive      The heir claiming the membership rights through a DECEASED MEMBER is also not possible because the membership rights of a member get terminated on his death . You have rightly said that the heir can claim membership rights only after he becomes a member of the society .   Sir , under these circumstances, the society was duty bound under sec 30 of act ,to make heir a member of the society  which they have deliberately avoided .

When a person expires, his assets and liabilities existing as on day of his death  get transferred in the name of heir/s or legatee. However, money claims due from deceased person  as per law of limitation survive only for three years and not beyond that. But society now claims the amount which was due to it from deceased member in year 1989.. When heir is not made a member of society , how can it claim money from heir ? 

Heir doesn't wish a legal clash with society and wants to settle the issue amicably. Society is reluctant and  wants heir to pay  huge amount in the matter . 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Since your case is complicated case as such I require documents and same may be send to my email for detailed legal advise.

with regards,

Kishan Dutt Kalaskar

Sir, there are not many documents in present situation. Hence with the consent of heir  only FACTS are put up for consideration . Name and address of heir are held up to avoid any harm to heir .

1- building was constructed by a builder from whom people  purchased houses  and later formed a coop. Society.( tenents copartnership) .The conveyance of building is in the name of society.

2- The father of Heir purchased a house in said society  from a member in resale entirely from his own funds .He also became a member of said society.

3-Some where in 1982-1983 , he nominated his only son who was also an  associated member for his said house.

4- The member expired in year 1989. Heir made an application for membership  in July 1990 on the basis of his being a nominee and also associated membership. Society did not respond .It also stopped accepting and  encashing cheques issued by heir. 

5- On following up ,society informed that records of nomination was destroyed by white ants, that some amount was due from the deceased member, that associate membership expires with the death of the member.This was in year 1998.

6- Heir submitted copy of 1993 audit report and M.C. report which said that the deceased member had in fact nominated for his house. Society did not respond but ACCEPTED  the sole son of the deceased member as HEIR of the deceased member. 

7- Now , the society terms heir as " OCCUPANT " of house and claims arrears of outgoings of society with 21% interest compounded at monthly rest.  even when it had never passed any resolution to charge interest @21%  claiming that no objections from other members for such rate of interest amounts to their consent for it.

Hence the query

1- What is the liability of heir to housing society ? 

2- Whether law of limitation 1963 applies in this case ? 

3- Whether society can evict heir from the house ? 

You are only repeating the query again and again with a blind for whatever I am saying. You are making complicated what is otherwise simple. If you only want answer to your 3 questions I am repeating them here.

- What is the liability of heir to housing society ? 

Nothing.

2- Whether law of limitation 1963 applies in this case ? 

No

3- Whether society can evict heir from the house ? 

Yes. For occupying the flat as a non-member. But the case will go on and on.

Further answer to question No.3:. And the pretender will have to have to go on spending money to resist eviction. If he doen't want to spend money and doesn't contest, the court can take ex-parte decision to evict him.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Since your case is complicated case as such I require documents and same may be send to my email for detailed legal advise.  

With regards,

Kishan Dutt Kalaskar
 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Since your case is complicated case as such I require documents and same may be send to my email for detailed legal advise.

With regards,

Kishan Dutt Kalaskar

INTROSPECT ON THIS:
1.  In a Tenant-Ownership (TC) type Society u/s 2(16), the Society is constituted ONLY for "common amenities & services".  PERIOD.

2.  By virtue of the above, the Society has no legal jurisdiction to evict ANYBODY AT ANY TIME, for ANY reason, to the exception of filinig recovery proceedings u/s 101, and consequently leading to "Auction" of the property, to the extent of the outstanding amount of Society against the Flat, irrespective of the status of the occupant of the flat.

3. Recovery Proceedings against a deceased property (in the mentioned circumstances) is limited to previous Six years.  This is limited to only the Principal Amount and not Interest. Similarly claim, as Nominee, over the society membership (and not title-ownership)  is also time-barred, to the exception of obtaining a Letter of Administration from the state High Court.

4.  IF matter was documentarily brought to the attention of the Registrar of Cooperatives and he did not suo-motto initiate recovery proceedings u/s 101(2), THEN the Registrar has no jurisdiction remaining to hear the 101 matter and the matter must compulsorily be remanded to the coop. court, for proper adjudiction.

5.  The "querist" MUST take note that NOTHING would move at the whims & fancies of the said Legal Heir, irrespective of the health status, when he mentions that he does not want to go legal and wants things settle amicably.  In a democracy, NOTHING is settled amicably, which is evident from the crores and crores of litigations pending since ages in the various courts.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
VISIT: www.chshelpforum.com

Nothing has happened here for the past 8 months. Is the original person who asked still waiting for advices here? If a debate is dormant for months it should be ignored.

Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech]
	Nothing has happened here for the past 8 months. Is the original person who asked still waiting for advices here? If a debate is dormant for months it should be ignored.

Keep your suggestions to yourself.

Anybody may post, ANYTIME, at his whims and fancies.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
VISIT:  www.chshelpforum.com

Sir , neither society nor Registrar of coop soc. Have initiated proceedings under sec 101 or sec 101 (2) of act . But society had moved Co-op court  against HEIR  under sec 91 of the act .The advocate of heir put up defence a) Associate membership of heir doesnot expire with the death of original member  and b) under sec 92 of act heir is liable to pay dues for only 6 years period preceeding the date of filing the dispute .and not from sep.1989 when the member expired .       But the court had rejected both the submissions saying though the associate membership of heir expired in Sep . 1989 with the death of original member , since he has said that it ( Associate membership ) continues even after death of original member he ( heir ) is liable  to pay the entire emount ( from dec. 1987 onwards ) with 21% interest from date of filing of the dispute by the society till the date of it's payment . 

This is much against the advices received on this forum . Heir has been advised by his advocate to approach higher court for relief or pay the amount ordered by the Coop court . 

No advice so far . Dr m s ramani said that heir has no liability towards housing society . Coop court held it otherwise. Hemant Aggarwal ji said that resident is liable to pay under sec 101 of act irrespective of his status & liability is for 6 years and for principal amount only .  But sec 92 of act covers only such cases filed under sec 91 and not under sec 101 .  Hence liabbility would be for only 3 years from date 3 years prior to filing of dispute .  But the advocate of heir says that heir is not the persons as required under sec 91 of act  hence dispute doesnot come under jurisdiction of the coop court and court should have dismissed it on grounds of lack of jurisdicton .. heir is confused. What is the correct position ? 

No advice so far . Dr m s ramani said that heir has no liability towards housing society . Coop court held it otherwise. Hemant Aggarwal ji said that resident is liable to pay under sec 101 of act irrespective of his status & liability is for 6 years and for principal amount only .  But sec 92 of act covers only such cases filed under sec 91 and not under sec 101 .  Hence liabbility would be for only 3 years from date 3 years prior to filing of dispute .  But the advocate of heir says that heir is not the persons as required under sec 91 of act  hence dispute doesnot come under jurisdiction of the coop court and court should have dismissed it on grounds of lack of jurisdicton .. heir is confused. What is the correct position ?