Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mrs.Justice S.SRIMATHY
V.Sakthivel – Appellant
Versus
P.Annalakshmi – Respondent
Property - Sale Deed - Act Section List - The court affirmed that a co-owner's sale of undivided property cannot be invalidated unless there is clear evidence of partition or arrangement to indicate otherwise. Both lower courts were upheld in rejecting the validity of the contested deed due to lack of support for claims of partition.
Fact of the Case:
A plaintiff sought to declare a sale deed as null and void, claiming ownership of inherited land post the death of her husband, while the defendants asserted rightful ownership as legal heirs and valid execution of the sale.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed evidence and found no valid partition or family arrangement that would support the defendants' sale; thus, it upheld the lower court's dismissal of the defendants' claims.
Issues: Whether the sale deed executed by co-owners of undivided property could be declared void without evidence of an established partition.
Ratio Decidendi: It is essential for the validity of a sale deed executed by co-owners to have supporting evidence of partition or arrangement; otherwise, sales of undivided shares can be deemed invalid.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgments of the lower courts.
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.1 of 2022 dated 06.09.2022 on the file of the Sub-Court, Periyakulam confirming with the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.28 of
2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam, dated 28.01.2020.
2. The defendants are the Appellants and the plaintiff is the Respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, the contesting parties shall be referred to as Plaintiff and Defendants.
3. The plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S No.28 of 2015 for declaration to declare that the sale deed executed, dated 15.05.204 is as null and void and consequent injunction restraining the defendants and their men interfering from enjoyment of the suit property.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property belongs to one Perumal Velar and he had one son and three daughters. The son namely Pitchai and daughters namely Pitchaiammal, Pappathiammal and Lakshmiammal. The said Perumal Velar’s wife Kubbayammal predeceased him on 08.07.1989. Thereafter the family had oral family arrangement, wherein the daughters were granted the mother’s jewels and cash and the son was allotted the land. Further the plaintiff’s husband Pitchai had taken care of the father until the death of the father on 13.03.1990. Subsequently the plaintiff’s husband died on 19.02.2000 leaving behind the plaintiff and her son and daughter. Hence the entire property belongs to the plaintiff’s husband and after the demise of the plaintiff’s husband the property devolves around the plaintiff and her son and daughter.
Therefore, the suit is filed for declaration that the sale deed dated 15.05.2014 executed by the defendants 2 to 4 in favor of 1st defendant as null and void and consequently injunction from interfering in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
5. The case of the defendants is that after the demise Perumal Velar the property devolves around to the said Pitchai, Pitchammal, Pappathiammal and Lakshmiammal. The plaintiff is the daughter of the Pappathiammal and had married Pitchai. The suit land admeasures 64½ cents and the four legal heirs are entitled to 16 1/8 cents each. Hence from the share of Pitchai and Pappathiammal the plaintiff is entitled to 32¼ cents. The 2nd defendant Lakshmiammal is entitled to 1/4th share i.e. 16 1/8 cents and Pitchaiammal is entitled to 1/4th share i.e. 16 1/8 cents. After the demise of Pitchaiammal her share belongs to 3rd and 4th defendants K.Ganesan and K.Murugan. The said Lakshmiammal and K.Ganesan and K.Murugan had executed the alleged sale deed dated 15.05.2014 in favour of the 1st defendant Sakthivel. Therefore, the defendants state that they are entitled to the share and hence the sale is valid.
6. The suit was allowed. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant herein has preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and the said Appeal suit was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the present Second appeal is filed.
7. The contention of the defendants / appellants is that they are entitled to 21 cents of the land. When the co-owner is having right over the property, the sale of undivided share cannot be held as invalid. The Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant relied on the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of the Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Madan Lal Vs. Shankar and Others , dated 01.11.2018. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“1. Whether a sale executed by co-owner out of the joint property, can be set aside or such sale would be treated as a sale of undivided share?
The answer to question No.1 is simple and straight. If a co- owner sells a specified portion of the property out of the undivided property, such sale at the most can be treated as sale of undivided share. Such sale deed cannot be set aside on the ground that it is sale from undivided property. Reference in this regard can be made to Ram Chander Vs. Bhim Singh , 2008(3) Punjab Law Reporter 747. Hence, question No
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
