Nomination under co-operative society law does not confer ownership; succession rights of legal heirs remain unaffected.

A nomination under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 read with Rule 25 is only for facilitating the society's dealings after a member's death and securing valid discharge to the society. It does not vest absolute ownership in the nominee, who holds the share or interest in a representative capacity. The provision also does not create a special rule of succession or override the applicable personal law governing inheritance. The nominee's authority is limited to administration of the society's records and dealings until the estate is distributed according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a valid nomination under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 read with Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 makes the nominee absolute owner of the deceased member's property to the exclusion of the other legal heirs; (ii) Whether Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 creates a special rule of succession overriding the personal law applicable to the deceased member.

Issue (i): Whether a valid nomination under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 read with Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 makes the nominee absolute owner of the deceased member's property to the exclusion of the other legal heirs.

Analysis: Section 30 was construed as a provision regulating the society's dealings with the person nominated after the member's death, and not as a provision creating title in the nominee. The reasoning followed the principle that nomination secures a valid discharge to the society and identifies the person entitled to receive or deal with the share or interest for the time being, while the beneficial rights in the estate continue to be governed by the law of succession. The nominee, therefore, does not take the property absolutely merely by reason of nomination.

Conclusion: The nominee did not become the absolute owner to the exclusion of the other legal heirs.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 creates a special rule of succession overriding the personal law applicable to the deceased member.

Analysis: The statutory language and scheme were treated as limited to transfer of the share or interest for purposes of society administration, with no indication of legislative intent to alter succession rights. The provision was held not to displace the ordinary rules of inheritance under the applicable personal law, and the nominee's position was confined to an interim and representative capacity until the estate was administered according to law.

Conclusion: Section 30 does not create a special rule of succession overriding personal law.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal succeeded, the concurrent findings that treated the nominee as absolute owner were set aside, and the suit for specific performance failed for want of authority in the nominee to alienate the property as sole owner.

Ratio Decidendi: A nomination under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is only for facilitating the society's dealings and valid discharge; it does not confer ownership or alter the succession rights of the deceased member's legal heirs.

---