Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 38605
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. Sakthivel, J
C. Mani – Appellant
Versus
C. Rajan – Respondent
S.A.No.101 of 2021 | C.M.P.No.2153 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Mukunth, T. R. Gayathri
For the Respondents: S. Saravanakumar
In a suit for partition, possession by one co-owner is legally deemed to be on behalf of all, unless ouster is proven. Property classified as government land may still be partitioned among family members holding established possessory rights, provided the burden of proof for any alleged oral relinquishment is met.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 64 - Partition suit - Co-ownership claim - Property recorded as government land - Defence of oral relinquishment of rights - Burden of proof for family arrangement.
(B) Possession of co-owners - Possession of joint property by one co-owner is in the eyes of law possession of all, even if others are not in actual possession - Mere exclusive occupation by one co-owner does not amount to ouster unless the co-owner openly asserts hostile title to the knowledge of other co-owners.
(C) Suit property - Nature - Land classified as government land held by a family in possession is treated as a family asset available for partition between the members. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
A partition suit was filed by a sibling against other family members claiming a share in a property. The defence contended that the plaintiff had orally relinquished their rights in a past family arrangement and argued that the property was government-owned, thus not subject to partition. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision and decreed the partition.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that joint revenue records established the parties as co-owners. The defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving the alleged oral relinquishment or the family arrangement. It was held that possession by one co-owner is constructively for the benefit of all co-owners unless ouster or abandonment is explicitly proven.
Issues: Whether the appellate court erred in decreeing the partition of land classified as government property and whether the claim was barred by limitation due to the exclusive possession of one co-owner.
Ratio Decidendi: Possession of joint property by one co-owner is deemed to be on behalf of all unless distinct ouster is strictly proven. While oral relinquishment of property is legally permissible, the burden of proof rests heavily on the party asserting it. Possessory rights held by a family in government-classified land constitute a family asset available for internal partition.
Result: Second appeal dismissed; trial court judgment set aside and appellate decree confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background regarding partition suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding co-ownership and oral relinquishment claims. (Para 4 , 5 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. burden of proof regarding oral transfer and co-ownership rights. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. co-owner possession rights and partitionability of natham land. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. final confirmation of appellate court's partition decree. (Para 19 , 20) |
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated January 29, 2020 made in A.S.No.69 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District Court at Coimbatore reversing the Judgment and decree dated August 3, 2017 made in O.S.No.476 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Mukunth
Senior Counsel for Ms.T.R.Gayathri
M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.Saravanakumar
J U D G M E N T
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated January 29, 2020 passed in A.S.No.69 of 2018 by the 'learned First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court' for the sake of brevity and convenience] reversing the Judgment and Decree dated August 03, 2017 passed in O.S.No.476 of 2014 by the 'learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore' [henceforth 'Trial Court'].
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
Case of the Plaintiff
3. An extent of 460 Sq.Mtr. In S.F.No.1391/3 at Veeriampalayam, Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore District along with the tiled house therein constitutes the Suit property and the same belonged to the plaintiff, 1st defendant and one Srinivasan who are all brothers. The said Srinivasan died intestate on August 24, 2013 leaving behind the defendants 2 and 3 as his only legal heirs. The wife of the said Srinivasan, who is the mother of the 2nd and 3rd defendants also died. The revenue records pertaining to the suit property jointly stands in the names of the plaintiff, 1st defendant and Srinivasan. The plaintiff and the defendants are in joint and constructive possession of the suit property for more than 20 years as co-owners and co-sharers. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant each are entitled to 1/3rd share while the defendants 2 and 3 are jointly entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property. When the plaintiff demanded for amicable partition of the suit property, the defendants evaded the same. Hence, the plaintiff caused legal notice dated May 2, 2013 against the defendants. In response, the defendants replied with false averments. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition seeking division of the suit property into 3 equal shares and allotment of one such share to him.
Case of the Defendants
4. The defendant 2 and 3 did not contest the suit and they were set ex-parte before the trial Court. The 1st defendant alone filed written statement.
5. The suit property is a tiled building situated in Natham Poramboke and the defendant alone is residing in the suit property for more than past four decades. The plaintiff was never in joint and constructive possession of the suit property and is not a co-owner and co-sharer of the suit property. Further, the plaintiff's marriage took place in the year 1972 and the family had to borrow a sum of Rs.6,000/- for the marriage expenses. Since the plaintiff was unable to repay the loan amount, the family property viz., land measuring 2.00 acres situated at Nehru Nagar, Kalapatti was sold in the year 1973 and the sale consideration was utilized to discharge the loan of the plaintiff. Further, at that time, a family arrangement took place in the presence of their mother, where the plaintiff agreed that he will not claim any share in the suit property and also the 1st defendant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the said Srinivasan to relinquish his right i
