Originally posted by : r.sankaranarayanan
	Your case is similar to a case in my CHS. I was Hon. Secretary. The male member died . Originally he had nominated his wife only. Just before few months of his death, he had changed his nomination to his wife, his nephew and his sister. This changed nomination was not known to his wife. After his death, his nephew put up a claim to transfer the flat to his name. I wrote to him that the transfer can be done to any one of the nominees and indemnity will have to be furnished. (Now, the rule has changed and the flat can be transferred to all the nominees jointly). At this point only the wife came to know that her husband had changed the nomination. She asked my advice. I told her that if there is no will, she can approach High Court and get the succession certificate.  She got that and the Society transferred to her name. So, please get the succession certtificate and the Society is bound to transfer the flat to the successor.(legal heir)

Dear Sri sankaranarayanan

Precedent of your society, as suggested merely on hit & trial basis, cannot be expected to become law of the land to work always against the nominees of all the societies of India.

If in your case the nominee failed to exert his right effectively in the court of law, or he would not have been given chance to defend his right, while the proceedings of succession certificate, that does not mean that the case can become a model law for all the courts to follow, when not proved that a nominee is merely a trustee as against the wishes of the deceased.

In fact, the property of a deceased should not be transferred to a non-deserving heir, if the deceased was not properly cared for during his/her life time by that heir.

Please let me know the State.

Krishna Advocate 9447963440

That there are no general laws on nomination. 

That nomination  is a temporary arrangement.

That the nominees are appointed, to ensure that the subject matter of the nomination is protected, until the legal heirs or legal representatives of the deceased take appropriate steps,

That the right of the nominee are determined  in accordance with the laws governing the subject matter of nomination.

That at  no point had the supreme court decided that the rights of the nominees will prevail over that of the successors. 

That even Indrani Wahi Case, the apex court had observed that it would be open for legal heirs of the deceased , to pursue their case of succession or inheritance. They will be entitled to claim the title on the basis of inheritance

That any other interpretation of nomination would render the succession to be meaningless.

Krishna Advocate 9447963440

Mr. Ramesh Singh,

Please don't mind, if I say that your question is not the answer to my observation. As a consultant, you were required to recheck the provisions of your own quoted section 22 to answer my observation/ question.

In fact, there is no need for you to take food supplements. The only requirements for you was to understand that a querist come here with the belief that he would get correct guidance, as based on the knowledge of the experts. There was a further need for you to anlayse the law appropriately before replying the query after understanding the crux of the problem.

The irony is, once due to ineffective presentation of deficiency of service on the part of lawyer towards some of his client, if a court declared something that does not form part of any statute, people often believe that the related judgment has becomes the law of the land, while case laws get created and quashed also by one and other courts of law depending upon the nature, characteristics and the circumstances of the individual cases. All judgments cannot equally be applied on all types of cases unless the nature, characteristics and the circumstances are quite similar to the quoted case.

I hope, as a consultant, before providing service to any client or even querist, you have to understand the very basic facts pertaining to the related law.

So far nobody has come forward to provide any statutory provision for treating a nominee, as a trustee, as asked by Mr. Jigyasu. If Mr. Jigyasu, a declared learner, has posed a question on some legal point, the experts were required to make a review of their replies as based on their knowledge and would have come forward with the exact legal clarifications after checking the relevant statutes.

n fact, that should not have been taken as a question of prestige or ego, as to why their opinion has not been taken as correct, but should have taken the opportunity to enhance their knowledge by having a relook to the related legal provisions.

.

Originally posted by : subramanyam
	The Supreme Court, in the case of Sarbati Devi, which was decided in 1983, held that the nominee is a trustee of the property and is liable to hand it over to the legal heirs. This applies to deposits in bank accounts also

You seemingly a layman, I admire your efforts to understand law. But, as I stated in my earlier post, "case laws get created and quashed also by one and other courts of law depending upon the nature, characteristics and the circumstances of the individual cases. All judgments cannot equally be applied on all types of cases unless the nature, characteristics and the circumstances are quite similar to the quoted case.

Originally posted by : Krishna. Advocate
	That there are no general laws on nomination.  That nomination  is a temporary arrangement. That the nominees are appointed, to ensure that the subject matter of the nomination is protected, until the legal heirs or legal representatives of the deceased take appropriate steps, That the right of the nominee are determined  in accordance with the laws governing the subject matter of nomination. That at  no point had the supreme court decided that the rights of the nominees will prevail over that of the successors.  That even Indrani Wahi Case, the apex court had observed that it would be open for legal heirs of the deceased , to pursue their case of succession or inheritance. They will be entitled to claim the title on the basis of inheritance That any other interpretation of nomination would render the succession to be meaningless. Krishna Advocate 9447963440

Dear Shri Krishna Advocate,

I am really happy that my query in has been evaluated adequatedly in order to evoke such an exemplary response, particularly from Mr. Dhingra. I really feel emencely benefited by the knowledge imparted through his posts.

I bow my head for slaute to Mr. Dhingra for such a perfect knowledge on the issues!

