JUDGMENT : Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Common order dated 23.07.2019 in W.P.No.10351 of 2007. Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Common order dated 23.07.2019 in W.P.No.10351 of 2007 and 42561 of 2006.) 1. These intra-court appeals are filed challenging the common order dated 23.07.2019 passed in W.P.No.10351 of 2007 and 42561 of 2006, which were directed against an order passed in Revision Petition No.513/2003/A4 dated 25.05.2006 by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The appellant in both the appeals, is the writ petitioner in W.P. No.10351 of 2007 and 5th respondent in W.P. No.42561 of 2006 respectively. 2. The short facts leading to the above appeals are as follows:- An extent of 100 Acres of land was assigned to the villagers of Thengumarahada village to form a society known as Thengumarahada Vivasaya Corporation and to lease out the land to the members. The above assignment was issued in G.O. Ms. No.4096 Development Department dated 05.08.1948. Later, there was a modification and a revised Government Order was issued in G.O. Ms. No.3846 dated 28.04.1951 by assigning 300 acres of land to the Society for a period of fie years with certain conditions. 3. The Thengumarahada Co-operative Farming Society was formed on 30.04.1952 and registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, with an object to promote the welfare of the backward community, tribes, who are agricultural labourers and landless poor in the district of Nilgiris. Each one of the members of the Society, is eligible to get lease of 2.00 Acres of wet land and 1.00 Acre of dry land from the Society. One Nariyananjan became a member of the Society on 12.11.1952 and he was allotted to an extent of 2.00 Acres agricultural land in Survey No.20/6 and 98 Cents in Survey No.53/2, totalling to 2.98 Acres. The lease of the eligible members was approved by the District Collector. 4. As per bylaw No.10 of the Society, every member of the Society, can nominate one person to succeed in the event of his/her death. The said Nariyananjan nominated his son N.Krishnan, as his successor. On the death of Nariyananjan on 24.05.1972, his son was admitted as a member of the Society, as per Resolution No.19A dated 12.03.1972 and the shares of Nariyananjan were transferred to N.Krishnan. 5. The said Nariyananjan nominated his son N.Krishnan, as his successor. On the death of Nariyananjan on 24.05.1972, his son was admitted as a member of the Society, as per Resolution No.19A dated 12.03.1972 and the shares of Nariyananjan were transferred to N.Krishnan. 5. The said Krishnan had two wives, namely Belliammal and Chinnammal. The said Chinnammal had no issues. Belliammal had one son named Shanmugam and two daughters Devi and Mathiammal. Shanmugam’s son is Sadhasivam, petitioner in W.P. No.42561 of 2006 and Devi’s one of the sons-in-law is Bhojan, who is the petitioner in W.P. No.10351 of 2007. On 21.08.1989, the said Krishnan gave a nomination letter to the Society nominating his second wife Chinnammal, as successor till his grandson Sadhasivam, who is the petitioner in W.P. No.42561/2006, attains majority. The above said Krishnan also had executed a Will nominating his minor grandson Sadhasivam, as his nominee and till he attains majority, his second wife Chinnammal, to act as guardian. 6. After the death of Krishnan, the District Collector transferred the shares standing in the name of N.Krishnan to Chinnammal, who is the second wife, on 20.10.1995. On 22.03.1996, based on the nomination, Chinnammal was admitted as a member of the Society. After she became the member, the said Chinnammal wrote a letter to the Society, nominating the appellant herein instead of Sadhasivam. After issuing the said letter, Chinnammal died in the year 1997. Based on the strength of the letter, the appellant herein filed W.P. No.15187 of 1997 seeking a writ of mandamus to transfer the shares of late Chinnammal in his favour. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 03.11.1998 granting liberty to the appellant to raise a dispute before the appropriate forum under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Accordingly, a petition was filed under Section 90 of the Act, which was numbered as 2/99. The said petition was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar. 7. Aggrieved by the same, C.M.A. No.51/1999 was filed before the learned District Judge-cum-Tribunal for Co-operative Cases of the Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam. The said CMA was also dismissed on 10.12.2001, remitting the matter back to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to decide the issue of transfer of shares held by Chinnammal. The Deputy Registrar, passed an order in favour of the appellant herein. The said CMA was also dismissed on 10.12.2001, remitting the matter back to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to decide the issue of transfer of shares held by Chinnammal. The Deputy Registrar, passed an order in favour of the appellant herein. Hence, the father of Sadhasivam N.K.Shanmugam filed C.M.A. No.3 of 2003 before the District Court against the order passed by the District Registrar. The said CMA was dismissed by the Co-operative Tribunal and a revision was filed under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The said revision was also dismissed on 26.04.2004. 8. In the meanwhile, the appellant herein submitted a representation to the District Collector, requesting to transfer the shares pursuant to the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 19.11.2002. