LexGANGUBAI RAGHUNATH AYARE versus GANGARAM SAKHARAM DHURI (D) THR. LRS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 184 : 2025 INSC 355 Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v. Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs and Ors. Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs (R1 to R8) R1: Anandi Gangaram Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs (R2 to R8) R2: Sunanda Gangaram Dhuri R3: Vaishali Vilas Majalkar R4: Kavita Kashiram Ugave R5: Vithal Gangaram Dhuri R6: Mangesh Gangaram Dhuri R7: Babaji Gangaram Dhuri R8: Geeta Subhash Baraskar R9: Laxmibai Vishnu Shelar Ladubai Mahadev Rane (D) Thr. LRs (R10 to R13) R10: Hemlata Arjun Tawde R11: Pratibha Sawant R12: Supriya Pawar R13: Sunanda Rane R14: Shantabai Mahadev Ayare (D) R15: Pushpa Prabhakar Gudekar (LR of R14) R16: Tai Shankar Pawar (Civil Appeal No. 3183 of 2009) 17 March 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in holding that when the principal prayer for administration of the estate was rejected by the Trial Court, any other prayer indirectly seeking partition could not have been granted, until the proper parties were impleaded in the suit; whether the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant by ‘V’ was valid to the extent of his undivided share in the suit property. * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 185 Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v. Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs and Ors. Headnotes† Suit – Proper parties/necessary party – Non-joinder – ‘V’ (brother of the plaintiff and the third to fifth defendants) sold ½ portion of the suit property belonging to their deceased father, to the 2nd defendant – Plaintiff inter alia sought administration of the deceased’s estate and declaration that the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant was null and void – Trial Court rejected the prayer for administration of the estate however, declared the sale void in toto and directed the 2nd defendant to handover possession of ½ portion of the suit property – Appeal filed by 2nd defendant, allowed by High Court – Challenged: Held: High Court was right in holding that when the principal prayer for administration of the estate was rejected by the Trial Court, that too as non-maintainable, any other prayer indirectly seeking partition could not have been granted, until the proper parties were impleaded in the suit – The decree of possession against the 2nd defendant was also rightly set aside by the High Court, as the said relief could not have been granted as the third to fifth defendants had not filed any suit seeking their share in the suit property, whilst the Plaintiff herself was entitled only to a 1/5th share in the suit property – On the passing away of ‘V’, during the pendency of the suit, only his wife was brought on record, whereas his sons and daughters were not impleaded in the suit by the Plaintiff – Further, ‘V’ had 1/5th undivided share in the suit property, belonging to the deceased – Thus, the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant by ‘V’ is valid only to such extent – Furthermore, the Plaintiff cannot be disturbed with her possession until the suit property is partitioned in accordance with law. [Paras 23, 24, 26] Case Law Cited Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Collector [2003] 2 SCR 180 : (2003) 3 SCC 472; Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal [2008] 14 SCR 621 : (2008) 17 SCC 491 – relied on. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Transfer of Property Act, 1882. List of Keywords Proper parties; Necessary party; Administration of estate; Principal prayer; Ancillary prayer; Suit property; Exclusive owner; Proper 186 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports parties; Impleadment; Possession; Sale Deed valid to the extent of undivided share; Co-owners; Undivided share; Partition suit; Legal representatives; Hindu Undivided Family property; Misjoinder of parties; Non-joinder of necessary parties; Relinquishment deed; Legal heirs. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3183 of 2009 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2007 of the High Court of Bombay in FA No. 116 of 1988 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Prasenjit Keswani, Debmalya Banerjee, Kartik Bhatnagar, Rohan Sharma, Anmol, Nicholas Choudhury, Upmanyu Tewari, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala. Advs. for the Respondents: Ajit Bhasme, Sr. Adv., Parth Sarathi, Gyanendra Vikram Singh, Ms. Soumya Gulati, Raja Kumar Ojha, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Mrs. Bina Gupta. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard learned counsel and senior counsel appear
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.