Nomination under co-operative society law does not override inheritance rights or operate as a will.

A nomination under section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and rule 25 of the Rules is described as a mechanism for the society's transmission and discharge, not a rule of succession. It does not confer exclusive title on the nominee or extinguish the rights of lawful heirs, who retain their claims under succession law. The nomination form is also not a will unless executed with testamentary intent and animus testandi, which a society nomination form ordinarily lacks. The nomination further does not extend to a separate superstructure on the land, which remains part of the deceased member's estate and devolves according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a nomination under section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and rule 25 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 confers title to the deceased member's shares, land and building to the exclusion of the heirs; (ii) whether the nomination paper could be treated as a will; (iii) whether the nomination could operate in respect of the structure put up on the land.

Issue (i): Whether a nomination under section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and rule 25 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 confers title to the deceased member's shares, land and building to the exclusion of the heirs.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was held to regulate the manner in which the society deals with the deceased member's interest and to secure valid discharge to the society. It was not intended to create a new rule of succession or to divest the heirs of their rights in the estate. The nominee, or the person recognised by the society for transfer, holds the property only provisionally and subject to the rights of the lawful heirs and legal representatives being worked out in accordance with succession law.

Conclusion: The nomination did not confer exclusive title on the nominee or extinguish the heirs' rights; it was not in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the nomination paper could be treated as a will.

Analysis: A document can operate as a will only if it is executed with testamentary intent and with animus testandi. The form used by the deceased was a society nomination form, drafted and executed to make a nomination under the co-operative law. Its form, tenor and surrounding circumstances showed an intention to nominate, not to dispose of property by testamentary succession.

Conclusion: The nomination paper could not be treated as a will; the contention was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the nomination could operate in respect of the structure put up on the land.

Analysis: The society's concern extends to the member's share and interest in the society and the land allotted by it, not to the separate superstructure put up by the member. Since ownership of land and building may be separate, a nomination in favour of the nominee could not validly cover the structure. The structure remained part of the deceased's estate and continued to devolve according to law.

Conclusion: The nomination was ineffective in respect of the structure; the respondent could not claim exclusive possession on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the plaintiff could not stand, and the suit was dismissed after holding that the nomination did not exclude the heirs or confer title to the entire property.

Ratio Decidendi: A nomination under the co-operative society law only identifies the person with whom the society may deal for transmission purposes and does not operate as a rule of succession or confer ownership against the heirs; it also cannot extend to property not covered by the society's transmissible interest.

---