The Supreme Court noted that a co-owner with an undetermined share in a jointly owned property cannot transfer the entire property to someone else until the property has been divided through a formal partition process.

In other words, when a property has multiple co-owners, a subsequent buyer cannot obtain full rights, title, and interest in the entire property simply through a sale deed executed by one of the co-owners or transferors.

The bench, consisting of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Pankaj Mithal, heard a case where a subsequent purchaser (appellant) received the entire property from a co-owner via a sale deed, despite the presence of other co-owners and the undetermined share of the transferor in the property. The transferor claimed that his uncle and father initially had equal shares in the property.

Before his uncle's death, the uncle had gifted his share to the transferor’s father. Following the father’s death, it was claimed that the transferor became the absolute owner of the property, as his sister had also relinquished her share.

The transferor argued that since he had exclusive ownership of the property, the transfer of the entire property to the appellant should not be contested.

On the other hand, the respondent, who was also a co-owner, challenged the transaction by arguing that the appellant could not acquire any rights or interests in the property. The transfer of the entire property was considered void because it lacked the explicit approval of the other co-owners who had vested interests in the property.

Rejecting the appellant's argument, the judgment authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that the transferor was entitled only to transfer his own share of the property, not the entire suit property. Consequently, the appellant could not claim ownership of the whole property, but only to the extent of the transferor's share.

The Court observed that the transferor's action of selling the entire property, despite the interests of other co-owners, could not bind the other co-owners. Such an action would effectively deprive them of their rightful shares in the property.

“..it is held that Brij Mohan alone was not competent to transfer the entire property without getting his share determined and demarcated so as to bind the other co-owners. Accordingly, the defendant-appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand has rightly been restrained by the decree of injunction in acting in derogation of the propriety rights of the co-owners until and unless the partition takes place.”, the court held.

According to the Court, the appellant is entitled to seek remedies such as filing a suit for partition or pursuing a claim for compensation and damages against the transferor. However, the appellant is not entitled to claim ownership or control over the entire property.

Given the circumstances, the appeal was dismissed.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Mrs. Ankita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Pijush K.Roy, Sr.Adv. Ms. Kakali Roy, Adv. Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR

Case Title: SK. GOLAM LALCHAND VERSUS NANDU LAL SHAW @ NAND LAL KESHRI @ NANDU LAL BAYES & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO.4177 OF 2024

Click here to Read/Download the Judgement