JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.: This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of plaintiff and is directed against order dated November 7, 1986 passed by the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal in Appeal No.62 of 1986 thereby setting aside award dated June 18, 1986 passed by the Arbitrator in Dispute Case No. 63/CMAH of 1981-82. 2. A dispute case under section 86 of the West Bengal Co-operative Society Act, 1973 ("Act") was filed by the present petitioner praying, inter alia, for declaration that he is the allottee of a particular plot under the defendant/Cooperative Society and for a direction upon the Co-operative Society to transfer the share of Kalipada Ghosh to him and to admit him as a member of the society and to register the deed of transfer in his favour. 3. The case made out by the petitioner was that a plot of land being No. 208A measuring about five cottahs in the housing project of the society had been allotted in favour of deceased Kalipada Ghosh, the father of the plaintiff. Kalipada was also asked by the society to take possession of the land within a particular period. Kalipada took possession but ultimately on August 4, 1973 he died leaving behind three sons and four daughters as his sole heirs and legal representatives. On the death of Kalipada the land vested in favour of all the heirs and as such all of them by a letter dated December 15, 1974 requested the society to record the plot in the name of Sub hash, one of the sons of Kalipada. Though the society received the letter on December 23, 1974, no reply was given thereto. Thereafter, on February 12, 1976 all the heirs of Kalipada requested the society to ignore their earlier letter and to record the said plot in the name of the plaintiff, another son of Kalipada. By a separate letter dated February 14, 1976, Subhash also surrendered his claim in favour of the plaintiff. Those letters were received by the society on March 20, 1976. 4. Inspite of receiving those letters, the society having failed to reply, reminders were sent on April 3, 1978 and November 28, 1979. Ultimately, by a letter dated December 3, 1979 the society asked the plaintiff to produce documentary evidence in support of his claim over the property left by Kalipada. 4. Inspite of receiving those letters, the society having failed to reply, reminders were sent on April 3, 1978 and November 28, 1979. Ultimately, by a letter dated December 3, 1979 the society asked the plaintiff to produce documentary evidence in support of his claim over the property left by Kalipada. In reply, the plaintiff sent a letter dated February 6, 1980 informing the society that all the legal heirs of Kalipada had already informed the society that they had surrendered their claim in respect of the disputed plot of land in favour of the plaintiff and that the said letter might be treated as documentary evidence in support of the plaintiffs claim. No reply was received by the plaintiff. On April 20, 1981, an advocate for the plaintiff addressed a letter to the society requesting to record the said plot of land in plaintiffs name and to grant necessary document. By another letter dated March 1, 1982, the plaintiff again requested the society to record the land in his name and to communicate the action taken within 15 days. No reply was received from the society to any of the letters and thereafter the dispute was referred to the Registrar. The Arbitrator ultimately passed the following award:- "1. that the plaintiff is the allottee of plot of land being Plot No. 208A which was subsequently re-numbered if any, in the housing project of the defendant society at Michaelnagar in the District of 24 Parganas. 2. the defendant is directed to transfer the share which were allotted by the defendant to the father of the plaintiff Late Kalipada Ghosh to the plaintiff and to admit the plaintiff into membership of the defendant society after collecting the dues if any. 3. the defendant is directed to execute and register the deed of transfer in respect of the above mentioned being plot No. 208A in the Housing Project of the Defendant Society at Michaelnagar in the district of 24 Parganas in favour of the plaintiff as per plan of plots exhibited by the plaintiff in this case (PW-1). 4. No cost is allowed to either party. The parties will bear their respective cost." 5. 4. No cost is allowed to either party. The parties will bear their respective cost." 5. Being dissatisfied, the society preferred an appeal before the Tribunal below and by the order impugned in this application the said Tribunal although affirmed the findings of the Arbitrator on merit but dismissed the case on the grounds that the reference itself could be entertained being barred by limitation and that at the same time, the claim of the plaintiff was also barred not having been made within three months from the date of death of Kalipada as provided in section 70(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal however affirmed the findings of the Arbitrator on merit in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff has preferred the instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has seriously attacked the findings of the Tribunal on question of limitation. Mr. Mukherjee contends that the Society not having turned down the claim of the petitioner by passing any order, it was served with the lawyer's letter dated March 1, 1982 asking the Society to communicate its decision within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof. Although, the Society received the letter on March 10, 1982, it did not give any reply. Thus, cause of action really arose on March 25, 1982 and the dispute was referred on April 6, 1982 well within one month from the date of cause of action. Thus, Mr. Mukherjee proceeds, the Tribunal refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law by rejecting the dispute as barred by limitation. 