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the revision, the said Sadhasivam preferred W.P. No.27071/2004, which was allowed on 08.10.2004 setting aside the order passed by the Revisional Authority and remitted the matter back to the Revisional Authority to decide the matter on merits, after affording opportunity to all the parties. Yet another writ petition was filed by the appellant herein in W.P. No.5870/2005 for a mandamus directing the District Collector to pass appropriate orders on his representation dated 22.12.2003, which was allowed on 23.02.2005. Pursuant to the order passed by this court, the District Collector considered the representation and rejected the claim of the appellant holding that the deceased Chinnammal had not appointed the appellant as her legal heir under Form 17 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988. The said order was once again challenged by the appellant in W.P. No.21645 of 2005, which was also dismissed on 27.03.2006. While dismissing the said writ petition, this court had observed that, unless and until the petitioner obtains a legal succession certificate from the competent court, he is not entitled to become the member of the second respondent society and get transfer of the shares of the deceased. Though a writ appeal is said to have been filed by the appellant, the particulars are not furnished herewith. In the meanwhile, the revision petition filed by Sadhasivam was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order passed in the revision, the writ petitions were filed. 9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record, in the form of typed set of papers. 10. In the meanwhile, the revision petition filed by Sadhasivam was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order passed in the revision, the writ petitions were filed. 9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record, in the form of typed set of papers. 10. The question that arises for consideration in these writ appeals is, whether Bhojan or Sadhasivam, is the nominee of the deceased Krishnan? 11. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that Krishnan had nominated his second wife Chinnammal only till such time his grandson Sadhasivam attains majority. When the said Sadhasivam attains majority, he would automatically become the nominee of Krishnan. However, immediately after the death of Krishnan, Chinnammal, who was nominee, was admitted as a member of the Society. Admittedly, her letter to the Society nominating Bhojan was rejected, as it was not in accordance with Form 17 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules. Therefore, when the deceased Krishnan had appointed Chinnammal only as a guardian of Sadhasivam to take care of the property during his minority, the said Chinnammal, cannot acquire any right over the property of the deceased Krishnan. A Will left by the deceased Krishnan nominating Sadhasivam also his heir, is not disputed by anybody. By any stretch of imagination, the appellant herein cannot be a legal heir of either Chinnammal or Krishnan, as he is only the grand son-in-law of Krishnan through his first wife. The writ court, while disposing of the writ petitions, had granted liberty to the said Bhojan to approach the competent civil court for the purpose of getting a succession certificate, which, in our considered view, is correct. 12. The original allottee, namely Krishnan, had specifically nominated his grandson as his nominee and in view of his minority, his second wife was appointed as a guardian. It appears that, on the date of death of Chinnammal, the said Sadhasivam attained majority and he automatically succeeds to the interest of the deceased Krishnan. The appellant herein, who has got no right, either as a legal heir or as a nominee, cannot have any claim over the said property. He is only the grandson-in-law of the deceased Krishnan. It is not worthwhile even to refer the parties to civil court for obtaining a legal heir certificate or a succession certificate, as by no stretch of imagination, the grandson-in-law be the legal heir of the deceased Krishnan. He is only the grandson-in-law of the deceased Krishnan. It is not worthwhile even to refer the parties to civil court for obtaining a legal heir certificate or a succession certificate, as by no stretch of imagination, the grandson-in-law be the legal heir of the deceased Krishnan. 13. The Bylaws of the Thengumarahda Co-operative Farming Society Ltd provides for nomination of the members of their successors under Rule 10A. As per the above Bylaws, if the nominee is a minor, he may be admitted as a member of the Society, through his or her legal guardian. When the deceased Chinnammal was nominated by Krishnan only till such time Sadhasivam attains majority and when Chinnammal died, Sadhasivam had already became a major as per the Bylaws, there is no impediment for nominating the said Sadhasivam as a member of the Society. The Bylaws further provides that any nomination has to be approved by the Collector of Nilgiris and Circle Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Though the appellant claims that he had been nominated by the deceased Chinnammal, there is no document produced by him that his nomination was approved by the Collector and the Circle Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. Therefore, the appellant has got no right to succeed to the interest of the deceased Krishnan. 14. In view of the above discussion, the writ appeals deserve to be dismissed as devoid of any merit. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.