Mst. SAEEDA BEGUM vs MUKHTAR AHMAD BUTT And Another
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the ownership of a plot in Model Town, Lahore, originally belonging to Seth Rahim Bakhsh, who had nominated the petitioner in 1933 before his death in 1935. The core legal question is whether a nominee is entitled to succeed to the deceased member's share or interest in the property in preference to the legal heirs, specifically under the Cooperative Societies Act. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the effect of nomination and the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions require detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directing security for costs and permitting the parties to rely on the present record along with any additional documents.
- Whether a nominee is entitled to succeed to a deceased member's share or interest in property in preference to legal heirs under the Cooperative Societies Act 1912?
- Does the appointment of a nominee by a property owner imply a sale or transfer of ownership in the absence of a registered sale deed?
- What are the rights of a society's nominee versus the legal heirs of a deceased member regarding disputed property?
- Section 22, Cooperative Societies Act 1912
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The dispute in this petition for special leave to appeal relates to Plot No. 22 in Block `A' of Model Town, Lahore. It belonged to firm known as M/s. Seth Khuda Bakhsh & Sons which was owned entirely by Seth Rahim Bakhsh. By virtue of the ownership of the plot, he was the member of the Model Town Cooperative Society, a society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act.. In 1933, he appointed the petitioner as his nominee. He died in 1935. By a resolution dated 9-4-1947, the Society transferred the plot to the Petitioner and submitted her name in the register of members in place of Seth Rahim Bakhsh. Seth Rahim Bakhsh was issueless. On his death his widow Miraj Begum became his sole heir. In 1963, she sold the plot in dispute to respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner brought a suit for possession of the plot in dispute. She alleged that she was the sole owner of the plot since 1935 when the nomination was made in her favour by Seth Rahim Bakhsh and that Mst. Miraj Begum did not inherit any interest therein. The trial Court decreed her suit but in appeal by respondent No.1, it was dismissed. The petitioner filed a second appeal in the High Court which failed. She then filed a review application which also was dismissed. She now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that the High Court and the Additional District Judge overlooked some material circumstances. It was stated that the assertion of the petitioner that Seth Rahim Bakhsh had sold the plot to her, found support from the fact that he had nominated her as his nominee. Seth Rahim Bakhsh was in no way related to the petitioner and in the absence of any connection between the two, there was no reason why Seth Rahim Bakhsh should have nominated her as his nominee in preference to his own wife or other relatives. It was further stated that under section 22, Cooperative Societies Act, 1912, the petitioner as nominee of Seth Rahim Bakhsh was entitled to succeed to his share or interest in the land in dispute in preference to his widow.
4. The contentions raised in support of this petition need examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any.