8. Mr. Mukherjee next contends that all the heirs of Kalipada having requested the Society to transfer the interest of the deceased in favour of one of them, such prayer does not come within section 70(1)(c) of the Act. According to Mr. Mukherjee, section 70(1)(c) is attracted only when all the heirs of the deceased or the legal representatives of the deceased member request the Society to transfer the interest of the deceased to a third party who is neither a nominee nor an heir. Therefore, Mr. Mukherjee submits, the three months period mentioned in section 70(1)(c) cannot have any application to the prayer of the petitioner. 9. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned counsel appearing on. Therefore, Mr. Mukherjee submits, the three months period mentioned in section 70(1)(c) cannot have any application to the prayer of the petitioner. 9. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned counsel appearing on. behalf of the Society has on the other hand supported the findings of the Tribunal below and has contended that claim of the petitioner having been first made on February 12, 1976 but the Society having paid no heed to such prayer till 1982, the Tribunal rightly held that mere writing• of reminder cannot extend the period of limitation. 10. Mr. Chatterjee further contends that 'any person' referred to in section 70(1)(c) includes the heir of the deceased member and thus the Tribunal rightly held that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be entertained beyond three months after the death of Kalipada. 11. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions of the parties it will be profitable to refer to the following provisions of the Act:- '2(q)- "Dispute" means any matter capable of being the subject of civil litigation, and includes a claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a cooperative society, whether such claim be admitted or not; Section 59. Persons eligible of membership of co-operative societies.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (5), no person shall be eligible for membership of a co-operative society except the following, namely: (a) an individual competent to contract under section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, (b) any other co-operative society, (c) the State Government, and (d) subject to the approval of the State Government, accorded by any general or special order, any association or body of person, whether incorporated or not or a financing bank: Provided that a person who has not attained his majority shall be eligible for membership of a co-operative society exclusively formed for the benefit of the students of educational institutions. (2) Subject to the rules and the by-laws, any person eligible for membership of a co-operative society may, on application, be admitted as a member by the society. (2) Subject to the rules and the by-laws, any person eligible for membership of a co-operative society may, on application, be admitted as a member by the society. (3) Every application for admission as a member of a co-operative society shall be disposed of by the society within one month from the date of the receipt of the application, and the decision of the society on the application shall be communicated to the applicant within fifteen days from the date of the decision: Provided that if the decision of the society is not communicated to the applicant within a period of forty-five days from the date of the receipt of the application, the society shall be deemed to have made a decision, on the date of expiry of such period, refusing admission to the applicant. (4) Any applicant, being aggrieved with the decision of a co- operative society refusing to admit him as a member of such society, may appeal to the Registrar- (a) within one month from the date of communication of such decision to such applicant, and (b) where the decision of the society is not communicated to such applicant within the period referred to in the proviso to sub-section (3), within one month from the expiry of such period, and the Registrar shall make such order, as he thinks fit, on such application within two months from the date of receipt of the appeal: Provided that no order to the prejudice of the appellant shall be made without giving him, in the manner prescribed, an opportunity of being heard. (4A) (a)................................. (b)................................. (4B) ................................. (4C) ................................. (5) (a)................................. (b)................................. (c)................................. (d)................................. Section 70. (4A) (a)................................. (b)................................. (4B) ................................. (4C) ................................. (5) (a)................................. (b)................................. (c)................................. (d)................................. Section 70. Disposal of deceased member's share or interest.