Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Partition and Possession Rights Without a formal physical partition of an undivided property, a co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession of the property, though they may have the right to transfer their share. This principle is supported by Supreme Court decisions such as AIR 1996 SC 470 and AIR 2009 SC 2735, emphasizing that possession cannot be granted to a purchaser unless the property is partitioned by metes and bounds. Narasimhaswami and Others AIR 1996 SC 470; Ramdas v Sitabai
Transfer of Undivided Shares A co-sharer can transfer their undivided share, but such transfer does not confer exclusive possession or right to the specific portion unless partition occurs. Sale deeds may be executed in favor of third parties, but possession of particular parts of the joint property cannot be handed over unless partition is finalized. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that without partition, the transferee cannot claim exclusive possession of any part of the property. 1997 0 Supreme(Cal) 85; 2022 0 Supreme(Tri) 32; 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1533
Construction and Development Rights Co-sharers are generally prohibited from constructing buildings or making significant alterations without the consent of other co-sharers, especially in undivided properties. Courts have held that such actions require either mutual agreement or a formal partition to avoid disputes. Unauthorized construction can be challenged, and injunctions can be granted to prevent such acts unless a partition is legally effected. 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1112
Legal Implications of Mutation and Possession Mutation entries in revenue records do not amount to ouster or confer exclusive rights unless accompanied by a clear declaration of denial of other co-sharers' rights. Possession by one co-sharer is not deemed adverse unless explicitly adverse, and strangers or outsiders can purchase shares without any restriction, but they cannot claim exclusive possession unless partition is completed.
Sanjay Kumar Tripathi VS Suryakali Tripathi - Current Civil Cases
; 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1474References:- Narasimhaswami and Others AIR 1996 SC 470- Ramdas v Sitabai AIR 2009 SC 2735- 1997 0 Supreme(Cal) 85, 2022 0 Supreme(Tri) 32, 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1533- 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1112-
Sanjay Kumar Tripathi VS Suryakali Tripathi - Current Civil Cases
- 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1474
In the realm of property law, co-ownership of undivided land often leads to complex disputes, especially when one seeks to develop or sanction a housing scheme. A common question arises: Is there any scope to sanction Abas Jojona House Scheme on an in favor of one of the co-sharers? This query touches on critical principles of , requirements, and protections for family properties.
This article delves into the legal landscape, drawing from key judgments and statutes. While general insights are provided, this is not legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
refers to where co-sharers hold shares without physical demarcation by . Each has rights in every part of the property, making unilateral actions challenging.
Courts consistently hold that without formal , a cannot grant to a third party or develop specific portions. As stated in multiple precedents: Without there being any physical formal of an undivided landed property, a cannot put a in possession although such a may have a right to transfer his undivided share.2023 0 Supreme(Del) 159 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 350 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 36 2021 0 Supreme(All) 487
- Current Civil Cases
2018 0 Supreme(MP) 547This principle, upheld by the Supreme Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami (AIR 1966 SC 470), protects the joint nature of the property.
- Gujarat
Typically, construction or schemes on are not sanctioned without formal . A cannot unilaterally create a scheme without consent or . 2009 4 Supreme 698 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 174
For instance: It admits no ambiguity that other co-owner/ has right, title and interest in every part of the and, therefore, any attempt to make construction on the land in deprivation of the other co-owners/co-sharers is impermissible.2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 927
Unauthorized builds can lead to , as they infringe on others' rights.
Section 44 safeguards family dwelling houses, restricting transferees (non-family members) from claiming joint possession without . It preserves domestic peace against outsiders. 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1533 1959 0 Supreme(Cal) 84
Section 44 protects family members from outsiders and restricts a non-member transferee from claiming joint possession or enjoyment of a unless is effected.2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1533
In Pushpa Devi cases, undivided allotments via lease don't confer exclusive rights. Courts stress: sale of undivided shares does not automatically confer . 2009 4 Supreme 698
in revenue records doesn't co-sharers: Mere in the revenue record in favour of one does not amount to ouster unless there is a clear declaration denying title of the other .2022 0 Supreme(Tri) 32
There is limited scope to sanction a house scheme like Abas Jojona on favoring one . Approval hinges on:
Courts have allowed schemes in rare cases where the property is a family dwelling and alterations are minor/residential, not prejudicial. For example, under Act Section 4, even tenanted houses qualify if rights aren't infringed. 1952 0 Supreme(Cal) 109
However, sanctioning without is generally not permissible, especially if it favors one exclusively or involves outsiders. Transfers of undivided shares are allowed, but not possession or development. 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1474
Sanjay Kumar Tripathi VS Suryakali Tripathi - Current Civil Cases (2024)
2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 88Possible under strict conditions:- Property is a used by co-sharers.- Scheme does not infringe other co-sharers' rights or joint integrity.- Mutual consent or court sanction via suit.- Consistent with Section 44 TPA protections.
Exceptions:- Residential constructions not disturbing others. 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1533- No alienation prejudicing co-sharers.
Limitations:- Outsiders can't claim joint possession pre-.- not presumed from one 's control. 2022 0 Supreme(Tri) 32- No equity for wrongful constructions on undivided shares. 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 88
To navigate this:- Seek Formal : File a suit for by .- Obtain Mutual Agreement: Document consent from all co-sharers.- Court Approval: Approach under Act for scheme sanction.- Legal Consultation: Verify if property qualifies as family dwelling.- Avoid Unilateral Actions: Risk or demolition.
