Wife or nominee, who gets the property ?

Consultant & Legal Analyst

Originally posted by : Krishna. Advocate
TO 

Mr: Dhinkara

A nominee is bound to distribute the benefits among the legal heirs.

Refer

rder of  Madras Hight  Court in Felix Vs. Jemi and others reported in 2002 (2) TNLJ 83 and Sarbati Devi Vs. Usha Devi reported in AIR 1984 SC 346.

Advocate Krishna 9447963440

 

@Krishna Advocate,

I have already expressed my views on "Sarbati Devi Vs. Usha Devi" case on this very page in reply to the post of Mr. Subramanyam.

ON THE WHOLE NO PROVISION OF ANY STATUTE HAS BEEN QUOTED SO FAR BY ANY OF THE EXPERTS, ACCODING TO WHICH A NOMINEE IS TREATED AS A TRUSTEE. Quoting of cases under different laws on different aspects cannot become a law of the land. I have already proved that even the judgment of that case does not stand the test against the amended Insurance laws since 2015. SO THEIR WAS NO LOGIC OR RELEVANCE ON YOUR PART IN QUOTING THE JUDGMENT OF SARBATI DEVI AGAIN, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS ALREADY GIVEN RECOGNITION TO THE RIGHTS OF A NOMINEE THROUGH DULY PASSED STATUTE OF BOTH THE HOUSES OF THE PARLIAMENT AND ASSENTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA.

if you can't rely on my statement, you may like to read the following story appearing at the website of "BUSINESS STANDARD" newpaper, as based on the latest judgment of the Supreme Court of India, captioned as "Succession planning: Nominee has right to property" and available at the following link:

http://www.business-standard.com/article/specials/succession-planning-nominee-has-right-to-property-116111900901_1.html

So, if you want to ignore the facts at your own sweet will, no grudge for that, as virtually I am not losing any case, rather you are gathering negative impression for yourself only by ignoring the facts on the issue, just to give stress on your own misleading presentations on the public forum. My sole intention was to merely provide factual information ont he query of the querist, not to let down any expert.

Rest depends upon your own wisdom.

 

 
Reply   
 

 

 

Mr: Dhingra 

So you are writing all these based on this article.

Mr:Dhingra ,that article was based Indrani Wahi Case. Please refer My Previous Post.

Please read  the judgment. Not article. This  article is misleading you.

I will  write to him. 

I had copy of that judgment  in my file. If you want i will send you. In my previous post , i have quoted this case also. You can refer my previous post. 

What is the Issue?  Whether the rights of nominee prevail over those of successor?

From the judgment

"The Cooperative Society has no option whatsoever, except to transfer the membership in the name of the nominee, in consonance with Sections 79 and 80 of the 1983 Act (read with Rules 127 and 128 of the 1987 Rules). That, would have no relevance to the issue of title between the inheritors or successors to the property of the deceased. Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, we therefore hereby direct 'the Cooperative Society' to transfer the share or interest of the society in favour of the appellant - Indrani Wahi. It shall however, be open to the other members of the family (presently only the son of Biswa Ranjan Sengupta - Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta; we are informed that his mother - Parul Sengupta has died), to pursue his case of succession or inheritance, if he is so advised, in consonance with law."

Go through the judgmentJust Go through the judgment 

The court pointed out that the requirement for transfer of shares in favor of the nominee, is stipulated only for societies registered under the West Bengal act and at no point had the supreme court decided that the rights of nominee will prevail over that of the successor. 

IN this case apex court had observed that it would be open for other members of the family of the deceased to pursue their case of succession or inheritance. Therefore those who are claiming their rights under inheritance will be entitled to claim the title to the shares in the society on the basis of inheritance

Please  refer precedents of the supreme court and various high courts relating to this issue. In case of shares held in a company, shares held in a co operative society, investment made in financial instruments such as employee provident fund etc and the right of nominee with respects  to various accounts held with banks. you can observe that in all these cases the provisions relating to nominations have been consistently interpreted as only giving a temporary controlling right to the nominees

Please read the judgment. Not article

 
Reply   
 



You wrote”

“ON THE WHOLE NO PROVISION OF ANY STATUTE HAS BEEN QUOTED SO FAR BY ANY OF THE EXPERTS, ACCODING TO WHICH A NOMINEE IS TREATED AS A TRUSTEE. Quoting of cases under different laws on different aspects cannot become a law of the land. “

Mr: Dhingra 

There is no general law on Nomination.The right of the nominee are determined  in accordance with the laws governing the subject matter of Nomination.