Originally posted by : Ramesh Singh
	I guess I am facing mental deficiency or lack of nutrition in my dietary schedule & shall I take food supplement (i.e. Vitamin, minerals, carbohydrates, protein & ginseng etc.) to balance my diet? Am I right Mr. Dhingra sir ???

@Ramesh Singh ji

I am sorry, if you have got guilty feeling or offended on account of my question, which evoked debate on legal aspects of nomination vs. trustee.

.

To Mr:Dhingara

Rights of the nominees will prevail over that of the successors. ?
Except 1 or 2 ,My points are  from Various judgments of supreme court and various high courts in similar cases. I will send you the Case details.  

Case No:1

A division bench of the Bombay High Court - The bench of Justices AS Oka and AA Sayed 

A division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the right of succession overrides the rights of a nominee. The bench of Justices AS Oka and AA Sayed have held that the rights of the successors prevail over that of the nominee of a holder of shares or securities appointed under Section 109A of Companies Act, 1953.before the division bench after the Chief Justice passed an administrative order directing the same.

Defendants in the suit claimed that they were nominees of the deceased in respect of certain investments in mutual funds. This
they claimed was “exclusively vested in them.”

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 egal representatives of the deceased shareholder or a member of the Society or that itoverrides the law of succession.”

In conclusion the bench observed- “The provisions relating to nominations under the various enactments have been consistently interpreted by the Apex Court by holding that the nominee does not get absolute title to the property subject matter of the nomination.

The reason is by its very nature, when a share holder or a deposit holder or an insurance policy holder or a member of a Cooperative Society makes a nomination during his life time, he does not transfer his interest in favour of the nominee.

It is always held that the nomination does not override the law in relation to testamentary or intestate succession.
The provisions regarding nomination are made with a view to ensure that the estate or the rights of the deceased subject matter of the nomination are protected till the legal representatives of the deceased take appropriate steps.”

Krishna Advocate 9447963440

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

Originally posted by : Krishna. Advocate
	To Mr:Dhingara Rights of the nominees will prevail over that of the successors. ? Except 1 or 2 ,My points are  from Various judgments of supreme court and various high courts in similar cases. I will send you the Case details.   Case No:1 A division bench of the Bombay High Court - The bench of Justices AS Oka and AA Sayed  A division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the right of succession overrides the rights of a nominee. The bench of Justices AS Oka and AA Sayed have held that the rights of the successors prevail over that of the nominee of a holder of shares or securities appointed under Section 109A of Companies Act, 1953.before the division bench after the Chief Justice passed an administrative order directing the same. Defendants in the suit claimed that they were nominees of the deceased in respect of certain investments in mutual funds. This they claimed was “exclusively vested in them.” 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 egal representatives of the deceased shareholder or a member of the Society or that itoverrides the law of succession.” In conclusion the bench observed- “The provisions relating to nominations under the various enactments have been consistently interpreted by the Apex Court by holding that the nominee does not get absolute title to the property subject matter of the nomination. The reason is by its very nature, when a share holder or a deposit holder or an insurance policy holder or a member of a Cooperative Society makes a nomination during his life time, he does not transfer his interest in favour of the nominee. It is always held that the nomination does not override the law in relation to testamentary or intestate succession. The provisions regarding nomination are made with a view to ensure that the estate or the rights of the deceased subject matter of the nomination are protected till the legal representatives of the deceased take appropriate steps.” Krishna Advocate 9447963440

@Mr. Krishna Advocate,

Probably in a fit of rage against me due to my posts, you have pronounced even my name wrongly in both of your present posts, as "Dhingara" and "Dhinkara" instead of "DHINGRA."

Anyway, bout your clarification, you seem to depend mostly on observations rather than judgments of the courts. I hope you may be well aware that THERE IS A MARKED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN OBSERVATION AND A DECISION or JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. Probably you forget that cvases of housing society is not dealt with under the Companies Act, 1953. Even if you want to discuss about the quoted Section 109A of the Companies Act, 1953, that applies to the shares and debentures of the companies under the Company Laws. Moreover, even the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 109A very clearly specifies that otherwise than a person appointed by testamentary/will, "where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to vest the shares in, or debentures of, the company, the nominee shall, on the death of the shareholder or holder of debentures of, the company or, as the case may be, on the death of the joint-holders become ENTITLED TO ALL RIGHTS IN THE SHARES OR DEBENTURES of the company or, as the case may be, all the joint-holders, in relation to such shares in, or debentures of the company to the exclusion of all other persons."

You should not have forgetten that in the present case no will exists.

SO, EVEN YOUR OWN REFERRED COMPANIES ACT DOES NOT DENY THE RIGHTS OF A NOMINATION EVEN FOR SHARES AND DEBENTURES OF THE COMPANIES, WHAT TO SAY OF A SOCIETY, WHICH IS QUITE PETTY ENTITY AS COMPARED TO THE REGISTERED COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT.

About case laws, there are plenty of such jusgements, which scuttle down each other judgments. So, which to apply and which not to apply always remains a mystery even for the lawyers. The irony is that in the absence of any statute, the judgment is prnounced in favour the litigant, whosoever is able to prevail through his lawyer due to some weakness of the opponent lawyer with lesser knowledge.

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:

https://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.

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

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.
 

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.