SK. GOLAM LALCHAND VS. NANDU LAL SHAW @ NAND LAL KESHRI @ NANDU LAL BAYES & Ors.

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 13

CASE NAME	SK. GOLAM LALCHAND VS. NANDU LAL SHAW @ NAND LAL KESHRI @ NANDU LAL BAYES & Ors.
CITATION	2024 INSC 676
DATE OF JUDGMENT	September 10 2024
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	SK. Golam Lalchand
RESPONDENT	Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes & Ors.
BENCH	Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of SK. Golam Lalchand vs Nandu Lal Shaw & Ors. addressed a contentious property dispute centred around the sale of an undivided property in Howrah. The case involved two families, descendants of joint property owners, the late Sita Ram and Salik Ram, who had jointly purchased the property in 1959. The dispute arose when Brij Mohan, son of late Sita Ram, sold the entire property to the appellant, S.K. Golam Lalchand, without the consent of other legal heirs, leading to a challenge by Nandu Lal, the son of late Salik Ram.

At the heart of the case were questions of joint ownership, the validity of property transfers without partition, and the legal rights of co-owners. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether Brij Mohan had the authority to sell the property in its entirety and whether there had been any valid partition or family settlement that would grant him exclusive ownership. The Court’s ruling has significant implications for property law, particularly concerning joint ownership, co-ownership rights, and the necessity of partition before transferring undivided property.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case stems from a long-standing property dispute concerning a piece of land located at 100/3 Carry Road, Howrah. The property in question measures approximately six cottahs, one chittack, and 30 square feet, with 17 rooms totalling around 4,395 square feet, consisting of tile sheds/huts. The property was jointly purchased by two brothers, Sita Ram and Salik Ram, in 1959 from a woman named Sahdori Dasi. Both brothers held equal shares in the property.

In 1959, Sita Ram and Salik Ram, brothers, jointly purchased the property, each holding equal shares. After their deaths, the property remained undivided among their respective heirs.
The appellant, S.K. Golam Lalchand, claimed to have acquired the property through a sale deed dated May 19, 2006, executed by Brij Mohan, son of Sita Ram. According to Brij Mohan, his father, Sita Ram, had become the sole owner of the property after his brother Salik Ram gifted his share to him. Furthermore, Brij Mohan claimed that his three sisters had relinquished their rights to the property in his favour, making him the exclusive owner.
Nandu Lal, son of Salik Ram, disputed Brij Mohan’s claim and challenged the sale of the entire property to the appellant. He argued that his father, Salik Ram, had never gifted his share of the property to Sita Ram, and therefore, Brij Mohan had no right to transfer the entire property. Nandu Lal claimed that the property had never been partitioned and remained joint, with both families (heirs of Sita Ram and Salik Ram) owning equal shares.
Following the sale of the property by Brij Mohan, Nandu Lal filed Title Suit No. 212/2006 before the court of the first instance. He sought a declaration that the sale of the entire property to the appellant was void and claimed that the appellant had no right to dispossess him or other tenants from the property. Nandu Lal also sought a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from taking possession or disturbing the possession of the tenants.
The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds that Nandu Lal failed to prove possession of the property. The court, however, noted that the property had not been partitioned and remained joint between the two families.
Dissatisfied with the trial court’s ruling, Nandu Lal filed an appeal. The First Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision and held that there was no credible evidence to prove that the property had been gifted to Sita Ram or that a family settlement had occurred. The court concluded that Brij Mohan had no authority to sell the property in its entirety without partition.
Brij Mohan and the appellant appealed the First Appellate Court’s decision to the High Court. The High Court upheld the decision of the First Appellate Court, reaffirming that Brij Mohan could not have sold the undivided property as the sole owner.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant, S.K. Golam Lalchand, approached the Supreme Court. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether Brij Mohan had the legal right to transfer the entire property to the appellant without the consent of the other co-owners, particularly the legal heirs of Salik Ram.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether Brij Mohan, the son of late Sita Ram, had the legal right to sell the entire property to S.K. Golam Lalchand.
Whether the alleged family settlement, which purportedly gave Brij Mohan sole ownership of the property, was valid and proved.
Whether the property was partitioned, or if it remained joint and undivided between the legal heirs of Sita Ram and Salik Ram.
Whether the sale deed dated May 19, 2006, executed by Brij Mohan in favour of S.K. Golam Lalchand, was valid for the entire property or only to the extent of Brij Mohan’s share.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

