Co-owners cannot assert exclusive rights over property without partition; permanent injunction against a co-owner is unjustified without legal resolution of ownership.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 96 and 41 - Appeal against Judgment and Decree - The original suit established the plaintiff's position as a bona fide purchaser. However, the court held that permanent injunction cannot be granted against a co-owner without a partition - The trial court's findings of the plaintiff's status were acknowledged, but the grant of permanent injunction was found unjustified - Limited injunction was granted for six months in favor of the plaintiff against third defendant to maintain current possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property pending a partition suit. (Paras 36, 39, 40)

(B) Co-ownership and Partition Law - The rights of co-owners cannot be claimed exclusively in a specific portion - Injunction cannot be sustained against a co-owner in the absence of partition - The necessity for judicial remedies through a partition suit was emphasized. (Paras 39, 40)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff Smt. M.Baby sought a declaration and permanent injunction over a disputed property originally divided among co-owners. The third defendant challenged this, asserting exclusive rights based on previous conveyances. The trial court ruled partly in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunction but denying declaration.

Findings of Court:
Findings confirmed that co-ownership requires resolution through partition proceedings, emphasizing no exclusive claims can be made without such legal remedies.

Issues: The main issues were related to the validity of execution of deeds amidst co-ownership, and whether the plaintiff holds exclusive rights over the Suit Property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Assignments cannot legally invalidate co-ownership claims, and that exclusive ownership cannot be asserted amidst disputed claims from co-owners without a legal partition. The necessity for co-owners to recognize equal rights in the property was reiterated.

Result: Appeals partly allowed with a modified injunction for six months.

JUDGMENT

Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated August 3, 2015 passed in O.S.No.952 of 2012 by 'the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai' ['Trial Court' for brevity], the third defendant therein has filed the Appeal Suit in A.S. No.437 of 2022 under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ' ['CPC' for short].

2. Similarly, feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff therein has preferred the Appeal Suit in A.S. No.436 of 2022 under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

3. To be noted, first one G.Kulasekaran presented a plaint before this Court arraying his brother - G.Ayyasamy as sole defendant, seeking the relief of permanent injunction on January 8, 2010 and the same numbered as C.S.No.32 of 2010. Later it was transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai on account of pecuniary jurisdiction and renumbered as O.S. No.7944 of 2010, and then made over to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – V, Chennai, which decreed the Suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant therein - G.Ayyasamy has preferred the Appeal Suit in A.S. No.519 of 2013 on the file of this Court.

3.1. After the Trial Court’s Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.7944 of 2010, on January 31, 2012, one Smt.Baby filed the Original Suit in O.S. No.952 of 2012 on the file of First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, against G.Ayyasami, G.Kulasekaran and two others, seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The said G.Ayyasami and G.Kulasekaran are the defendant and the plaintiff in O.S. No.7944 of 2010 respectively. In both the aforesaid Original Suits, the Suit Property is more or less the same. The Suit filed by Smt.M.Baby viz., O.S. No.952 of 2012 was partly decreed by negativing the claim for declaration and granting the relief of permanent injunction. Feeling aggrieved, G.Kulasekaran, the 3^rd defendant therein (O.S. No.952 of 2012), who is also the plaintiff in O.S. No.7944 of 2010, preferred the appeal in A.S.No.169 of 2016 before the XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The plaintiff therein (O.S. No.952 of 2012) namely Smt.M.Baby, filed a cross Appeal Suit in A.S. No.159 of 2017 before the same Appellate Court.

3.2. Then, at the instance of the appellant in A.S. No.519 of 2013, the Appeal Suits in A.S. No.169 No.2016 and A.S. No.159 of 2017 were withdrawn and transferred to this Court vide Common Order dated February 6, 2019 made in Tr. CMP. Nos.1004 and 1005 of 2017, and renumbered as A.S.Nos.437 and 436 of 2022 respectively, which are the appeals on hand.

3.3. Then, vide the Administrative Order dated January 7, 2023 made by the Honourable Acting Chief Justice of this Court, the said two Appeal Suits on hand were tagged with the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.519 of 2013. Separate trials were conducted and separate Judgments were pronounced in the concerned Original Suits. The parties are also different. Keeping in mind the same, the Appeal Suits were heard simultaneously and separate Judgments are being pronounced today.

4. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties herein will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit in O.S. No.952 of 2012.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

5. The Suit Property is a portion of a larger extent of land which originally belonged to the ancestor of the 3rd and 4th defendants, namely Natesa Naicker. Natesa Naicker had two sons, Ganapathy and Dharmalingam, who, after the demise of Natesa Naicker, entered into registered Partition Deed dated February 25, 1983 whereby 'A' Schedule Properties therein were allotted to Ganapathy, who is the father of the 3rd and 4th defendants. 'A' Schedule Properties comprises of land of a total extent of 4065 sq. ft. and the house thereon. 'A' Schedule Properties includes the Suit Property and other properties adjacent to it. Ganapathy was in possession and enjoyment of the 'A' Schedule Properties. He passed away on July 11, 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64150

Co-owners cannot assert exclusive rights over property without partition; permanent injunction against a co-owner is unjustified without legal resolution of ownership.

Cases Referred (1)