The Indian Supreme Court ruled that the sale of a jointly owned property in Howrah by one heir was invalid because a partition hadn't been conducted, upholding lower court decisions.

In a judgment delivered on September 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by Sk. Golam Lalchand, upholding the concurrent judgments of the lower courts in favor of the respondent, Nandu Lal Shaw. The case concerned a property dispute in Howrah, India, involving a property jointly purchased by two brothers, late Salik Ram and late Sita Ram, in 1959. The central question of law before the Supreme Court was whether Brij Mohan, son of late Sita Ram, possessed the legal right to sell the entire disputed property to the appellant-defendant, Sk. Golam Lalchand. The court meticulously analyzed the arguments and evidence presented by both parties.

Brief of the Case: The case centers around a property dispute stemming from a sale deemed invalid by lower courts. The property, located in Howrah, was initially purchased in 1959 by two brothers, Salik Ram and Sita Ram. Following Sita Ram's death in 1975, his son, Brij Mohan, asserted sole ownership of the property based on an alleged gift from Salik Ram to Sita Ram and a purported family settlement that granted him the entire property. Based on this claim, Brij Mohan sold the property to Sk. Golam Lalchand (the appellant-defendant) in 2006.

However, this sale was challenged by Nandu Lal, one of Salik Ram's sons, who claimed his rightful inheritance. Nandu Lal initiated Title Suit No.212/2006, seeking a declaration that the sale was void and a permanent injunction against Sk. Golam Lalchand from interfering with the property. The Trial Court initially dismissed Nandu Lal's suit due to his inability to prove possession, although it acknowledged that the property had never been partitioned. Nandu Lal then appealed this decision, and the First Appellate Court ruled in his favor, overturning the Trial Court's judgment. Sk. Golam Lalchand further appealed to the High Court, but the High Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s ruling.

The Supreme Court made several crucial observations, drawing heavily on the findings of the lower courts, which consistently ruled in favor of the respondent, Nandu Lal Shaw. These observations included:

Lack of Evidence for Gift or Family Settlement: The court found no evidence to substantiate the appellant's claims that late Salik Ram had gifted his share of the property to his brother, late Sita Ram, or that a family settlement existed granting Brij Mohan exclusive rights to the property. This lack of documentation proved fatal to the appellant's case, as both a gift deed and proof of the purported family settlement were absent.

Joint Ownership of the Disputed Property: The court affirmed the lower courts’ findings that the property remained jointly owned by the heirs of both brothers, late Salik Ram and late Sita Ram, as no partition had taken place. This joint ownership undermined Brij Mohan’s assertion of sole ownership and his capacity to sell the entire property.

Appellant's Potential Recourse: While invalidating the sale of the entire property, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the appellant’s purchase might hold validity concerning Brij Mohan’s actual share in the property. The court suggested the appellant could explore legal remedies such as filing a partition suit to determine and demarcate shares or seeking compensation from Brij Mohan for the invalid sale.

Ultimately, the repeated rejection of his claims led Sk. Golam Lalchand to file the appeal being considered by the Supreme Court of India. The crux of the case rests on whether Brij Mohan had the exclusive right to sell the entire property, with the lower courts finding no evidence to support his claim. And in conclustion the Supreme Court, by dismissing the appeal, reaffirmed the importance of clear documentation and legal processes in property transactions. The judgment underscored that in the absence of a partition, a co-owner cannot unilaterally dispose of a property in its entirety. The court emphasized that such actions infringe upon the rights of other co-owners and lack legal standing and the court has held that "accordingly answered and 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."
and the court further held "..The argument has been noted only to be rejected for the simple reason that Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 uses the word ‘may’ for getting declared the instrument as void which is not imperative in every case, more particularly when the person is not a party to such an instrument."

Coram: JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AND JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL.
Between: Sk. Golam Lalchand Vs. Nandu Lal Shaw & Ors.
DOJ: 10-09-2024