Every week, across Maharashtra, disputes erupt in housing society committee meetings over one deceptively simple question: who gets the flat after a member passes away? Families are torn apart, lawyers are engaged, and society managements find themselves paralysed – often for years – refusing to act because multiple family members are staking a claim.
On 18th April 2026, the Bombay High Court delivered a landmark and much needed ruling that cuts through this confusion with admirable clarity. Justice Borkar’s judgment is a firm reminder to every housing society management committee across Maharashtra: your job is administration, not decision-making.
What the Court Has Said
The facts before the Court were familiar. After the death of a society member, family members disputed who was the rightful owner of the flat. The society, rather than proceeding with the transfer of membership, essentially converted itself into a forum for determining title – asking the family to first resolve who owned the flat before it would consider the question of membership transfer.
Moreover, Justice Borkar observed that this process is fundamentally flawed. A co-operative housing society is not a civil court. Furthermore, it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes, succession claims, partition matters, or property rights between legal heirs. Its function is confined to management of its own affairs and maintaining records.
The Court drew a crucial distinction, one that every committee member must understand. The question before the society is not who owns the flat. Instead, the real question is who should be recognised for the purpose of entry in the society’s records as a member, for transacting with the society. These are two entirely different questions.
Critically, the Court observed that if questions of beneficial ownership or succession survive among heirs, a civil court must resolve them through appropriate proceedings, not a housing society committee sitting informally over a cup of tea.
What the Law Says
Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is clear. Upon the death of a member, (1) the society shall transfer the share or interest of the deceased member to the nominee, if a valid nomination exists; and (2) where there is no nomination, the committee shall transfer the share or interest to the person who appears to be the heir or legal representative.
The legislature has used the words “may appear to the committee.” This means the committee is required to form an initial opinion, a reasonable and considered view, as to who the heir or legal representative appears to be. It does not require the committee to conduct a trial, examine witnesses, or deliver a final decision. Therefore, the society cannot use the existence of multiple claimants as an excuse to do nothing indefinitely.
The Role of Nomination: A Word of Caution
Courts have repeatedly held – and the role of nominees applies to bank accounts, insurance policies, shares, and residential flats alike – that nomination does not confer ownership. A nominee is a trustee, not an owner. The nominee holds the property for the benefit of the legal heirs pending resolution of any dispute amongst them.
Therefore, where a valid nomination exists, the society’s obligation is clear and mandatory: transfer must happen. The management cannot refuse. And in case of disputes among legal heirs, if any, that’s for a civil court to resolve. The society’s hands are tied in the best possible sense.
My Strong Recommendations
My strong recommendations provide clear and practical guidance, both to society managements and to members individually.
To Society Managements
First, immediately audit your records. Every flat must have a current and valid nomination on record. In addition, proactively reach out to members whose nomination forms are missing or outdated and follow the nomination process diligently.
Second, every housing society should make it a formal practice to reconfirm and update nominations from all members every three years. Circumstances change. Members remarry, have children, lose a nominee, or simply change their mind. A nomination made fifteen years ago may no longer reflect the member’s current wishes or family situation. A simple, periodic review exercise, perhaps at the time of the Annual General Meeting, will ensure that every member’s papers are in order and that the society is never caught in a situation of uncertainty. This small discipline can prevent enormous grief later.
To society management committees, my clear message remains: when a member passes away, act on the nomination. If there is no nomination, make an initial assessment and proceed. Do not convert your committee room into a courtroom. You are not equipped for it, you have no authority for it, and the law does not expect it of you.
To Members – Please Make a Will
This brings me to my final and perhaps most personal recommendation, addressed directly to every flat owner reading this.
Please make a proper, legally drafted Will. Do not ignore it. Equally important, do not postpone it. And do not assume your family will sort things out after you are gone. Very often, they do not, and the consequences can be devastating, both financially and emotionally.
It is the clearest possible expression of your wishes regarding your assets, your flat, your savings, and your investments, and it removes ambiguity entirely. Combined with a proper nomination in your housing society records, a well-drafted Will ensures that after you are gone, your family spends their time grieving and healing, not fighting in committee rooms and courts.
I have seen far too many families torn apart over property disputes that a simple, timely Will would have prevented entirely. Do not let that be your legacy.
Finally, Justice Borkar’s judgment is a practical, sensible, and long overdue statement of the law. Let us respect it and apply it. But let us also, as responsible citizens and family members, do our part by keeping our own affairs in order.
The author is a senior corporate lawyer and founder of AskNitin.com.