In the case of SK. Golam Lalchand vs. Nandu Lal Shaw & Ors. (2024 INSC 6761), the appellant (SK. Golam Lalchand) made several arguments to assert his rights as the purchaser of the disputed property. His contentions revolved around the validity of the sale deed, his rights as a bona fide purchaser, and the legal status of the property. The key contentions of the appellant are as follows:

The appellant argued that he was a bona fide purchaser of the entire property through a valid and registered sale deed executed by Brij Mohan on May 19, 2006. According to the appellant, the sale was legitimate as Brij Mohan, being the legal heir of late Sita Ram, had acquired the entire ownership rights of the property. Therefore, the sale deed conferred full legal title of the property upon the appellant.
The appellant contended that Brij Mohan had absolute ownership of the entire property. He claimed that Salik Ram, the brother of Sita Ram and the co-owner of the property, had gifted his share to Sita Ram in 1960. As a result, Sita Ram became the sole owner of the property, and after his death, his son Brij Mohan inherited the entire property. Thus, Brij Mohan was fully entitled to sell the property in its entirety to the appellant.
The appellant asserted that Brij Mohan’s three sisters had relinquished their rights to the property in favour of their brother. Therefore, according to the appellant, Brij Mohan had acquired the entire property and was legally competent to sell it. The relinquishment was implied, even though no formal deed was produced, based on Brij Mohan’s sole claim of ownership.
The appellant claimed that the property was already owned entirely by Brij Mohan due to the alleged gift from Salik Ram and the relinquishment by Brij Mohan’s sisters. Consequently, there was no need for partition or division of the property by metes and bounds before the sale to the appellant. He maintained that Brij Mohan, as the sole owner, could transfer the entire property without any need for partition or the consent of other heirs.
The appellant argued that the respondent (Nandu Lal) failed to produce any evidence to challenge Brij Mohan’s ownership or to prove the alleged co-ownership of the property. According to the appellant, the respondent’s claim that the property was undivided was not supported by any substantial evidence, and the lower courts had wrongly disbelieved Brij Mohan’s absolute ownership claim.
The appellant contended that although no formal gift deed was produced to prove the alleged gift of Salik Ram’s share to Sita Ram, the absence of the deed did not invalidate the ownership of Brij Mohan. He argued that the family arrangement, though not documented, was enough to establish Brij Mohan’s ownership of the entire property.
The appellant also argued that since respondent Nandu Lal had not sought formal cancellation of the sale deed, the court should not grant any relief to him. According to the appellant, without the cancellation of the sale deed, the plaintiff could not challenge the legality of the transfer and the suit should be dismissed on this ground alone.
The appellant also argued that since respondent Nandu Lal had not sought formal cancellation of the sale deed, the court should not grant any relief to him. According to the appellant, without the cancellation of the sale deed, the plaintiff could not challenge the legality of the transfer and the suit should be dismissed on this ground alone.
The appellant further contended that there was no illegality in his purchase of Brij Mohan’s share of the property. He argued that even if Brij Mohan was not the owner of the entire property, the sale deed would still be valid to the extent of Brij Mohan’s share, and he was entitled to legal remedies to acquire full rights through partition or compensation.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

The respondents raised several contentions challenging the legality of the sale deed and the appellant’s claim of ownership. The respondent’s arguments primarily revolved around the ownership structure of the property, the joint nature of the estate, and the invalidity of the sale. The key contentions of the respondents are as follows:

