1. Suit for partition and possession of joint family property by one co-sharer. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1262
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N.Variava : V.N.Khare
Janaki Pandyani
Versus
Ganeshwar Panda
Case No. : 4523 of 1990
Date of Decision : 8/3/00
Advocates Appeared: Chhabra Rani : Rangam A.V. : Ranganathan A.
A co-sharer in joint Hindu family property cannot claim adverse possession against another co-sharer until the property is partitioned. Improvements to the property do not constitute ouster, and an unproven document cannot serve as the basis for acquiring title by adverse possession.
Headnote:(A) Joint Hindu Family Property - Adverse Possession - Co-sharers - A co-sharer cannot claim adverse possession against another co-sharer in joint family property so long as the property is not partitioned. In the absence of partition, the property continues to be joint Hindu family property, and one co-sharer's possession is considered possession on behalf of all others. (Para 2)
(B) Evidence - Adverse Possession - Basis of Claim - If a document alleged to be the basis for the acquisition of title by adverse possession is found to be not proved or not signed by the party, such document cannot be utilized as the basis for establishing title by adverse possession. (Para 2)
(C) Ouster - Act of Improvement - Merely converting a thatched house into a tiled house or digging a well by one co-sharer does not constitute an ouster of other co-sharers from the joint family property. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Three brothers, members of a Hindu joint family, were involved in a suit for partition and possession of a one-third share in joint family property. The defendants contended that the plaintiff had relinquished his share via a specific document or, alternatively, that the defendants had acquired title by adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the relinquishment document not proved and ruling that adverse possession does not apply between co-owners. The High Court, while agreeing that the relinquishment document was not proved, nonetheless held that the defendants had acquired title by adverse possession because they had acted upon the said document.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's judgment was unsustainable in law as it erroneously relied on an unproven document to establish adverse possession. Furthermore, physical improvements made to the property by the defendants did not amount to an ouster of the plaintiff.
Issues: Whether a co-sharer in joint Hindu family property can claim title by adverse possession against another co-sharer, and whether an unproven document or mere physical improvements to the property can form the basis for such a claim.
Ratio Decidendi: One co-sharer cannot claim adverse possession against another co-sharer in joint family property until the property is partitioned. Furthermore, an unproven document cannot serve as the legal basis for acquisition of title by adverse possession, and acts of improvement by a co-sharer do not equate to the ouster of other co-sharers. (Para 2)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
-
civil litigation
-
suits
- suit for partition (Para 1)
-
suits
Table of Contents
2. Relinquishment deed not proved; alternatively, title by adverse possession claimed. (Para 1 )
3. Unproved deed cannot be basis for adverse possession; co-sharer cannot claim adverse possession against another without ouster. (Para 2 )
4. A co-sharer cannot claim adverse possession against another co-sharer until property is partitioned. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed; judgment of High Court set aside. (Para 3 )
6. Can an unproved document be the basis for acquiring title by adverse possession?
No, the High Court erred in making an unproved deed the basis for acquisition of title by adverse possession. (Para 2 )
7. Can one co-sharer claim adverse possession against another co-sharer in joint family property?
No, one co-sharer cannot claim adverse possession against another co-sharer as long as the property remains undivided joint family property. (Para 2 )
8. What is the effect of improvements made by a co-sharer on joint family property?
Merely converting a thatched house into a tiled house and digging a well does not amount to ouster of another co-sharer. (Para 2 )
(1) MADHUSUDAN Panda, the husband of the appellant, Dhaneshwar Panda and Trinadha Panda are the real brothers and sons of Sivarama Panda. All three brothers are members of Hindu joint family. The husband of the appellant filed a suit for partition and possession of one-third share in the joint family property. A written statement was filed by the defendants-respondents wherein it was alleged that Madhusudan Panda, by virtue of Ex.B/1, had relinquished his share in the property and, therefore, he is not entitled to any share in the property. Alternatively, it was also pleaded that the defendants have acquired title by adverse possession. The trial court found Ex. B/1 as not proved and further the defendants and plaintiffs being co-owners of the prop- erty, the question of adverse possession does not arise. Consequently, the suit was decreed. First appeal was preferred against the said judgment and was dismissed. However, second appeal was allowed by the High Court and the suit was decreed. The High Court held that Ex.B/1 was not proved. Even after holding so, the High Court held that since the defendants acted upon Ex B.1, therefore, they acquired title by adverse possession over the joint family property. It is against the said judgment, the plaintiff is in appeal before this Court.
(2) AFTER we heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable in law. The High Court found that Ex. B/1 was not signed by Madhusudan Panda and was not proved. Therefore, the High Court cannot make Ex. B/1 as basis for acquisition of title by adverse possession. This approach of High Court in holding that defendants have acquired title to property by adverse possession was erroneous. Further, merely because defendants had converted the thatched house into a tiled house and also dug a well, it does not mean it was an ouster of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the property in dispute is joint family property and the plaintiff and the defendants are the co-sharers of the property. In fact, there is no partition of the property and so long as property is not partitioned, it continues to be a joint Hindu family property. Under such circumstances, one co-sharer cannot claim adverse possession against the other co- sharer. In view of the said legal position, the High Court fell in error in holding that the defendants had acquired title in the property by adverse possession.
(3) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we find that the appeal deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
