Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Sk. Golam Lalchand vs. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judgment Date: 10th September 2024
Civil Appeal Number: 4177 of 2024
Judges: Honorable Justice Pankaj Mithal, Honorable Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Advocates: Shri Rauf Rahim for the appellant and Shri Pijush K. Roy for the respondent
Acts and Sections:
Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
Cited Judgments:
References to cases involving the validity of co-owners selling undivided property
Authorities on the purchaser’s rights under a joint property
Introduction
The case of Sk. Golam Lalchand vs. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri & Ors., decided by the Supreme Court of India on 10th September 2024, revolves around a property dispute involving joint ownership and the extent of rights available to one co-owner in transferring the entire property. The main legal issue at hand was whether Brij Mohan, one of the heirs of the original owners, had the legal authority to sell the entire undivided property to the appellant, Sk. Golam Lalchand, without the consent or involvement of the other co-owners.
The lower courts, including the High Court and the First Appellate Court, ruled in favour of the respondent, Nandu Lal Shaw, stating that Brij Mohan could not have transferred more than his undivided share in the property. The appellant challenged these rulings, arguing that Brij Mohan had exclusive ownership of the property, which had been settled in his favour through a family arrangement. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal.
Factual Background
The disputed property is located at 100/3 Carry Road, Howrah, and spans approximately 6 Cottahs and 1 Chittack with 17 rooms. The property was jointly purchased in 1959 by two brothers, Sita Ram and Salik Ram, from Sahdori Dasi. Both brothers had equal rights in the property, and upon their deaths, the property passed to their respective heirs. Sita Ram died intestate in 1975, leaving behind a son, Brij Mohan, and three daughters. Salik Ram also left behind heirs, including his son, the respondent Nandu Lal Shaw.
The appellant, Sk. Golam Lalchand, acquired the property through a sale deed executed by Brij Mohan in 2006. The respondent, Nandu Lal Shaw, filed a suit challenging the validity of this sale, arguing that Brij Mohan had no right to sell the entire property since it had not been partitioned and remained jointly owned by the heirs of both brothers.
In the proceedings, it was alleged by the appellant that Salik Ram had gifted his share of the property to his brother, Sita Ram, making the latter the sole owner. However, no gift deed or documentary evidence was presented to substantiate this claim. Furthermore, there was no proof of a family settlement that would have granted Brij Mohan exclusive rights over the property. The courts consistently found that the property had remained jointly owned, and Brij Mohan could not have lawfully transferred more than his share.
Ownership and Transfer Disputes
The crux of the dispute lies in the ownership structure of the property. According to the judgment, the property was originally jointly owned by the two brothers, Salik Ram and Sita Ram. Upon their deaths, the property devolved upon their respective heirs. Importantly, the Court noted that there was no legal proof that Salik Ram had ever gifted his share to his brother Sita Ram, despite such claims from the appellant.
Thus, the property remained undivided and jointly owned by the legal heirs of both brothers. The primary legal question was whether Brij Mohan, as the heir of Sita Ram, could legally sell the entirety of the property to Sk. Golam Lalchand without the consent or involvement of the heirs of Salik Ram.
In addressing this issue, the Court relied heavily on Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which governs the rights of a co-owner to sell their share in a joint property. This section allows for the sale of a co-owner's share but does not extend the right to sell the entire undivided property.
Arguments Presented
Appellant’s Argument:The appellant argued that Brij Mohan was the rightful owner of the property, having inherited it from his father, Sita Ram. He contended that the property had been effectively settled in favour of Brij Mohan through a family arrangement, which allegedly granted him full ownership of the property. Based on this understanding, Brij Mohan executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant on 19th May 2006.
Respondent’s Argument:The respondent, Nandu Lal Shaw, disputed the existence of any family arrangement or settlement. He claimed that the property remained jointly owned by the heirs of both brothers, and Brij Mohan did not have the authority to sell the entire property. As such, the sale deed in favour of the appellant was void to the extent that it purported to transfer more than Brij Mohan’s share in the property.
Legal Principles and Precedents
The Honorable Supreme Court carefully examined the facts of the case, especially the lack of documentary evidence supporting the appellant’s claim that Salik Ram had gifted his share to Sita Ram. The Court observed that no gift deed was presented, nor was there any documentary proof of a family settlement. As such, the Court concluded that the property remained jointly owned by the legal heirs of both brothers, and Brij Mohan could not have lawfully transferred the entire property to the appellant.
Additionally, the Court referred to Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which states:
"When one of two or more co-owners of immovable property legally transfers his share, the transferee acquires the transferor’s rights but cannot demand partition unless there is consent or judicial determination of the shares."
This section was pivotal in the Court's finding that Brij Mohan was only competent to transfer his undivided share, not the entire property.
The Court further cited Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, clarifying that the plaintiff was not obligated to seek cancellation of the sale deed, as the transfer was void ab initio concerning the undivided shares of the other co-owners.
Key Observations by the Court
Joint Ownership of the Property:The Court reaffirmed that the property in question was jointly owned by the two brothers and had never been partitioned. Consequently, Brij Mohan did not have exclusive ownership rights over the entire property.
Lack of Evidence of Gift or Family Settlement:The appellant's claim hinged on an alleged family settlement and a purported gift from Salik Ram to Sita Ram. However, the appellant failed to produce any substantial evidence to support these assertions. The absence of a valid gift deed or documentary proof of a family settlement led the Court to reject the appellant’s arguments.
Limitation on Co-owner’s Right to Sell:Citing Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Court emphasised that a co-owner cannot sell the entire undivided property without first determining the respective shares of the co-owners. Brij Mohan could sell only his share, and not the entire property.
Invalidity of the Sale Deed:As Brij Mohan did not possess the exclusive right to the whole property, the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant was only valid to the extent of Brij Mohan's undivided share. The appellant would need to pursue further legal remedies, such as a partition suit, to determine his entitlement to the property.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the First Appellate Court and the High Court. The judgment underscores that in joint ownership, no co-owner can transfer more than their undivided share without consent or legal partition.
The Court, quoting from its earlier judgments, reiterated:
“In the absence of any valid partition, the property remains joint and undivided. Each co-owner is entitled only to their share, and no single co-owner can transfer the entire property.”
In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the appellant’s appeal and confirmed that the sale deed in question did not confer rights over the entire property, thereby protecting the legal rights of the respondent and other co-owners. The judgment has significant implications for property law, particularly in cases involving joint ownership and co-owner transfers in India.
Comments