SC judgment on "nominee" (civil appeal no: 4646 of 2016)

bank loan recovery agents

"It is also essential to notice,that the rights of others on account of an inheritance or succession is a subservient right. Only if a member had not exercised the right of nomination under Section 79, then alone, the existing share or interest of the member would devolve by way of succession or inheritance" ---------
Experts are requested to enlighten on the above regarding
a) "Subservient right"
B)and also on the issue that only the nominee is entitled to get absolute rights on title and ownership of the property .
C) And also the legal heirs have no claim on the property if there is a nomination or they get rights only if there is no nomination recorded by the member of the Society.
D) can the legal heirs still knock the doors of the Courts for a share in the property ?



b) No, nominee is "only" care-taker of inherited property till passed on to all legal representatives (heir) of deceased. 

c) as in b) above.

d) When LRs of deceased do not get their share he/she/ they shall get it through the process of law. 

Total likes : 1 times



I do agree with experts Dr vashista ji reply

Retired employee.

The simple explanation is that the 'Nominee" should get such rights of the deceased member over all the other legal heirs.  Legal heirs should exercise their rights through the process of court if their rights are affected through such nomination. Finally 'Nominee" 's rights are as Trustee for him and for other legal heirs.  The nomination is an easy process for society and not to drag them to inheritance issues and once they settle the nomination in the ordinary course of business, they are absolved from their responsibilities of finding legal heirs, settling the issue in favor of claimants, etc.

Reply Mumbai : 9820174108


Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal 


Well explained by expert Dr.J.C.Vashista ,i agree with him.


The decision pertains to Civil Appeal No.4646 of 2006 and not 2016 - Indrani Wahi v Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Others (‘Indrani Wahi Case’).

The above decision is specific in the context of the provisions of the the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. Para 20 of the Judgment is conclusive as to the issue raised in the query.

"20. Having recorded the above conclusion, it is imperative for us to deal with the conclusion recorded in paragraph 6 (already extracted above) of the judgment of this Court in the Usha Ranjan  Bhattacharjee case (supra). In this behalf, it is necessary to clarify that transfer of share or interest, based on a nomination under Section 79 in favour of the nominee, is with reference to the concerned Cooperative Society, and is binding on the said society. 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." (Emphasis supplied)




Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


  Search Forum



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
Forensics & Evidence     |    x