Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
In cases where a property was sold without a formal partition, the courts have held that the vendee's possession is not lawful for specific portions, and they must seek partition to establish ownership and possession rights ["Suraj Bhan Arya VS Pooran Chand - Delhi"], ["BHULE SINGH VS RAM SARUP (DECEASED) NOW REPRESENTED BY HIS LRs SMT. SARWATI - Delhi"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Chandrakant Bagh, S/o. Late Dr. Ramchandra Bagh VS Arvind Bagh, S/o. Late Dr. Ramchandra Bagh - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Tupili Girijamma VS Tupili Subba Reddy - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Niharika Das D/o Sukriti Ranjan Das VS Poonam Golchha W/o Sh. Dushyant Golchha - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Nirbhai Kaur VS Kamaljit Singh - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Suraj Bhan Arya VS Pooran Chand - Delhi"]- ["BHULE SINGH VS RAM SARUP (DECEASED) NOW REPRESENTED BY HIS LRs SMT. SARWATI - Delhi"]- ["Johara Ummal VS S. M. Omar - Madras"]- ["Gandey Perraju VS Datla Veerabhadra Raju - Andhra Pradesh"]
Imagine you're a co-owner of joint family land, in possession of a specific portion defined by khasra numbers. You sell that share to a buyer and hand over possession. Later, disputes arise—do you still have the right to demand partition against that buyer? This common scenario in property law raises critical questions about ownership transfer, possession, and partition rights.
In this post, we explore the legal position typically followed in such cases, drawing from established principles under the Transfer of Property Act (TPA) and relevant judgments. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Original owner in possession of property sold his share to other person with specific dimensions and put into possession whether he has right to file partition suit against them?
Generally, no. When a co-owner sells their undivided share in joint property—specifying particular dimensions (e.g., khasra numbers) and delivering possession—they transfer only their rights as a co-sharer. The seller loses ownership interest and cannot file a partition suit against the buyer. Instead, the buyer steps into the seller's shoes, gaining rights to joint possession (subject to adjustment) and the ability to sue for partition against the remaining co-ownersJai Singh VS Gurmej Singh - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 65S. C. Bhalla VS Rajinder Kaur Sandhu - 2011 0 Supreme(P&H) 1484.
This principle stems from Section 44 of the TPA, which states: Where one of two or more co-owners of immovable property legally competent in that behalf transfers his share of such property or any interest therein, the transferee acquires as to such share or interest, and so far as is necessary to give effect to the transfer, the transferor’s right to joint possession or other common or part enjoyment of the property, and to enforce a partition of the same, but subject to the conditions and liabilities affecting at the date of the transfer, the share or interest so transferred. Ashok Kapoor VS Murtu Devi - 2015 0 Supreme(HP) 623S. C. Bhalla VS Rajinder Kaur Sandhu - 2011 0 Supreme(P&H) 1484.
As one ruling clarifies: When a co-sharer sells his share in the joint holding or in part thereof and put the vendees into possession of the land in his possession what he transfers is his right as co-sharer in the said land and the right would remain in his exclusive possession till the joint holding is partitioned amongst all the co-sharers. S. C. Bhalla VS Rajinder Kaur Sandhu - 2011 0 Supreme(P&H) 1484
Specifying khasra numbers or handing over possession does not grant the buyer superior title. Courts view this as provisional possession on behalf of all co-sharers until formal partition. A co-sharer who is in exclusive possession of any portion of a joint khata can transfer that portion subject to adjustment of the rights of the other co-sharers therein at the time of partition... what the vendee gets in the transfer from a co-sharer is the right of that co-sharer and not exclusive ownership of any portion of joint land. S. C. Bhalla VS Rajinder Kaur Sandhu - 2011 0 Supreme(P&H) 1484Jai Singh VS Gurmej Singh - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 65.
Other co-owners can challenge exclusive use, seeking partition or injunctions. In a related case, the court noted: The purchaser of joint property cannot claim the possession of a specific portion of land but he is required to file a suit for partition and only after getting the property partitioned, he can claim any specific portion falling to the share of his seller. Sarnam Singh VS Gurmej Singh - 2019 Supreme(MP) 540.
Post-sale, the original owner ceases to be a co-owner. Having alienated their entire share, they have no standing to claim partition. Analogous to coparcenary sales: A purchaser of a coparcener’s undivided interest in the joint family property is not entitled to possession of what he had purchased. At the same time, if he has purchased, then he has a right to sue for partition of the property and ask for allotment of his share in the suit property. Rameshbhai Ramjibhai Sorathiya VS Dilipbhai Kalyanji Patel - Current Civil Cases (2019). The seller, by contrast, retains nothing.
Supporting cases affirm: Even after mutation in revenue records, a buyer must file for general partition before interfering with others' possession Basavanthappa S/o Bharamappa Jainar VS Basavanneppa S/o Basappa Mattimani, Since Deceased By Lrs. - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 396Basavanthappa VS Basavanneppa (Since Deceased) By L. Rs.
Judgments reinforce that buyers, not sellers, drive partition:
These align with TPA, stressing partition as the remedy for defining shares.
While the rule holds typically:
Selling a specific portion of joint property as a co-owner transfers your share—ending your partition claims against the buyer. The buyer inherits those rights against others, per Section 44 TPA. Always pursue formal partition for clarity.
Key Takeaways:- Seller: No partition suit post-sale.- Buyer: Right to sue remaining co-owners.- Possession: Joint/adjustable until partitioned.- Verify joint vs. exclusive status upfront.
Stay informed on property laws to avoid disputes. For tailored advice, contact a legal expert.
