Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(A) In the judgment cited the appellant was a society of which one Vishnu Sapre was a member. The name of the deceased in the present appeal also happens to be Vishnu). He had obtained on a lease a separate sub-plot of land from the society after becoming a member thereof, By it registered Will dated 19-9-1939, he bequeathed the said plot to his two sons jaywant and Ramchandra. He appointed three executors and also created a trust of which the execufors were trustees. The executors applied for a probate which was granted by the District Court, Poona, on 23-11-1940. The executors also made an application to the society on 23-1-1942 referring to the Will and the two sons being the legatees and the fact of the plot having been bequeathd to his two sons. The executors also requested and applied for Jaywant being substituted as a member of the society in place of the deceased. The society by its resolution dated 7-2-1942 elected Jaywant as its member. Because of certain breaches of the bye-laws of he society which required construction to be put up by a particular time, the plot was forfeited to the society and the lease was cancelled. A dispute aorse which was referred to the statutory arbitration and the registered nominee gave an award in favour of the society. The other brother Ramchandra was not a party to these proceedings. Ramchandra filed a suit from which the said appeal arose in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Poona, challenging the award mainly on the ground that he was not made a party to the proceedings before the arbitrator even though he was entitled to the plot as a legatee under the will. Decree was passed against the society which was society it was contended that (1) disposition of the plot made by Vishnu was not binding on the society (2) the executors of the will themselves made an application to substitute the name of jaywant in place of Vishnu and the society had acted on the basis thereof (3) that in accordance with the bye-laws of the society as well as provisions of Sec. 27 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, the transfer in favour of Jaywant made by the society was valid and effective against the plaintiff who was not a member of the society. Other pleas were also raised. It was further contended un behalf of the appellant that (I) of passing of the resolution by the society it was only laywant who had a right to the property and that Ramchandra had no right in respect of the property, (ii) without being member be cannot claim any right against the society; (iii) his claim was barred by the law of limitation and (iv) Ramchandra can claim as a legated under the Will only against Jaywant and not against the society.