On September 10, 2024, the Incomparable Court of India conveyed a noteworthy judgment in Respectful Offer No. 4177 of 2024, where the court tended to co-ownership rights and the exchange of unified property in a debate between Sk. Golam Lalchand (the appealing party) and Nandu Lal Shaw (the respondent). The case rotated around a property found in Howrah, measuring around 6 cottahs and 1 chittack with different structures, which was acquired by two brothers, Sita Smash and Salik Slam, in 1959.
Background
The essential issue within the offer stemmed from clashing claims over the proprietorship and deal of the debated property. Nandu Lal, the plaintiff-respondent, affirmed that his father, Salik Slam, held a half share within the property and had not surrendered his rights to his brother, Sita Smash. On the other hand, Brij Mohan, the child of Sita Slam, claimed to have acquired full possession of the property, which he sold to one of the inhabitants, Sk. Golam Lalchand, through a deal deed dated May 19, 2006.
Legal Proceedings
Court Cases Due to the disagreement, Title Suit No. 212/2006 was filed; however, the trial court first dismissed it, citing Nandu Lal's lack of proof of possession. On appeal, the First Appellate Court overturned the trial court's judgment, holding that Brij Mohan was not permitted to sell the entire property because it had not been divided.
This decision was subsequently affirmed by the High Court, which prompted the defendant-appellant, Sk. Golam Lalchand, to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court's Findings
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, meticulously examined the evidence presented by both sides. It found that while the property was jointly purchased by the two brothers, there was no documentary evidence to support the claim that Salik Ram had gifted his share to Sita Ram. Furthermore, the court noted that the family settlement allegedly transferring full ownership to Brij Mohan was never proven.
The key findings from the judgment were as follows:
Joint Ownership: The court held that the property remained joint and undivided between the co-owners, as the appellant failed to provide evidence of any partition or valid transfer of Salik Ram’s share to Sita Ram.
Invalid Transfer: Since the property was jointly owned and undivided, Brij Mohan alone was not competent to sell the entire property.
Conclusion
This decision highlights the value of due process in settling property disputes in addition to defending co-owners' rights. The court states in its ruling that "the entire property purchased by the two brothers, the late Salik Ram and the late Sita Ram, in the year 1959... continued to be the joint property in which both of them had equal rights." in closing.
In light of this, the appellant's attempt to claim full ownership based on an unproven family settlement was rightly rejected, ensuring that all legal heirs of the original purchasers retain their rightful shares in the property.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Co-ownership Supreme Court property rights joint ownership sale deed family settlement property partition real estate law
