Coparceners Cannot Alienate Any Specific Share Of Land Belonging To Hindu Joint Family Property Other Than Their Own Share: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has discussed the issue of the sale of a part of land belonging to a Hindu joint family property. The court adjudicated on the question of whether a specific piece of land, not being the share of a coparcener, can be alienated. In answering the question in the negative, Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held that:

“Although a coparcener or co-sharer can alienate to the extent of his share but he cannot alienate any specific piece of land. Therefore, at the most the petitioners can be said to have purchased a share of coparceners/Co-sharer still they are not entitled for any specific piece of land.”

The court stated that in a coparcenary, a person's share can be alienated but not any piece of land belonging to the Hindu joint family property, except the coparceners own share.

Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was discussed as well as whether the transfer of property can take place during the pendency of a suit.

The court emphasised that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act states that any property involved in a suit cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with in a way that affects the rights of any party under any decree or order passed in the suit.

The court emphasized that even if the sale deeds were executed when no temporary injunction was in place, the transactions would still be subject to the provisions of Section 52. This implies that the rights of the purchasers (petitioners) would be bound by the eventual outcome of the ongoing suit.

The petitioners, Ahmad Khan and others, had approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders of the 4th District Judge Rewa and the 9th Civil Judge Junior Division Rewa. These orders had restrained the petitioners from raising construction on the land they had purchased, a move which the petitioners claimed caused them irreparable loss.

The original suit was filed by the respondents in 2012, seeking various declarations, including the nullification of certain wills and sale deeds related to the property in question. They claimed the land was part of a Joint Hindu Family Property and challenged the sale transactions executed by defendants. The land had changed hands multiple times, with the final purchasers being the petitioners.

The court examined whether a specific piece of land forming part of a Joint Hindu Family Property could be alienated. According to the petitioners, the property was self-acquired by Vindeshwari Prasad Pandey, who executed a will in favour of his second wife. This wife, in turn, executed a will in favour of Vandana Pandey and Sudha Pandey, who subsequently sold the land.

However, the respondents contended that the property was ancestral and no partition had taken place, meaning all legal heirs had equal shares. They argued that any sale deed executed by Vandana Pandey and Sudha Pandey, and the subsequent sales, were invalid.

The court noted that if the property was indeed Joint Hindu Family Property, no coparcener or co-sharer could alienate a specific piece of land without a proper partition.

Justice Ahluwalia concluded that the lower courts were correct in restraining the petitioners from raising construction on the disputed land. The court found no jurisdictional error or material illegality in the orders passed by the lower courts, as they aligned with the legal principles governing Joint Hindu Family Property and the transfer of property during litigation.

The court highlighted that even if the property was sold during period when no temporary injunctions were in place, the sales would still be subject to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. This doctrine ensures that the property remains within the court's control, and any transfer during litigation does not affect the outcome of the suit.

Case title: Ahamad Khan And Others Versus Bhaskar Ddatt Pandey And Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 181

Case No: MISC. PETITION No. 4060 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order