Back
2009(4) Supreme 698
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Ramdas — Appellant
versus
Sitabai & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6508 of 2005
Decided on : 29-05-2009
Facts of the Case :
1. Suit for partition and for delivery of possession was filed by plaintiff respondent1 herein in the instant case of her share in suit property.Plaintiff claimed to be a co-sharer to the extent of half share in the said suit property for reason that plaintiff and defendant No.1- were the only legal heirs of deceased original owner. Plaintiffs case that defendant no. 1 had sold Gat No. 19 area admeasuring 2.56HR of Mouza Padoli to defendant no. 3- for a consideration of Rs. Rs.75,000/without her consent .High Court held that Sale-Deed executed by deceased in favour of Defendant No.3 would be Null and void and not binding on plaintiff to the extent of her one-half share in Gat No.19.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
All 4 plots of land which were suit property were joint property and therefore, plaintiff and defendant No. 1 owned and possessed half undivided share each in all the 4 properties. Defendant No.1 brother of plaintiff could not have therefore sold entire Gat No. 19 area admeasuring 2.56H of Mouza Padoli in favour of the defendant No. 3 in as much as said land was undivided and plaintiff and defendant No. 1- were two co-sharers in said property. Hence High Court was correct and legally justified in declaring plaintiff as owner and holder of half of the shares in all the four aforesaid properties which were undivided. Defendant No.1 being a co-sharer could not have sold by a registered sale deed more than his share nor could he have delivered possession till said property was partitioned by parties amicably or through the intervention of the Court according to their share. It is settled law under Transfer of Property Act, that a purchaser cannot have a better title than what his vender had. The possession which was claimed by defendant No. 3 in respect of entire land bearing Gat No. 19 area admeasuring 2.56H of Mouza Padoli was also illegal and without proper sanction of law. No reason was found to interfere with judgment and order passed by the High Court. Appeal was dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
Without a formal physical partition of an undivided landed property, a co-sharer cannot lawfully put a vendee into possession of the entire property, even if they have a right to transfer their undivided share (!) (!) .
A purchaser of an undivided interest from a co-sharer does not acquire title to a specific, defined share until a formal partition is effected either amicably or through court decree (!) (!) .
The legal position is that a sale of undivided share does not automatically confer possession of the entire property to the vendee; instead, the vendee's rights are limited to seeking partition and obtaining their specific share (!) (!) .
The sale of undivided interest by a co-sharer is valid, but possession cannot be handed over unless the property is partitioned by mutual agreement or court order (!) .
In this case, the court held that the entire property belonged to the deceased and was jointly owned by the heirs, with each holding an undivided half share in all the properties (!) (!) .
The co-sharers could not sell more than their respective shares, nor could they deliver possession of the entire property until it was partitioned (!) .
The sale deed executed by a co-sharer for the entire property was deemed null and void to the extent of the other co-sharer’s undivided share, as the property remained joint and unpartitioned (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that possession of an undivided share cannot be lawfully transferred or handed over until the property is partitioned, reinforcing that only rights to seek partition are conferred by such sales (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the undivided nature of the property and the lack of formal partition prevented the vendee from claiming possession of the entire property, and that the legal ownership remained with the co-sharers until partition (!) .
The judgment included a direction for the defendant to hand over possession of their respective undivided share of the property to the plaintiff within three months, failing which the plaintiff could seek enforcement through appropriate proceedings (!) .
These points collectively stress that in property law, especially concerning co-ownership, physical partition or court-approved division is essential before a co-sharer can transfer or possess a specific, defined part of the property.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.—
1. This appeal arises out of a Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench while disposing of a second appeal filed by the appellant herein (Mr. Ramdas) who has been arrayed as defendant No.3 in the original suit. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff -Sitabai (respondent No.1 herein) seeking for a decree of partition and for delivery of possession of her share in the suit property. It was alleged in the plaint that the deceased Sukha had a son, namely Sudam who was impleaded as defendant No.1 in the suit and a daughter (plaintiff-Sitabai). The plaintiff-Sitabai, therefore, is the sister of the defendant No.1-Sudam.
2. Sukha died on 07.12.1977 and at the time of his death he left behind him the following properties :
Village Survey No. Area = Acre (H.R)
Padoli 19 2.56 = = 6.40
Padoli 46 5.47 = = 13.50
Lakhampur 22 4.40 = = 11.00
Kosara 80 2.43 = = 6.08
Total 14.86 = = 37.15
The aforesaid properties which are four in number constitute the suit property.
3. In the said suit the plaintiff-Sitabai claimed to be a co-sharer to the extent of half share in the said suit property for the reason that the plaintiff-Sitabai and the defendant No.1-Sudam are the only legal heirs of deceased Sukha. It was contended by the plaintiff-Sitabai that the defendant no. 1-Sudam had sold Gat No. 19 area admeasuring 2.56HR of Mouza Padoli to defendant no. 3-Ramdas for a consideration of Rs. Rs.75,000/-. It was further stated in the plaint that the defendant No.1-Sudam had also executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant No.3-Ramdas on 19.03.1980 without the consent of the plaintiff-Sitabai. It was contended that the said sale deed is void and not binding on the plaintiff-Sitabai since the said transaction was done without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff-Sitabai. It was further contended that the plaintiff-Sitabai is entitled for equal share i.e. = shares in the suit property including Gat No. 19 and the defendant no. 1-Sudam had no right and title to sale the same without the consent of the plaintiff-Sitabai. Therefore, the plaintiff-Sitabai prayed for a decree for partition and for recovery of possession.
4. The suit was contested by the defendants including defendant No.3-Ramdas (the appellant herein). Defendant no. 3-Ramdas in his written statement admitted that he had purchased the aforesaid land from defendant no. 1-Sudam by registered sale deed dated 19.03.1980. However, it was stated that the defendant No. 1-Ramdas had informed him that he (i.e. defendant No. 1) is the exclusive owner of the aforesaid land. Defendant No. 3-Ramdas further stated that he had purchased the aforesaid land for valuable consideration and the plaintiff-Sitabai was aware of this transaction. He also stated that the aforesaid was a self-acquired property of the defendant No.1 and therefore the same was not open for partition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, 13 issues were framed and all the parties led their evidence. The trial court recorded the evidence and heard the parties. The trial court after going through the evidence on record held that the aforesaid four properties were the self-acquired properties of Sukha. The trial court also found that it is an admitted fact that price of Gat No.19 is very high. Consequently, it was ordered that the share of the plaintiff could very well be adjusted from the land bearing Gat No.46 of Mauza Padoli and in case if her share is not satisfied then the plaintiff can very well settle her share from the consideration received from the defendant no. 3-Ramdas. A decree was passed by the trial court holding that the plaintiff is entitled for (shares of the suit property and that the defendant No.1 is entitled for) shares in the suit property.
6. Aggrieved by the said decision of the trial court, the plaintif
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