The respondent claimed that the disputed property was jointly owned by his father, the late Salik Ram, and his uncle, the late Sita Ram, who had equal rights in the property. The property, measuring 6 cottahs, 1 chittack and 30 sq. ft., had been purchased jointly by the two brothers in 1959, and no partition or division of the property had ever taken place. Thus, the property remained joint and undivided, with each brother’s heirs having equal rights.
The respondent denied the existence of any gift made by his father, the late Salik Ram, in favour of Sita Ram. He contended that there was no valid or legal gift deed transferring Salik Ram’s share of the property to Sita Ram. Since no such gift had taken place, the respondent argued that Brij Mohan (Sita Ram’s son) could not claim absolute ownership of the property.
The respondent argued that the sale deed executed by Brij Mohan on May 19, 2006, in favour of the appellant (SK. Golam Lalchand) was void. Since Brij Mohan did not have exclusive rights over the entire property, he had no authority to transfer the entire estate. The respondent emphasized that the property was jointly owned, and without partition, Brij Mohan could only sell his own undivided share, not the entire property.
The respondent contended that there was no family settlement dividing the property or settling ownership exclusively in favour of Brij Mohan. The claim of such a settlement was unsubstantiated, and no documentary evidence of partition or family settlement was ever produced by the appellant. As a result, the property remained undivided, and Brij Mohan could not sell it entirely.
The respondent argued that there was no proof of relinquishment of rights by Brij Mohan’s sisters. Even if Brij Mohan’s sisters had relinquished their rights in the property, no formal relinquishment deed was produced in evidence. Therefore, Brij Mohan did not have exclusive ownership of the property, as his sisters still held their respective shares.
The respondent maintained that, upon the deaths of Salik Ram and Sita Ram, their respective shares in the property were inherited by their legal heirs, including the respondent, his siblings, and Brij Mohan and his sisters. Therefore, the property belonged to multiple co-owners, and Brij Mohan alone could not sell or transfer the entire property without the consent of the other heirs or without partition.
The respondent argued that Brij Mohan was not competent to transfer the entire property, as his rights were limited to his undivided share. Since the property was still jointly owned by the heirs of both brothers, any sale of the entire property required consent from all co-owners. As such, the sale deed executed in favor of the appellant was not binding on the other co-owners, including the respondent.
The respondent sought an injunction to prevent the appellant from taking possession of the property. He argued that the appellant had no legal right to dispossess the other tenants or disturb the respondent’s possession of the property. As the sale deed was void and the property remained jointly owned, the appellant could not forcibly take possession or assert exclusive rights over the entire property.
The respondent contended that there was no obligation to seek formal cancellation of the sale deed executed by Brij Mohan. He argued that the sale deed was void ab initio (from the beginning) since Brij Mohan had no authority to sell the entire property. Therefore, the respondent sought relief through a declaration that the sale deed was invalid, rather than through its formal cancellation.
The respondent contended that the appellant was illegally attempting to take forcible possession of the property based on an invalid sale deed. Since the sale was not valid, the appellant had no legal right to take possession, evict tenants, or interfere with the respondent’s enjoyment of the property.
The respondent emphasized that the appellant failed to prove that the property had been partitioned by metes and bounds. Without a formal partition, the property remained jointly owned, and the sale of undivided property without consent from all co-owners was legally impermissible.
Lastly, the respondent argued that joint property cannot be transferred by one co-owner without the agreement of all co-owners. Since the property was jointly owned by multiple heirs, Brij Mohan alone could not transfer the entire property. The sale was only valid to the extent of Brij Mohan’s share in the property, and the appellant could only claim rights over that undivided portion.

JUDGEMENT

In Civil Appeal No. 4177 of 2024, the Supreme Court of India, through a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, delivered its final judgment on September 10, 2024, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant SK. Golam Lalchand. The Court upheld the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, affirming that the sale deed executed by Brij Mohan in favour of the appellant was not legally valid to the extent of the entire property.

