Co-Owner Whose Share In Joint Property Remained Undetermined Cannot Transfer Entire Property : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that a co-owner whose share in the joint property remained undetermined cannot transfer the entire suit property to another person without its partition being completed by metes and bounds. In other words, when there exist various co-owners in the property, then the subsequent purchaser of the suit property cannot acquire right, title and interest in the whole of...
The Supreme Court observed that a co-owner whose share in the joint property remained undetermined cannot transfer the entire suit property to another person without its partition being completed by metes and bounds.
In other words, when there exist various co-owners in the property, then the subsequent purchaser of the suit property cannot acquire right, title and interest in the whole of the suit property solely based on the sale deed executed by one co-owner/transferor.
The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Pankaj Mithal heard a matter wherein the subsequent purchaser/appellant was transferred with the entire suit property by the transferor/co-owner via sale deed despite there existing other co-owners. Moreover, the share of the transferor was not determined in the suit property. While transferring the suit property, it was claimed by the transferor that initially his uncle and father had equal share in the property. Before his uncle's death, he (uncle) had gifted his share to transferor's father, and after the death of the transferor's father, it was claimed that the transferor became the absolute owner of the property as his sisters had also relinquished her share in the suit property.
It was contended by the transferor that since he had exclusive ownership over the suit property, therefore the transfer of the entire suit property to the appellant cannot be disputed with.
On the other hand, the respondent (being co-owner) disputed the transaction by contending that the appellant cannot acquire rights, and interest in the suit property as the transfer made to it of the whole suit property was void as there was no express approval of other co-owners who had vested interest in the property.
Rejecting the appellant's argument, the judgment authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that the transferor was only entitled to share his part in the suit property and not the entire suit property with the appellant. Therefore, the appellant could not claim ownership over the entire suit property but only to the extent of the share held by the transferor.
“In this view of the matter, the entire property purchased by the two brothers late Salik Ram and late Sita Ram in the year 1959 vide Exh.1 continued to be the joint property in which both of them had equal rights. On their death, the same devolved upon their respective heirs and legal representatives including Brij Mohan (transferor), his three sisters on one side and plaintiff-respondent Nandu Lal, his three brothers and five sisters on the other side. Thus, Brij Mohan alone was not competent to execute a sale of the entire property in favour of the defendant-appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand (subsequent purchaser), that too without its partition by metes and bounds.”, the court observed.
The Court observed that the actions of the transferor to sale the entire suit property (where the other co-owners also had interest) could not bind the other co-owners as it would tantamount to depriving them from their valid share in the suit property.
“..it is held that Brij Mohan alone was not competent to transfer the entire property without getting his share determined and demarcated so as to bind the other co-owners. Accordingly, the defendant-appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand has rightly been restrained by the decree of injunction in acting in derogation of the propriety rights of the co-owners until and unless the partition takes place.”, the court held.
According to the Court, the Appellant is free to take remedies to claim appropriate relief either by suit of partition or by suit of compensation and damages against transferor but he would not be entitled to claim ownership and control over the entire suit property.
Given the aforesaid, the Appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgments were upheld.
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Mrs. Ankita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Pijush K.Roy, Sr.Adv. Ms. Kakali Roy, Adv. Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR
Case Title: SK. GOLAM LALCHAND VERSUS NANDU LAL SHAW @ NAND LAL KESHRI @ NANDU LAL BAYES & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO.4177 OF 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 705