There are various Acts, namely Companies Act, The Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Societies Act, Banking Regulation Act,  Provident Funds Act,Insurance Act, Government Saving Banks Act,  Depositories Act, Mutual Funds Regulations, etc., that have provisions pertaining to nomination.

But the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High courts s are of the view that the above Acts cannot override the succession law and succession can be governed only by Succession Law i.e. Testamentary or Intestate as the case may be and not by any other Act.
 

 
Reply   
 
Consultant & Legal Analyst

Originally posted by : Krishna. Advocate
 
Mr: Dhingra 

So you are writing all these based on this article.

Mr:Dhingra ,that article was based Indrani Wahi Case. Please refer My Previous Post.

Please read  the judgment. Not article. This  article is misleading you.

I will  write to him. 

I had copy of that judgment  in my file. If you want i will send you. In my previous post , i have quoted this case also. You can refer my previous post. 

What is the Issue?  Whether the rights of nominee prevail over those of successor?

From the judgment

"The Cooperative Society has no option whatsoever, except to transfer the membership in the name of the nominee, in consonance with Sections 79 and 80 of the 1983 Act (read with Rules 127 and 128 of the 1987 Rules). That, would have no relevance to the issue of title between the inheritors or successors to the property of the deceased. Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, we therefore hereby direct 'the Cooperative Society' to transfer the share or interest of the society in favour of the appellant - Indrani Wahi. It shall however, be open to the other members of the family (presently only the son of Biswa Ranjan Sengupta - Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta; we are informed that his mother - Parul Sengupta has died), to pursue his case of succession or inheritance, if he is so advised, in consonance with law."

Go through the judgmentJust Go through the judgment 

The court pointed out that the requirement for transfer of shares in favor of the nominee, is stipulated only for societies registered under the West Bengal act and at no point had the supreme court decided that the rights of nominee will prevail over that of the successor. 

IN this case apex court had observed that it would be open for other members of the family of the deceased to pursue their case of succession or inheritance. Therefore those who are claiming their rights under inheritance will be entitled to claim the title to the shares in the society on the basis of inheritance

Please  refer precedents of the supreme court and various high courts relating to this issue. In case of shares held in a company, shares held in a co operative society, investment made in financial instruments such as employee provident fund etc and the right of nominee with respects  to various accounts held with banks. you can observe that in all these cases the provisions relating to nominations have been consistently interpreted as only giving a temporary controlling right to the nominees

Please read the judgment. Not article

 

@Mr. Krishna Advocate,

Really a funny analysis on your part, which reveals that even the facts of the judgment being in your custody, you still insist wanted to stress on your own baseless assumptions that was not at all besed on any statute of the land.

Before writing anything, I may like to request you to recheck and reply the following questions:

(1) Who was the nominee as per the Co-op Society record, whether Indrani Wahi or Parul Sengupta, the widow of the deceased?

(2) Who was the appellant in the case, "Indrani Wahi Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors." whether Indrtani Wahi or Parul Sengupta?

(3) When, as per para 21, the Supreme Court judgment says, "appeal stands allowed in the above terms," in whose favour the judgment goes, the appellant "Indrani Wahi" the appellant, OR "Mrs. Parul Sengupta" the widow of the deceased?

(4) When, as per second part of Para 20, the Supreme Court judgment says, "WE therefore HEREBY DIRECT 'the Cooperative Society' to TRANSFER the share or interest of the society IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT - INDRANI WAHI." in whose favour the judgment goes, the appellant "Indrani Wahi" the appellant OR "Mrs. Parul Sengupta" the widow of the deceased?

If the judgment allowed the respondent to pursue her claim through separate case, that does not mean that the judgment goes in favour of the widow of the deceased. The case was still to be filed for pursuit and distinct judgment, which is yet uncertain.

As regards your persistence, "at no point had the supreme court decided that the rights of nominee will prevail over that of the successor," (1) can you point out if the Supreme Court in that judgment has anywhere stated that the nominee is merely a trustee. (2) Further, any such of your own assumption cannot be treated as the judgment of the supreme court on the issue of transfer of property in the name of the widow of the deceased. (3) Still further to that, you have not so far been able to quote any statutory provision, which can establish your assumption that a nominee is merely a trustee.
 