The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant (SK. Golam Lalchand) and Brij Mohan failed to provide any conclusive evidence proving the alleged gift made by the late Salik Ram in favour of his brother, late, Sita Ram. No gift deed was produced to substantiate the claim that Salik Ram had gifted his share of the jointly purchased property to Sita Ram. As a result, Salik Ram and Sita Ram continued to be joint owners of the property until their deaths.
The Court held that Brij Mohan (son of Sita Ram) did not have exclusive ownership of the entire property. Since the property was jointly owned by both brothers, the sale of the entire property by Brij Mohan to the appellant (Lalchand) was not valid. Brij Mohan was only entitled to sell his own undivided share in the property, but not the shares belonging to his sisters or the heirs of Salik Ram.
The Court found no evidence of a family settlement or partition that would have divided the property among the heirs. As no such partition had taken place, the property continued to be jointly owned by multiple heirs, including the respondent (Nandu Lal) and Brij Mohan. Consequently, Brij Mohan’s authority to transfer the entire property was not established.
The Supreme Court reiterated that in cases of joint ownership, a co-owner cannot transfer the entire undivided property without the consent of the other co-owners. In this case, since Brij Mohan did not have the consent of his sisters or the heirs of Salik Ram, the sale deed in favor of the appellant could only be valid to the extent of Brij Mohan’s individual share in the undivided property.
The Court acknowledged that the appellant could, under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, claim rights to the extent of Brij Mohan’s share in the undivided property. However, the appellant did not acquire the entire property. The Supreme Court suggested that the appellant may seek remedies through a partition suit or by claiming compensation/damages against Brij Mohan for the incomplete transfer of ownership.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of injunction restraining the appellant from taking forcible possession of the property or disturbing the rights of the respondent (Nandu Lal) and other tenants. The Court ruled that the appellant had no right to forcibly evict the other occupants or claim ownership over the entire property until a proper partition was executed.
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the respondent (Nandu Lal) had failed to seek formal cancellation of the sale deed. The Court clarified that under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it was not mandatory for the respondent to request the cancellation of the sale deed, as the deed was void ab initio (from the outset). The respondent’s suit for declaration and injunction was sufficient to establish his rights.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Brij Mohan alone could not transfer the entire property without partitioning it and determining the shares of the other co-owners. The sale deed executed in favour of the appellant was only valid to the extent of Brij Mohan’s share in the property, and the appellant could not claim exclusive ownership over the entire property. The decree of permanent injunction against the appellant was upheld, preventing him from forcibly taking possession of the property.

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case underscores the importance of adhering to established legal procedures in property transactions, especially in cases involving joint ownership. The ruling clearly states that a co-owner’s rights are restricted to their undivided share of the property. Without the consent of other co-owners or a formal partition, no co-owner can unilaterally sell the entire property. This principle protects the interests of all co-owners and ensures that one party cannot deprive others of their rights. The Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s claim of an oral gift or family settlement highlights the need for proper documentation in property transactions. Under Indian law, transfers of immovable property, such as gifts or settlements, must be formally documented and registered. Oral agreements, particularly in cases involving high-value property, are unlikely to hold legal weight. The Court’s suggestion that the appellant file a partition suit reflects the standard legal remedy available in cases of disputes over joint ownership. A partition allows for the division of the property based on each co-owner’s share, ensuring that all parties receive their due rights. This mechanism is a crucial safeguard against arbitrary transfers of joint property. The case also serves as a reminder for purchasers to conduct thorough legal due diligence before acquiring property. In this case, the appellant’s failure to verify the complete ownership status of the property led to prolonged litigation and financial loss. Proper verification of title and ownership, including checking for partition or consent from all co-owners, is essential to avoid legal complications.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s judgment in SK. Golam Lalchand vs. Nandu Lal Shaw & Ors. reinforces critical principles of Indian property law, particularly concerning the rights of co-owners in undivided property. The ruling emphasizes the limitations on a co-owner’s ability to transfer joint property without partition or the consent of other co-owners. It also highlights the need for proper documentation in property transactions and the importance of conducting thorough legal due diligence.

For future property disputes, this case serves as a significant precedent, reaffirming the necessity of formal partition and the legal protections available to co-owners in undivided property. The judgment stands as a vital lesson for all stakeholders in real estate transactions about the importance of clarity in ownership and adherence to legal processes.

REFERENCES

This Article is written by Shravya Mohan, student of the National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.