- (1) When any member of a co-operative society dies, his share and interest in the society shall, subject to the provisions of sections 50 and 68 and to the further provisions of this section, be transferred- (a) to the person, if any, nominated in accordance with the provisions of section 69, or (b) if there be no such nominee or, if the existence and residence of such nominee cannot be ascertained by the managing committee, or if for any other cause such transfer cannot be made without unreasonable delay, to the person who (subject to the production by him of probate, letters of administration or succession certificate) appears to the managing committee to be entitled, in accordance with the rules, to possession of such share or interest as part of the estate of the deceased member; or (c) on the application of the person referred to in clause (b) within three months of the death of the deceased member, to any person specified in the application. (2) If the share or interest of the deceased cannot be legally transferred in accordance with the provisions of sub section (1), or if the person, to whom the share or interest if payable under that sub-section within one year of the death of the deceased member, claims payment of the value of such share or interest, or if the society in accordance with the rules and by-laws decides to proceed according to this sub-section- (a) the share shall be transferred to some other person qualified in accordance with the provisions of section 68 to be the transferee of the share, on receipt from such person of the value thereof; and (b) the value of the share or interest of the deceased member, determined in accordance with the rules, shall be paid to the person nominated in accordance with the provisions of section 69 or to the person appearing to be entitled to possession of such share or interest as aforesaid, after deducting the amount of any sum payable under this Act to the society from the estate of the deceased member. Section 86. Section 86. Disputes to be referred to Registrar.- (1) Any dispute relating to the affairs of a co-operative society or of the liquidator of a society shall be referred to the Registrar if the parties thereto are among the following, namely:- (a) the society, its managing committee, any past or present officer agent or employee or the liquidator of the society; or (b) a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member of the society; or (c) a surety of a member, past member or deceased member of the society, whether such surety is or is not a member of the society; or (d) any other co-operative society or any person including a financing bank having transactions with the concerned co-operative society or the liquidator of such society: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any dispute- (a) regarding disciplinary action taken by a society or its managing committee against its paid employees, or (b) between a society or its managing committee and its paid employees over terms and conditions of service of such employees and matters incidental or consequential thereto. (2) Any dispute mentioned in sub- section (1) other than a dispute relating to the recovery of money shall be referred to the Registrar within one month from the date of the cause of action.' 12. I now proceed to answer the first question whether the reference to the Registrar was really barred by limitation. 13. According to section 86(2) of the Act, the dispute must be referred within one month from the date of cause of action. In the present case, the petitioner with the consent of his brothers and sisters applied for transfer of the share or interest of his deceased father in the society in his favour in terms of section 70 of the Act. There is no dispute that the society has not communicated any decision refusing to transfer such share in favour of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the society has not passed any order directing payment of the value of the share of deceased to his legal representatives including the petitioner; nor has the society informed them that their father was not a member and as such section 70 of the Act could not have any application. It is also not in dispute that the society has not passed any order directing payment of the value of the share of deceased to his legal representatives including the petitioner; nor has the society informed them that their father was not a member and as such section 70 of the Act could not have any application. On the other hand, the society asked the petitioner to produce evidence in support of his claim. Under such circumstances, unless the decision of the society on the above point is taken and communicated to the petitioner and unless one month expires from the date of communication from such decision, the reference cannot be held barred by limitation. I am not prepared to accept the contention of Mr. Chatterjee that the society not having given any answer to the petitioner's claim lodged in the year 1976, it should be presumed that the prayer was refused with the expiry of forty-five days from the date of receipt such application. In support of such contention Mr. Chatterjee relies upon the proviso to section 59(3) of the Act. 14. I am afraid, such contention is not tenable in case of an application under section 70 of the Act. Section 59 of the Act describes qualifications of a member of a society and sub-section (3) thereof casts a duty upon the society to dispose of an application for admission as a member of a society by an applicant. It further provides that the decision of the society must be communicated to the applicant within fifteen days from the date of decision. The proviso further indicates that if no such decision is communicated within forty-five days from the date of receipt of an application, it should be presumed that society has rejected such application on the date of expiry of