References:1. Jai Singh VS Gurmej Singh - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 65: Sale of specific khasra from joint khewat; buyer as co-sharer.2. S. C. Bhalla VS Rajinder Kaur Sandhu - 2011 0 Supreme(P&H) 1484: Full analysis of co-sharer sales under TPA.3. Rameshbhai Ramjibhai Sorathiya VS Dilipbhai Kalyanji Patel - Current Civil Cases (2019): Transferee's partition right.4. Ashok Kapoor VS Murtu Devi - 2015 0 Supreme(HP) 623: Section 44 TPA quote.5. Rajinder Singh VS Pirthi - 2006 0 Supreme(P&H) 4361: Exclusive vs. joint sales.
#PartitionSuit #PropertyLaw #CoOwnerRights
He did not acquire title to any defined share in the property and was not entitled to joint possession from the date of his purchase. He could work-out his rights only by a suit for partition and his right to possession would date from the period when a specific allotment was made in his favour. ... The sale deed do not indicate involvement of any other person and exclusive sale in favour of Dr. Ramchandra Bagh appears to have been ....
the nature and character of the properties in suit such as who was the original owner of the suit properties, how and by which source he/she acquired such properties, whether it was his/her self-acquired property or ancestral property, or joint property or coparcenary property in his/her hand and, if ... (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession....
... (ii) Whether the appellant-plaintiff and the respondent-defendant are co-sharers in the suit property and if so, without the property having been partitioned, can either of the two parties be put in possession thereof. ... However, in the present case, undoubtedly the original owner of the suit property was Ishar Kaur, who is stated to have first transferred the property to one Smt. ... learne....
He did not acquire title to any defined share in the property and was not entitled to joint possession from the date of his purchase. He could work-out his rights only by a suit for partition and his right to possession would date from the period when a specific allotment was made in his favour. ... In the light of the aforesaid principles; applying the well settled law; and for the reasons stated herein above, it is vivid that the purchaser could no....
The plaintiffs demanded a partition and separate possession, however defendant No.1 refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. ... From the perusal of the entire records, it discloses that the suit schedule property was acquired by Munishamappa in the partition effecte....
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule property? vi. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court suffer from any illegality, perversity, or error warranting interference by this Court? ... She sought partition of the property into two equal shares and separate possession of her share. 3. ... It is the specific#HL_EN....
[Note:- Maha Singh is stated in the judgment to be the husband of Ishar Kaur, the original owner of the suit property who, as per the plaintiff, had sold it to Smt. ... However, in the present case, undoubtedly the original owner of the suit property was Ishar Kaur, who is stated to have first transferred the property to one Smt. ... Hence, it was contended that the defendant being in illegal #HL_....
and character of the properties in suit such as who was the original owner of the suit properties, how and by which source he/she acquired such properties, whether it was his/her self-acquired property or ancestral property, or joint property or co-parcenary property in his/her hand and, if so, who ... Respondents. (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 269, wherein it is held that “in a suit filed by a co-sharer, co-parcen....
without there being any partition of the suit property. ... It has next been contended on behalf of the appellant that defendant No.1 has sold more than his share in the suit property. ... However, it is the admitted case of the appellant that the suit property is joint in nature. It is also admitted case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the s....
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 7/18th share in the suit property and partition of 7/18th share? iii. Whether the plaintiff and his father leased the suit property to 6th defendant-V.K.Ali? iv. To what relief? ... (5) Whether any right devolved upon plaintiff following registered transaction dated 25.4.03? (6) Whether the plaintiff’s vendor has no valid title and #HL_ST....
In the present case, the plaintiffs have prayed that they were placed in possession of specific portion of the land and the said pleading has been found to be incorrect. The purchaser of joint property cannot claim the possession of a specific portion of land but he is required to file a suit for partition and only after getting the property partitioned, he can claim any specific portion falling to the share of his seller. Even if the plaintiffs are permitted to amend their plaint, then still they cannot claim that they were placed in possession of specific portion of land ....
The plaintiffs, after coming to know this, appealed to the Assistant Commissioner and it was still pending. Even if he had purchased, he has to file a suit for general partition and till then he cannot interfere with the plaintiff’s possession of the suit property. But the 1st defendant, after purchasing the suit property, got the revenue records mutated to his name.
The plaintiffs, after coming to know this, appealed to the Assistant Commissioner and it was still pending. Even if he had purchased, he has to file a suit for general partition and till then he cannot interfere with the plaintiff’s possession of the suit property. But the 1st defendant, after purchasing the suit property, got the revenue records mutated to his name.
He cannot be evicted by other co-owner without getting property partitioned. Therefore, in the instant case the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the judgment in Civil Suit No.147- A/1998 and Second Appeal No.813/1995 shall operate as res judicata in the instant suit and the findings that the defendant Inder Kumar Jain has purchased the undivided share of Smt. Sona Begum by sale deed dated 20.09.1982 and became the co-owner of the property. His share qua co-owner has not been specified, therefore, he has legal right to retain possession of suit house till partitio....
He has a right only to sue for partition of the property and ask for allotment of his share in the suit property. In a recent judgment in Ramdas v. Sitabai, (2009)7 SCC 444 to which one of us (Dr. B.S. Chuhan, J.) was a party, placing reliance upon two earlier judgments of this Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami, AIR 1966 SC 470 and Sidheshwar Mukherjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh, AIR 1953 SC 487 this Court came to the conclusion that a purchaser of a coparcener's undivided interest in the joint family property is not entitled to possession of what ....
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
