Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4426

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

C/FA/359/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2026

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 359 of 2020

PATEL YOGESHKUMAR KANTILAL
Versus
EGIBEN GABHAJI THAKIOR & ORS.

Appearance:
MR JIGAR P RAVAL(2008) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
MR MJ PARIKH(577) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MS DIMPLE M PARIKH(7500) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
SIMPLE M PARIKH(8370) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

Date : 24/03/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jigar P Raval
For the Respondents: M.J. Parikh, Jaydeep Sindhi, Dimple M Parikh, Simple M Parikh

The sale of undivided joint property by a single co-owner without the consent of others is invalid. Assertions of oral partition cannot override clear documentation defining the property as joint. Additionally, failing to perform standard due diligence precludes a buyer from claiming bona fide purchaser status.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI, Section 96; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 91, 92; Specific Relief Act - Section 31 - Property law - Sale of undivided joint family property by one co-owner without consent of other co-owners - Validity of sale deed - Burden of proof regarding oral partition - Principles governing exclusion of evidence of oral agreement contradicting written terms of a document - A party cannot rely on an unsubstantiated oral partition to vary or contradict the terms of a prior document that explicitly characterizes the property as joint and undivided. (Paras 10, 11, 13, 15)

(B) Appeals - Scope and ambit - Appellate courts should not interfere with the findings of the trial court unless the decision is found to be perverse, illegal, or based on a fundamental misappreciation of the evidence - A purchaser of property cannot claim the status of a bona fide purchaser if they failed to exercise reasonable due diligence, such as searching public registries, verifying title status, or issuing public notices for title clearance prior to the execution of the sale deed. (Paras 6.2, 14.2, 15)

Facts of the case:
The suit property stood as joint and undivided property belonging to family members. One co-owner sold a portion of this property to a third party, asserting that an oral family partition had previously occurred, allocating that specific portion to them. The other family members filed a suit seeking a declaration that the sale deed was illegal and void, contending that no such partition ever took place and that the property remained under joint ownership. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, finding the oral partition claim unproven and the purchaser's claim of being a bona fide purchaser invalid.

Findings of Court:
The trial court held that documentary evidence, including previous agreements, clearly established the property as undivided and joint. The defendant failed to produce evidence of a valid partition, and evidence revealed that the purchaser did not conduct title searches or due diligence, acting without notice of the joint ownership status.

Issues: The main issues were whether a co-owner of a joint and undivided property is entitled to alienate a portion of said property based on an alleged oral partition, and whether the purchaser qualifies as a bona fide purchaser in the absence of pre-transaction due diligence.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal character of property as joint and undivided, supported by formal documents, cannot be rebutted by unsubstantiated claims of oral partition. Furthermore, a purchaser who fails to conduct fundamental due diligence—such as verifying title records and checking for existing proprietary agreements—cannot claim the protection accorded to a bona fide purchaser.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Approved for Reporting	Yes	No
	YES

1 The present appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad in Special Civil Suit No.491 of 2017, whereby the suit filed by the present respondent Nos.1 to 5 (original plaintiffs) for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed came to be decreed against the defendants, including the present appellant. The present appellant is the original defendant No.2, respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the original plaintiffs, and respondent No.6 is the original defendant No.1.

Factual Matrix:

2 The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are family members. Defendant No.1 is the brother-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and the uncle of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5. The land situated at village Chainpur, Taluka Ghatlodiya, bearing Block/Survey No.13, admeasuring 0 Hectare–31 Are–36 Sq. Mtrs., originally belonged to the ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, namely Babaji Bapuji Thakore. Upon the death of Babaji Bapuji Thakore, the names of Ghabaji Babaji, Jugaji Babaji, Divyaben Babaji, Shakriben Babaji, Jadiben Babaji and Kailashben Babaji came to be entered in the revenue record as first-line legal heirs. Thereafter, Divyaben, Shakriben, Jadiben, Chandaben and Kailashben waived their rights by filing affidavits and, accordingly, their names came to be deleted from the revenue record. Consequently, the names of Ghabaji Babaji Thakore and Jugaji Babaji Thakore remained in the revenue record as joint owners of the property. On the death of Ghabaji Babaji Thakore, the names of the present plaintiffs came to be entered in the revenue record as his legal heirs and, according to the plaintiffs, they thereby became owners of the land admeasuring 0–31–36.

2.1 It is the case of the plaintiffs that on 08.09.2017, a public notice came to be issued by defendant No.2 through his advocate seeking title clearance of the property, wherein it was stated that the land situated at Survey No.13, Paiki Khata No.27, admeasuring 0–15–68 old tenure land on the northern side (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”), had been purchased by defendant No.2 from Jugaji Babaji Thakore. Upon acquiring such knowledge, the plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No.491 of 2017 seeking cancellation of the sale deed and declaration of ownership.

2.2 Upon being served with summons, defendant No.1 appeared and filed his written statement below Exhibit 25, whereas defendant No.2 appeared and filed his written statement below Exhibit 22. Defendant No.1 contended that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit property as an oral partition had already taken place among the family members and the suit property had fallen to the share of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 contended that he is a bona fide purchaser for value and that after executing the sale deed and paying the sale consideration, he has purchased the suit property from defendant No.1; therefore, the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit property. On completion of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues below Exhibit 38 and answered them accordingly:

“(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit property is joint and undivided property?

Answer is affirmative.

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.1 has illegally and without authority sold half share of the disputed suit property to defendant No.2?

Answer is affirmative.

(3) Whether defendant No.1 proves that with respect to the suit property, an oral family partition had taken place in the year 1995 between the husband of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 in the presence of respected persons of the village, whereby the northern portion fell to the share of defendant No.1 and the southern portion fell to the share of the husband of plaintiff No.1?

Answer is negative.

3(A). Whether defendant No.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4426

Cases Referred (4)