Judgment :- S. Sakarasubban, J. Petitioner is the Cochin Co-operative Hospitals Society Ltd. No.E.288, Cochin-20, represented by its Secretary. It is a registered Society under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Father of the second respondent late C.K. Kasmi was a member of the Society with membership No. 941, holding one ordinary share of the value of Rs. 250/- under share certificate No. 948. 2. After the death of C.K. Kasmi, on verification of the records, it was found that the nomination made by Kasmi was not in accordance with law and hence his share in the Society could not be transferred to the second respondent, who is shown as the nominee of the late Kasmi. True copy of the application form of Kasmi is produced as Ext. P1. In the above circumstances, after considering the above issue, the administrators appointed under S.32 of the Co-operative Societies Act, as per resolution No. 2(3) dated 21.11.1995, decided that the nomination of the second respondent as the nominee of late Kasmi cannot be accepted. Hence, the Society issued a registered notice to the second respondent to appear before the Secretary and receive back the share amount deposited by late Kasmi. On receipt of the above notice, the second respondent sent a reply dated 24.1.1996 to the Society asking for the reason why the share of Kasmi could not be transferred in his name. Thereafter, the second respondent approached the joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ernakulam by filing a representation dated 19.8.1996. Pursuant to the above, the Joint Registrar as per proceedings dated 12.11.1996 directed the Society to dispose of the petition submitted by the second respondent, after hearing him. Thereafter, the Society issued a notice to the second respondent for a personal hearing on 29.11.1996 and after hearing the second respondent, the Board of Directors of the Society by resolution No.8 dated 30.12.1996 decided to uphold the decision of the administrators, ie. rejecting the contention that the second respondent was the nominee of his father. The second respondent thereafter approached the Joint Registrar by filing a petition dated 28.2.1997 for a direction to the Society to transfer the share of late Kasmi in his name. Petitioner contends that the dispute raised by the second respondent is one comes under Chapter IX S.69(b) of the Co-operative Societies Act. Settlement of the above dispute can only be done by appointing an administrator. Petitioner contends that the dispute raised by the second respondent is one comes under Chapter IX S.69(b) of the Co-operative Societies Act. Settlement of the above dispute can only be done by appointing an administrator. Thereafter, the Joint Registrar without hearing the Society passed an order dated 24.6.1997 directing the Society to accept the nomination of the second respondent, copy of which is produced as Ext. P2. 3. Ext. P2 was challenged by the Society before this Court by filing O.P.No. 11547 of 1997.O.P. No. 11547 of 1997 was finally disposed of by judgment dated 3rd September, 1997 without expressing any opinion on the merits directing the Joint Registrar to pass fresh orders. Thereafter, the Joint Registrar passed order dated 10.12.1997 directing the Society to give an opportunity to the second respondent to rectify the defects in Ext. PI application made by late Kasmi. Copy of the order dated 10.12.1997 is produced as Ext. P4. Against Ext. P4, petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent Government. First respondent passed an order. It found that the direction of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies is illegal and not correct. However, the first respondent on a different reasoning directed the Society to transfer the share of Kasmi in the name of the second respondent. Copy of the order is produced as Ext. P5. It was submitted that there are nearly 55 members whose nominations were rejected as illegal. Copy of the list is produced as Ext. P6. Petitioner in this Original Petition challenges Ext. P5. According to the petitioner, under R.23(2) (a) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, nomination of a person shall be in writing signed by the member making it, and attested by at least two witnesses. Under Bye-law 11(a)(i) of the Society, nomination has to be in writing and signed by two witnesses. According to the Society, since the nomination is not in accordance with law, it cannot be accepted. 4. The second contention is that the dispute comes under S.69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, which deals with disputes to be referred to Registrar. Petitioner further submits that S.25 of the Act contemplates a situation where the committee is empowered to look into the question as to whether a particular person is a legal heir or legal representative. The further contention is that a perusal of Ext. P6 will show that 55 persons were there whose nominations were rejected. Petitioner further submits that S.25 of the Act contemplates a situation where the committee is empowered to look into the question as to whether a particular person is a legal heir or legal representative. The further contention is that a perusal of Ext. P6 will show that 55 persons were there whose nominations were rejected. 5. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated as follows: Even if the nomination made by the father is invalid, the petitioner-Society is liable to transfer the share of late Kasmi, as the second respondent is the legal heir of his father. He has produced the legal heirship certificate before the first respondent and Ext. P5 order was passed on the basis of the legal heirship certificate. Petitioner-Society is estopped from challenging Ext. P1. It is not a dispute coming under S.69(b) of the Co-operative Societies Act. The first respondent has passed Ext. P5 order strictly in confirmity with S.25 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Hence the petitioner is liable to transfer the share of late Kasmi. 6. I heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents. It is a case where one Kasmi was a member of the Society. Ext. PI is the application for membership. The said Kasmi is now no more. The second respondent, who is the son of Kasmi has been nominated under Ext. PI. But the Society takes the view that the nomination is not proper, since the signature is not attested by two witnesses. When the Society issued notice to the legal heirs to accept the share amount, the second respondent objected it stating that he is the nominee and that he is entitled to get the share transferred in his name. But that was rejected by the Society and the matter was taken before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Joint Registrar directed the transfer of share of late Kasmi. That order has been upheld in appeal, even though on different reasonings. 7. It is now admitted that the second respondent has produced the legal heirship certificate and the other legal heirs have no objection in transferring the share of late Kasmi in favour of the second respondent. The Joint Registrar directed the transfer of share of late Kasmi. That order has been upheld in appeal, even though on different reasonings. 7. It is now admitted that the second respondent has produced the legal heirship certificate and the other legal heirs have no objection in transferring the share of late Kasmi in favour of the second respondent. The argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that once the nomination is found to be invalid, the legal heirs cannot insist on transfer of share and they should be satisfied with the value of the share. Relevant provision in the Act is S.25 of the Co-operative Societies Act, which states as follows: "25. Transfer of interest on death of members: - (1) On the death of a member of a society, the society shall transfer the share or interest of the deceased member to the person or persons nominated in accordance with the rules or the bye-laws 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 the deceased member: Provided that such nominee, heir or legal representative, as the case may be, is admitted as a member of the society:" 8. Now, since the Society has taken the view that the nomination is not proper, it should be taken that no person has been nominated under S.25 of the Act. In that circumstances, the Committee is to transfer the share of such person as may appear to the Committee to be the heir or legal representative of the deceased member. Thus, the Committee can transfer the share to the heir or legal representative. The only other contention is that under the Proviso such a legal heir or representative should be admitted as a member. Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that only the legal heir, who is a member, will be entitled to transfer the share. I am afraid, this interpretation cannot be accepted. The Proviso applies to both the contingencies: in cases where there are nominees and in cases where there are no nominees. Even if a person is nominated, he will be entitled to get the share transferred only, if he becomes a member of the Society. Thus, when the question of transfer of share is concerned, the nominee or the legal heir should also file an application for membership. Even if a person is nominated, he will be entitled to get the share transferred only, if he becomes a member of the Society. Thus, when the question of transfer of share is concerned, the nominee or the legal heir should also file an application for membership. If there is any disqualification for the nominee or the legal heir to become a member of the Society, then the share will not be transferred to such person. Instead, only the value of the share will be given to such person. 9. In this case, Ext. P5 order does not refer to the proviso to S.25. It is also not clear whether the second respondent had applied for membership. Hence, I modify Ext. P5 order. If the second respondent has not applied for membership, he shall immediately apply for the membership to the Society. The Managing Committee will consider the application for membership. If there is no disqualification for the second respondent to be a member of the Society, then the Society has to admit him as a member and also transfer the shares of late C.K.Kasmi in the name of the second respondent. Original Petition is disposed of as above.