Court: Supreme Court of India
Background:
The case revolves around a dispute over a property located at 100/3 Carry Road, Howrah, measuring about 6 Cottahs 1 Chittack and 30 sq. ft., comprising 17 rooms. The key parties involved are the appellant, S.K. Golam Lalchand, and the respondent, Nandu Lal Shaw.
The property was originally purchased jointly by two brothers, late Sita Ram and late Salik Ram, in 1959. The respondent, Nandu Lal, claims that his father, late Salik Ram, did not gift his share of the property to Sita Ram, as alleged by the other side, and thus the property remains undivided. Conversely, the appellant, Golam Lalchand, claims that Sita Ram became the absolute owner after Salik Ram allegedly gifted his share to him. Consequently, Sita Ram's son, Brij Mohan, is said to have sold the entire property to Golam Lalchand.
Procedural History:
Trial Court: The suit filed by Nandu Lal (Title Suit No. 212/2006) was dismissed as he failed to prove his possession of the property.
First Appellate Court: Reversed the decision of the Trial Court, decreeing in favor of Nandu Lal, stating that there was no partition of the property, and hence Brij Mohan did not have the exclusive right to sell the entire property.
High Court: Affirmed the decision of the First Appellate Court.
Supreme Court: This appeal by the defendant-appellant, S.K. Golam Lalchand, was dismissed.
Key Issues:
- Whether Brij Mohan, son of late Sita Ram, was competent to sell the entire property to S.K. Golam Lalchand.
- Whether the property remained undivided and jointly owned by the heirs of late Sita Ram and late Salik Ram.
- Whether the sale deed executed by Brij Mohan was valid for the entire property or just his share.
Court's Findings:
Joint Ownership: The Supreme Court noted that the property was purchased jointly by the two brothers in 1959, and there was no valid evidence of a gift of Salik Ram’s share to Sita Ram. Therefore, the property remained jointly owned by their heirs.
No Proof of Family Settlement: The appellant failed to prove the existence of any family settlement that would have given Brij Mohan exclusive rights over the entire property. The alleged gift deed and claims of relinquishment by Sita Ram’s daughters were not substantiated by evidence.
Invalidity of Sale Deed for Entire Property: The sale deed executed by Brij Mohan in favor of S.K. Golam Lalchand could not transfer rights beyond his own share in the undivided property. The Court held that Brij Mohan did not have the authority to sell the entire property without a partition.
Right to Partition: The Court emphasized that co-owners must first get their shares determined and demarcated before any valid transfer of property can occur. Hence, the sale deed dated May 19, 2006, could only transfer Brij Mohan’s share and not the entire property.
Specific Relief Act, 1963: The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the respondent should have sought cancellation of the sale deed. It stated that since the property was undivided, it was unnecessary for the respondent to ask for such relief under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act.
Conclusion:
The appeal by S.K. Golam Lalchand was dismissed, and the judgments of the High Court and First Appellate Court were upheld. The property remains undivided, and Brij Mohan’s sale of the entire property to Golam Lalchand was declared invalid beyond his own share. Co-owners, including Nandu Lal, retain their rights, and any future transfer must follow a proper partition.
Implications:
- The case reaffirms the principle that a co-owner cannot unilaterally transfer an undivided property without a proper partition.
- Purchasers must exercise due diligence and ensure that the seller has clear and marketable title to the entire property being sold.