Any scheme or construction on should be preceded by a formal or court approval.
While there is some scope for sanctioning a house scheme on —particularly for family dwellings without harming co-sharers—it is heavily conditioned on , consent, or court order. Unilateral favors to one are typically barred to uphold joint rights.
Key Takeaways:- No or major construction without . 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 174 2009 4 Supreme 698- Section 44 TPA protects family homes. 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1533- Consult professionals to avoid disputes.
For tailored advice, engage a property lawyer. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence.
References:1. 2009 4 Supreme 698: Restrictions on undivided joint properties.2. 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 174: No possession without .3. 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1533: TPA Section 44 and dwelling houses.4. 1959 0 Supreme(Cal) 84: Protections for family peace.5. 1952 0 Supreme(Cal) 109: Act schemes.6. 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 159, 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 350, etc.: Supreme Court on possession.
#PropertyLaw #UndividedProperty #CoSharerRights
Narasimhaswami and Others AIR 1996 SC 470, it was held that without there being any physical formal partition of an undivided landed property, a co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession, although such a co-sharer may have a right to transfer such a share. ... Pushpa Devi who were the real sisters-in-law, were allotted this undivided suit property by perpetual Lease Deed executed in th....
for Club House. ... It admits no ambiguity that other co-owner/co-sharer has right, title and interest in every part of the undivided property and, therefore, any attempt to make construction on the land in deprivation of the other co-owners/co-sharers is impermissible. ... As indicated above, the plaintiff claiming to be the co-sharer/co-owner in respect of the undivided prope....
Without there being any physical formal partition of an undivided landed property, a co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession although such a co-sharer may have a right to transfer his undivided share. Reliance in this regard may be placed to a decision of this Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao Vs. ... The sale deed do not indicate involvement of any other person and exclusive sale in favour#HL_....
Mere mutation in the revenue record in favour of one co-sharer does not amount to ouster unless there is a clear declaration denying title of the other co-sharer. If a co-sharer is in possession of the entire property, his possession cannot be deemed to be adverse from the other co-sharer. ... There is no law which stipulates that a co-sharer must sell his or her share....
even in a dwelling house. ... share in the family dwelling house should effect transfer of his undivided one co-sharer does not amount to ouster unless there is from a co-owner of a portion of undivided property is not say that an undivided portion of the property is permissible for p style="position:absolute;white-space
(ii) A co-sharer in an undivided property cannot construct a building without obtaining consent from other co-sharers. 3. ... With regard to injunction towards construction of a building by co-sharer in an undivided property, without obtaining consent from the other co-sharers the Appellate Court observed that without a specific suit for partition none of the co-sharers can pray for an....
In addition, the learned Judge has held that there is no law, which may give right to a co-sharer to prevent another co-sharer of his to alienate his undivided share. ... Until partition takes place by metes and bounds with the passing of a final decree, none of the co-sharers can forbear the other from transferring his/ her undivided or unpartitioned interest in the suit property in favour#HL_E....
In addition, the learned Judge has held that there is no law, which may give right to a co-sharer to prevent another co-sharer of his to alienate his undivided share. ... Until partition takes place by metes and bounds with the passing of a final decree, none of the co-sharers can forbear the other from transferring his/ her undivided or unpartitioned interest in the suit property in favour#HL_E....
No doubt the allotment of share is based on law of equity and there is no any equity in favour of the appellant herein since, he had put up the construction wrongfully when the property was not identified and property what he has purchased is undivided property. ... An undivided share co-sharer may be a subject matter of sale, but possession cannot be handed over to the....
In the above two decisions the matter in issue was whether there being no physical formal partition of an undivided landed property a co-sharer can put a vendee in possession although a co-sharer may have a right to transfer his undivided share. ... P. 444 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: Without there being any physical formal partition of an undivided landed pr....
Without there being any physical formal partition of an undivided landed property, a co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession although such a co-sharer may have a right to transfer his undivided share. "Now, it is well settled that the purchaser of a co-parcener's undivided interest in the joint family property is not entitled to possession of what he had purchased.
Reliance in this regard may be placed to a decision of this court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao vs. M. Narasimha Swami, Without there being any physical formal partition of an undivided landed property, a co-sharer cannot put Vendee in possession although such a co-sharer may have a right to transfer his undivided share.
Even otherwise, the appellant herein having purchased the land from defendant No. 1-Sudam could be entitled to be declared at the most to the extent of half share of the said piece of land having stepped into the shoes of his vendor and could not have asked for and claimed ownership and possession over the entire land of Gat No. 19 admeasuring 2.56 H.R. 17. Reliance in this regard may be placed to a decision of this Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami and Ors., (1966) AIR SC 47....
Reliance in this regard may be placed to a decision of this Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami and Ors., (1966) AIR SC 470, wherein this Court stated as follows:— Without there being any physical formal partition of an undivided landed property, a co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession although such a co-sharer may have a right to transfer his undivided share. “Now, it is well settled that the purchaser of a coparcener’s undivided interest in the joint f....
“Now, it is well settled that the purchaser of a coparcener's undivided interest in the joint family property is not entitled to possession of what he had purchased. Reliance in this regard may be placed to a decision of this Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami, AIR 1966 SC 470, wherein this Court stated as follows: Without there being any physical formal partition of an undivided landed property, a co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession although such a co-sharer....
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
