Synopsis

The petitioner society challenged an order of the Divisional Joint Registrar allowing the revision application of respondent No.4 and directing the society to grant him deemed membership in respect of a flat originally held jointly by late Ramlal Dhanuka and his daughter‑in‑law Pannadevi. After Pannadevi’s death and unconditional withdrawal of a title suit filed by her legal heirs, respondent No.4 claimed membership as legal heir of his father, late Ramlal Dhanuka. The society rejected his application, citing incomplete documentation and the existence of multiple heirs. The revisional authority set aside the rejection. The Bombay High Court dismissed the society’s writ petition, holding that: (i) under Section 30 of the Act, a cooperative society is required to make a prima facie administrative determination of who appears to be the heir or legal representative, not adjudicate title; (ii) mere procedural defects (wrong form, missing documents) do not defeat a substantive claim of succession; (iii) the society’s own conduct showed it understood the claim as one of transmission; and (iv) the Divisional Joint Registrar had jurisdiction to entertain the revision, as a subordinate officer exercising delegated powers of the Registrar remains subordinate, and the Registrar retains revisional powers under Section 154.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Coram: Justice Amit Borkar

Date of Judgment: 18th April 2026

Citation: Writ Petition No.1927 of 2015

Core Law: Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 – Sections 3, 30, 154, 158; Transfer vs Transmission of membership; Delegation of powers; Revisional jurisdiction

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 – Sections 3 (appointment of Registrar and subordinates), 22 (membership), 23(1A) (deemed membership), 30 (transfer of interest on death of member), 154 (revisional powers of State Government and Registrar), 158 (delegation of powers of Registrar)

• Bye‑laws of the society – Bye‑law No.35 (transmission on death), Bye‑law No.38(e)(ii) (transfer of membership)

Key legal principles applied

• Transmission vs Transfer of membership: Transfer ordinarily involves a voluntary act inter vivos; transmission involves devolution of rights upon death by operation of law. The nature of the claim is determined by its substance, not by the form or nomenclature used in the application. If the basis of the claim is inheritance through a deceased member, it remains a case of transmission, even if the application uses language associated with transfer.

• Section 30 – prima facie administrative determination, not title adjudication: Under Section 30(1), upon death of a member, the society shall transfer the share or interest to the nominee, or if no nomination exists, “to such person as may appear to the committee to be the heir or legal representative.” The committee is only required to form a prima facie administrative satisfaction based on available materials. It does not have to adjudicate rival title claims or wait for consensus among all heirs.

• Society cannot refuse to act merely because multiple heirs exist: The existence of more than one legal heir does not indefinitely postpone recognition of a claimant. Section 30(4) protects the society if it acts bona fide – such transfer is valid against any demand by any other person. The society is expected to choos

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.