For your information, if I have quoted an article as a supplement to my own independent views, with specific reference to the quoted cases, that does not mean that my views were based merely on the newspaper story. I quoted the reference of the story only when you tried to repeat the "Sarbati Devi Vs. Usha Devi" case in spite of my earlier stand on the issue, which you conveniently tried to ignore, just to falsely insist on your own assumptions..
 
However, if you still want to live with your assumptions and presumptions by misinterpreting even the existing judgment, nobody can desist you from doing so. But the facts cannot be changed that there is no such section of any law that declares the nominee as a trustee and bound to transfer the assets after claiming from the society.
 
Just think over the issue, if a nominee does not put any claim purposely, but merely contests the issue of succession certificate and wins with particular reference to the property of nomination, would the society be able to transfer the flat in the name of anyone else? if yes, under which section of the Cooperative Act or Rules?
 
 
Reply   
 

Mr: Dhingara

Please read this from judgment

"In our view, Mr. Amal Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has rightly contended that within the limited scope of Section 69 and 70 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973, the Cooperative Tribunal was not required to determine the disputed question of title between the parties in dispute and the High Court had also gone wrong in holding that when a valid nomination is made, the nominee acquires title to the property in question."

"Dr. Shanker Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, submitted that the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973 is a complete code by itself and since the said Act is applicable notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act, if a rival claim of title to the property is raised, the Cooperative Tribunal is not incompetent to decide such title."

 We are, however, not inclined to accept such contention of Dr. Ghosh. In our view, within the limited scope of inquiry to be made for determining the question of valid nomination under Section 69, title to the property cannot be determined. In terms of determination of valid nomination the consequential direction for delivery of possession can be given in favour of the person having valid nomination under the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The dispute as to the question of title is not to be decided within the limited scope and ambit of Sections 69 and 70 of the cooperative Societies Act.

We, therefore, dispose of this appeal by directing that in view of the finding by the Tribunal that the respondent had obtained a valid nomination from the deceased Ranendra Kumar Acharya, the respondent is entitled to get the possession of the said flat in accordance with the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. But the dispute as to the title of the said flat should not be held to have been decided either by the Cooperative Tribunal or by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Such question is kept open to be decided by an appropriate forum if such challenge is made before the appropriate forum. This appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs."

 
Reply   
 

Mr: Dhingara

Please read this from judgment

"In our view, Mr. Amal Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has rightly contended that within the limited scope of Section 69 and 70 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973, the Cooperative Tribunal was not required to determine the disputed question of title between the parties in dispute and the High Court had also gone wrong in holding that when a valid nomination is made, the nominee acquires title to the property in question."

"Dr. Shanker Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, submitted that the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973 is a complete code by itself and since the said Act is applicable notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act, if a rival claim of title to the property is raised, the Cooperative Tribunal is not incompetent to decide such title."

 We are, however, not inclined to accept such contention of Dr. Ghosh. In our view, within the limited scope of inquiry to be made for determining the question of valid nomination under Section 69, title to the property cannot be determined. In terms of determination of valid nomination the consequential direction for delivery of possession can be given in favour of the person having valid nomination under the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The dispute as to the question of title is not to be decided within the limited scope and ambit of Sections 69 and 70 of the cooperative Societies Act.

We, therefore, dispose of this appeal by directing that in view of the finding by the Tribunal that the respondent had obtained a valid nomination from the deceased Ranendra Kumar Acharya, the respondent is entitled to get the possession of the said flat in accordance with the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. But the dispute as to the title of the said flat should not be held to have been decided either by the Cooperative Tribunal or by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Such question is kept open to be decided by an appropriate forum if such challenge is made before the appropriate forum. This appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs."

 
Reply   
 

Mr: Dhingara

Please read this from judgment

"In our view, Mr. Amal Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has rightly contended that within the limited scope of Section 69 and 70 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973, the Cooperative Tribunal was not required to determine the disputed question of title between the parties in dispute and the High Court had also gone wrong in holding that when a valid nomination is made, the nominee acquires title to the property in question."

"Dr. Shanker Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, submitted that the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973 is a complete code by itself and since the said Act is applicable notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act, if a rival claim of title to the property is raised, the Cooperative Tribunal is not incompetent to decide such title."

 We are, however, not inclined to accept such contention of Dr. Ghosh. In our view, within the limited scope of inquiry to be made for determining the question of valid nomination under Section 69, title to the property cannot be determined. In terms of determination of valid nomination the consequential direction for delivery of possession can be given in favour of the person having valid nomination under the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The dispute as to the question of title is not to be decided within the limited scope and ambit of Sections 69 and 70 of the cooperative Societies Act.

