SUPREME COURT OF INDIA UPHOLDS CO-OWNERSHIP RIGHTS IN PROPERTY DISPUTE

Introduction:

In a significant judgment dated 10.09.2024, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Pankaj Mithal, passed an Order dated 10.09.2024 in the Civil Appeal No. 4177 of 2024 in Sk. Golam Lalchand Vs. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes & Ors. involving a property dispute in Howrah. The case revolved around the rightful ownership and the legality of a Sale Deed involving a property located at 100/3 Carry Road, Howrah, measuring about 6 Cottahs 1 Chittack and 30 sq. ft., comprising 17 rooms and tile sheds.

Facts of the Case:

The dispute revolved around a property originally purchased jointly by two brothers, Sita Ram and Salik Ram, in 1959 from one, Sahdori Dasi. Both brothers had equal ownership rights in the property. Upon their deaths, conflicting claims arose regarding the rightful ownership and the subsequent sale of the property by one of the heirs.

Upon the aforesaid sale of the entire suit property by Brij Mohan to Defendant-Appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand through the Sale Deed dated 19.05.2006, executed by Brij Mohan, the Plaintiff-Respondent, Nandu Lal filed a Title Suit No. 212/2006 before the Ld. Trial Court, for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that the Defendant-Appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand cannot acquire any right, title and interest in the suit property by virtue of any Sale Deed as Brij Mohan was not the exclusive owner of the Suit Property, but the same was dismissed by the Court as he failed to prove his possession.

However, upon Appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the decision by passing an Order dated 07.04.2018, holding that there was no valid partition of the property and that the alleged family settlement was unproven. Aggrieved by the Order dated 07.04.2018 of the First Appellate Court, the Defendant-Appellant considered an Appeal before the High Court.

The High Court, in a second Appeal, affirmed the judgment of the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the Order dated 06.07.2021 of the High Court, the Defendant- Appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 4177 of 2024 before the Supreme Court.

Plaintiff- Respondent argued that his father, Salik Ram, did not gift his share of the property to Sita Ram as alleged by the Defendant- Appellant. Therefore, the property remained a joint, undivided asset. He contended that the Sale Deed executed by Brij Mohan (son of Sita Ram) in favour of one of the tenants, S.K. Golam Lalchand, the Defendant-Appellant, was invalid since Brij Mohan did not have exclusive rights to the entire property.

Defendant- Appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand, and Brij Mohan asserted that Salik Ram had gifted his share to Sita Ram, making Sita Ram the absolute owner. Upon Sita Ram’s death in 1975, his share supposedly devolved solely upon his son, Brij Mohan, as his daughters had relinquished their rights. This claim was contested by the Plaintiff-Respondent, who argued there was no proof of any such gift or relinquishment.

 

Supreme Court Analysis:

The Supreme Court vide Order dated 10.09.2024, made the following observations:

1) Joint Ownership of Property: The property, purchased jointly by Sita Ram and Salik Ram, was never partitioned. The Court noted that both the brothers continued to be joint owners until their deaths. The Apex Court also observed that Plaintiff-Respondent Nandu Lal, in order to substantiate his case, apart from other documents and oral evidence, brought on record the original deed of purchase of the property of the year 1959 and he himself appeared as a witness PW-1 to prove his case. The said original sale deed was undoubtedly in the joint name of late Salik Ram and late Sita Ram, both of whom acquired equal rights in the purchased property. Upon their deaths, their respective shares devolved upon their heirs. This meant the property remained undivided, and no single heir could claim exclusive rights to it without a proper partition.

2) Lack of Evidence for Gift or Relinquishment: The Court emphasized that there was no documentary evidence, such as a gift deed, to substantiate the claim that Salik Ram had gifted his share to Sita Ram. Similarly, there was no proof that Sita Ram’s daughters had relinquished their rights in favour of their brother, Brij Mohan. Consequently, Brij Mohan did not acquire exclusive ownership of the entire property.

3) Invalidity of the Sale Deed: The Sale Deed dated 19.05.2006, executed by Brij Mohan in favour of S.K. Golam Lalchand, was declared void with respect to the entire property. The Court held that Brij Mohan was only entitled to sell his own undivided share. Under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Transfer by one co-owner), the sale could be valid only to the extent of Brij Mohan’s share, not the entire property.

4) Remedies for the Defendant: The Court clarified that the defendant, S.K. Golam Lalchand, could seek remedies such as a suit for partition or compensation against Brij Mohan, to claim his legitimate share in the property.

5) Relief for the Plaintiff: The Court concluded that the relief sought by the Plaintiff-Respondent, Nandu Lal, for a permanent injunction against the Defendant-Appellant from taking forcible possession or disturbing the possession of the property was justified. The Defendant-Appellant was restrained from acting in a manner that would infringe upon the property rights of the co-owners until a proper partition had been conducted.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that they do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed upholding the Judgments and Orders of the High Court dated 06.07.2021 and of the First Appellate Court dated 07.04.2018. The Court further 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 and that 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 Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that in matters of joint ownership, no individual co-owner can claim exclusive rights or sell the entire property without a formal partition. The judgment protects the rights of co-owners and emphasizes the need for proper legal documentation and evidence in property disputes.

Kartik Khandekar

Senior Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services