The legal battle over joint property rights unfolds in the case of Nandu Lal against Brij Mohan & Ors. The Supreme Court of India affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, concluding that the property, purchased jointly by late Sita Ram and late Salik Ram in 1959, remains undivided. The dispute revolves around the lack of evidence for a family settlement or gift from Salik Ram to Sita Ram, establishing Nandu Lal’s right in the property. Both parties acknowledge the joint ownership status of the suit property, leaving the co-owners to determine their shares before any transfer can take place.
Facts
- The plaintiff-respondent Nandu Lal claims rights in the property through his father late Salik Ram along with his brothers.
- Brij Mohan, his cousin, is alleged to have no exclusive right to sell the property to a tenant.
- Title Suit No. 212/2006 initially dismissed due to failure of proving possession, but later decreed in appeal disbelieving family settlement and asserting no partition of the property.
- First Appellate Court’s decision was affirmed by the High Court in Second Appeal on 06.07.2021.
- Late Salik Ram purportedly gifted his share to his brother Sita Ram who became the absolute owner of the entire property.
- Sita Ram passed away intestate in 1975, leaving the property to his son Brij Mohan.
- Dispute revolves around a property on Carry Road, Howrah, purchased jointly by Sita Ram and Salik Ram in 1959.
Also Read: Landmark Judgement in the Case of T.P. Murali v. Kerala Agricultural University
Arguments
- Nandu Lal, the plaintiff-respondent, presented the original deed of purchase of the property from 1959 and testified as a witness to substantiate his case, establishing late Sita Ram as the absolute owner.
- Late Salik Ram did not gift his share of the property to late Sita Ram, and there was no family settlement favoring Brij Mohan.
- The defendant-appellant failed to provide evidence of the alleged gift from late Salik Ram to late Sita Ram, leading to the conclusion that Brij Mohan had no authority to transfer the entire property without partitioning his share.
- After Salik Ram’s death, ownership of the property passed to Brij Mohan, who could not legally transfer the entire property to S.K. Golam Lalchand.
- The plaintiff-respondent, Nandu Lal, contested the defendant-appellant’s claim of acquiring the property in good faith, asserting that there was no gift from Salik Ram to Sita Ram and no family settlement.
- The case revolves around the joint property status of the suit property owned by late Sita Ram and late Salik Ram, acknowledged by both parties.
Also Read: Gala v. Ramani: Easementary Rights Dispute
Analysis
- The family settlement claimed by the defendant-appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand and Brij Mohan was disbelieved by all three courts.
- The property acquired by late Salik Ram and late Sita Ram in 1959 remained joint as no partition was proven.
- Brij Mohan alone could not transfer the entire property to Golam Lalchand without partitioning it.
- No evidence of daughters relinquishing their rights in the property was presented.
- The property continued to be joint between Salik Ram and Sita Ram, with their shares devolving upon their respective heirs.
- The suit property, which is undivided, is left with the co-owners to determine their shares before making a transfer.
- Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not mandatorily require instruments to be declared void, especially when the person is not a party to the instrument.
Also Read: Navigating Limitation Laws: A Case Study on Justice and Statutory Constraints
Decision
- The appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgments and orders of the High Court and the First Appellate Court.
- No merit was found in the appeal based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
- There shall be no orders as to costs in this case.
Case Title: SK. GOLAM LALCHAND Vs. NANDU LAL SHAW @ NAND LAL KESHRI @ NANDU LAL BAYES (2024 INSC 676)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004177-004177 – 2024