forty- five days. According to section 59(4) of the Act, the aggrieved applicant should prefer appeal to the Registrar within one month from the expiry of such period. In the present case, the petitioner did not apply under section 59 of the Act but proceeded under section 70 for transfer of the interest of his deceased father who was a member of the society. In such a case, the society shall either transfer such interest or proceed under sub-section (2) of section 70 of the Act refunding the money value of the share. In such a case, the society shall either transfer such interest or proceed under sub-section (2) of section 70 of the Act refunding the money value of the share. Thus, so long a specific order is not passed and communicated to the petitioner, the society cannot claim that the right of the petitioner to have the share of his father transferred has become time barred merely because it has taken no decision on such application. The absence of any proviso in section 70 of the Act similar to that mentioned in section 59(3) manifests the intention of the legislature that in case of refusal of a prayer for transfer, the decision must be communicated to the petitioner. Thus, by taking aid of the proviso to section 59(3) of the Act, the society cannot claim that the reference was barred by limitation. I therefore hold that the reference was not barred by limitation. 15. The next question is whether the prayer of petitioner for transfer was barred by limitation as the application was filed beyond three months from the date of death of the deceased member as provided in section 70(1)(c) of the Act. 16. In my view, sub-section (c) of section 70(1) is attracted only to a case where the nominee or the legal representative, as the case may be, of a deceased member requests the society to transfer the interest of the deceased in favour of a third person who is neither a nominee nor a legal representative. In a case, like the present one, where there is no nominee, the interest of the deceased member shall vest in the legal representatives of the deceased automatically. The present case is governed by the Act of 1973 where there was no bar of inheriting the share of a deceased member by all the heirs. Thus, on the death, of the deceased all the sons and daughters inherited the share of the deceased. In such a situation, if all other heirs than the petitioner surrender their undivided interest in favour of the petitioner, the society cannot have any objection. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the society has any objection, in such a case, the society must recognize all the heirs as transferee of the share of the deceased. In such a situation, if all other heirs than the petitioner surrender their undivided interest in favour of the petitioner, the society cannot have any objection. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the society has any objection, in such a case, the society must recognize all the heirs as transferee of the share of the deceased. But at any rate, the heirs cannot be deprived of the share of the deceased on the ground that they approached the society beyond three months from the date of death of their predecessor. Position however would have been different, if the heirs requested the society to transfer their interest to a third party. In such a case, application should be made within three months from the date of death of the deceased member. 17. Thus, I hold that the application of the petitioner does not come within the purview of section 70(1)(c) of the Act. 18. As regards the merit of the case, I find that both the authorities below on consideration of the materials on record rightly held that the father of the petitioner was a member of the society and was an allottee of the Plot No. 208A which was subsequently renumbered in the housing project of the society and I do not find any reason to disturb such concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities below. This is not a case where such findings are based on no evidence nor is it a case where the findings are perverse. 19. Mr. Chatterjee lastly contended that the question of title to the estate of a deceased member cannot be adjudicated by the authorities below. In support of such contention he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Usha Ranjan Bhattacharya vs. Abinash Chandra Chakraborty, reported in 1997(1) SCC page 344. In my view, the said decision cannot have any application to the facts of the present case. Here, nobody is disputing that the petitioner is a son of the deceased and all the heirs are supporting the claim of the petitioner. If in future, any dispute arises as to, who are the heirs of the deceased, the decision of a competent court will solve such problem. 20. Here, nobody is disputing that the petitioner is a son of the deceased and all the heirs are supporting the claim of the petitioner. If in future, any dispute arises as to, who are the heirs of the deceased, the decision of a competent court will solve such problem. 20. Similarly, the decision of Bombay High Court in the case G. V. Ghatnekar vs. M. V. Ghatnekar, (2) Co-op Cases page 62 has no application to the case before us. All that was decided there was that transfer of interest in favour of a nominee excluding heirs does confer title on such nominee excluding the heirs. Since, we are not concerned with such a question, I refrain from making any comment. 21. I thus set aside the order passed by the Tribunal below and restore the one passed by the Arbitrator. 22. Revisional application is thus allowed. 23. No costs. Revisional application allowed.