Shruti Desai

#HinduLaw

    Shruti Desai > Blogs > #HinduLaw

SUCCESSION, TRANSFER, AND TRANSMISSION OF SHARES IN SOCIETY DIED INTESTATE BUT LEFT NOMINATION

September 6, 2022

SUCCESSION, TRANSFER, AND TRANSMISSION OF SHARES IN SOCIETY A peculiar case came up. The deceased a Hindu was a sole member of society. It was his self-acquired property. He dies suddenly without leaving a WILL. But the wife is a nominee. Out of wedlock, they have only one daughter who is major and unmarried. Wife applies for transmission of shares as per nomination. Shares are transferred by the society without any endorsement that it’s transferred in trust as a nominee or get succession certificate. Now this widow, gifts 50% share to her daughter. This happens when parties prepare documents without consulting a lawyer to save money on professional charges. I am saying this because the daughter has by succession 50% right in the property as a member died intestate without leaving a WILL. There was no need of executing the Deed of Gift. The twist is the case comes now, she applies for endorsement and transfer of 50% share ( which is otherwise there under the law) to the society. After several years Society takes opinion and now seeks a Succession Certificate. How far society is justified? We must first refer to bye-laws If there is a single nominee and if he demands payment of the value of Shares and interest of the deceased Member, in the capital/property of the Society, the Society shall acquire the same and pay him the value thereof as provided under the bye-law No.63. If, however, there are more nominees than one and if they demand payment of the value of the shares and interest of the deceased Member in the capital/property of the Society, the Society shall acquire the same and pay them value thereof as provided under the bye-law referred to above in the proportion mentioned in the nomination form. If no proportion is mentioned in the nomination form, the payment shall be in equal proportion. Bye-law 135 (v). The managing committee of the Society shall take necessary precautions to see that no injustice is done to any widow in the cooperative housing Society after the death of a Member before transferring the flat in her name. In such cases, Society shall verify the nomination form duly submitted by the deceased Member or succession certificate /heirship certificate obtained from the Civil Court under the Indian Succession Act 1925 or Will of the deceased Member duly probated by the Civil Court through the executor of the will. After verifying and taking legal guidance Society then only can take appropriate action within the time limit to avoid further legal complications. This procedure can be followed in all cases after the death of a Society Member Section 30 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 provides that: Section 30 – Transfer of interest on the death of a member (1) On the death of a member of a society, the society shall transfer the share or interest of the deceased member to a person or persons nominated in accordance with the rules, or, if no person has been so nominated to such person as may appear to the committee to be the heir or legal representative of […]

Read more

CAN HUF CO-PARCENER GIFT HIS UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER CO-PARCENER?

November 14, 2020

Let us first understand the Hindu Law to discuss and answer this question. 30. Testamentary succession. —[***] Any Hindu may dispose of by will or other testamentary disposition any property, which is capable of being so[disposed of by him or by her], in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), or any other law for the time being in force and applicable to Hindus. Explanation.— The interest of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary property or the interest of a member of a tarwad, tavazhi, illom, kutumba or kavaru in the property of the tarwad, tavazhi, illom, kutumba or kavaru shall notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to be property capable of being disposed of by him or by her within the meaning of this[section.] Hindus have two schools of thought Dayabhaga and Mitakshara. Dayabhaga is practiced in West Bengal while Mitakshara is followed in rest of India. Coparcener: The evolution of law: The term coparcener under the Mitakshara system of jurisprudence has a distinct meaning. Its essential characteristic is that the coparcener possesses a right to the family property by birth, the existence of a mere right to partition of family property, cannot be regarded as the touch-stone of coparcenership. Only a male born or adopted into the family can under the ordinary Hindu law, be a coparcener. the right of the widow of a coparcener under the Act is derived under the statute and not by any fiction so as to enable her to take under the general law. So far as alienation of coparcenary property are concerned, it appears that such alienation were permissible in eighteenth century. Indeed, in Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Proshad Singh and Ors., ILR 6 IA 88 the Privy Council observed as follows:- ” it has been settled law in the presidency of Madras that one coparcener may dispose of ancestral undivided estate, even by contract and conveyance, to the extent of his own share; and a fortiori that such share may be seized and sold in execution for his separate debt.” Thus, the Privy Council also noticed that in Madras alienations by gift were recognized. Such alienations were held by their Lordships to be inconsistent with the strict theory of joint and undivided Hindu family. It is, however, a settled law that a coparcener may alienate his undivided interest in the coparcenary property for a valuable consideration even without the consent of other coparceners. As has been observed by the Privy Council in Suraj Bunsi Koer’s case (supra), such recognition of alienations of coparcenary property for valuable considerations has been one of gradual growth rounded upon the equity which the purchaser for value has to be allowed to stand in his vendor’s shoes and to work out his rights by means of a partition. Although at the time of the judgment of the Privy Council in Suraj Bunsi Koer’s case, the Madras Courts recognised alienations by gift, as time passed the courts of law declared alienations by gift of undivided interest […]

Read more