We, therefore, dispose of this appeal by directing that in view of the finding by the Tribunal that the respondent had obtained a valid nomination from the deceased Ranendra Kumar Acharya, the respondent is entitled to get the possession of the said flat in accordance with the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. But the dispute as to the title of the said flat should not be held to have been decided either by the Cooperative Tribunal or by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Such question is kept open to be decided by an appropriate forum if such challenge is made before the appropriate forum. This appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs."

 
Reply   
 
Consultant & Legal Analyst

Originally posted by : Krishna. Advocate
You wrote”

“ON THE WHOLE NO PROVISION OF ANY STATUTE HAS BEEN QUOTED SO FAR BY ANY OF THE EXPERTS, ACCODING TO WHICH A NOMINEE IS TREATED AS A TRUSTEE. Quoting of cases under different laws on different aspects cannot become a law of the land. “

Mr: Dhingra 

There is no general law on Nomination.The right of the nominee are determined  in accordance with the laws governing the subject matter of Nomination.

There are various Acts, namely Companies Act, The Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Societies Act, Banking Regulation Act,  Provident Funds Act,Insurance Act, Government Saving Banks Act,  Depositories Act, Mutual Funds Regulations, etc., that have provisions pertaining to nomination.

But the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High courts s are of the view that the above Acts cannot override the succession law and succession can be governed only by Succession Law i.e. Testamentary or Intestate as the case may be and not by any other Act.
 

 

@Mr. Mrishna Advocate,

I have already expressed my views on your observation. So, there was no rationale in repeating the same. Moreover, when you admit that "There are various Acts, namely Companies Act, The Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Societies Act, Banking Regulation Act,  Provident Funds Act,Insurance Act, Government Saving Banks Act,  Depositories Act, Mutual Funds Regulations, etc., that have provisions pertaining to nomination, the cases of nomination have to be dealt with according to the relevant law, not the Company Law or Insurance Law for the issues on property.

So far as the judgments are concerned there are various conflicting judgments of the High Courts and Supreme Courts, which should be taken as the law of the land has not yet been decided by any Court of Law or the Government of India.

So, quotations of conflicting jugments over different issues do not have any relevance.

 
Reply   
 

Mr: Dhinkara What is is the issue? If your issue is a provision

PROVISION OF ANY STATUTE HAS BEEN QUOTED SO FAR BY ANY OF THE EXPERTS, ACCODING TO WHICH A NOMINEE IS TREATED AS A TRUSTEE.

I already told you that There is no general law on Nomination

Next

"Really a funny analysis on your part, which reveals that even the facts of the judgment being in your custody, you still insist wanted to stress on your own baseless assumptions that was not at all besed on any statute of the land."

================

A division bench of the Bombay High Court analyses on  the said judgment 

Read This

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Indrani Wahi v. Registrar of Co-op
Societies and Others the bench observed that “The conclusion drawn by the Apex Court was that a Cooperative Society is bound by the nomination made by the member. In case of such nomination, the Society has no option except to transfer the shares in the name of the nominee after the death of the member. However, those who are claiming inheritance will be entitled to pursue their remedies and claim title in the shares on the basis of inheritance.Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Apex Court was not that the nomination binds the legal representatives of the deceased shareholder or a member of the Society or that it overrides the law of succession.”

===========================
Thats all.

Advocate Krishna 

 
Reply   
 

Mr:Dhinkara

I understand you. I know there is no merit in your arguments. But i will convince you.

You wrote

"that have provisions pertaining to nomination, the cases of nomination have to be dealt with according to the relevant law, not the Company Law or Insurance Law for the issues on property."

Who said cases of nomination (in case of property) is  dealt with the Company Law or Insurance Law for the issues on property.?

Your are totally confused or your are not understanding the facts and judgments. How can we decide the issues on property with the company law or insurance law? Even in case of nomination. Interpretation of nomination will vary according to the subject matter.

Please read carefully and then understand facts and the judgment. What supreme court and various high courts said in this issue.

Can you send me one judgment that says nominee is the absolute owner of the property after death of nominator?

Eeven if the Property is transfered to Nominee , he is not having title to property. The legal Heirs are the absolute owner of the property. If you reply to this post ,  reply with  any Judgment . Not your findings.


 

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
Muslim Personal Law     |    x