JAI SINGH & ORS. versus GURMEJ SINGH

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 20-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 1 S.C.R. 413 
JAi SINGH & ORS. 
A 
II. 
GURMEJ SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 321 of 2009) 
JANUARY 20, 2009 
8 
• 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913- s.15(1)(b)- Pre-emption 
- Sale of specific portion of land out of joint holding by one c 
of the co-owners-vendor to vendee, if pre-empitible - Held: 
Is pre-emptible uls. 15(1 )(b) - It is a sale of a share out of the 
joint holding - Co-sharer puts vendee into possession of land 
in his possession - He transfers his right as a co-sharer in 
the said land and right to remain in the exclusive possession 
D 
-j 
till joint holding is partitioned amongst all co-sharers. 
Sale - Joint property- lnter-se rights and liabilities of co-
sharers - Governing principles - Explained. 
The question which arose for consideration in this E 
appeal was whether High Court was right in holding that 
when there is sale of a specific portion of a land described 
by particular Khasra numbers by a co-owner out of the 
joint khewat, the vendees become co-owners with other 
co-sharers in the joint land and in the event of their 
F 
. becoming co-owners, the sale is pre-emptible under 
section 15(1)(b) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. 
P;lsmissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The principles relating to the inter-se G 
" 
t 
rights and liabilities of co-sharers are as follows: (I) A co-
owner has an interest in the whole property and also in 
every parcel of it. (2) Possession of joint property by one 
co-owner is in the eye of law, possession of all even if all 
H 
413 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS · 
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A but one are actually out of possession. (3) A mere 
occupation of a larger portion or even of an entire joint 
property does not necessarily amount to ouster as the 
possession of one is deemed to be on behalf of all. (4) 
The above rule admits of an exception when there is 
B ouster of a co-owner by another. But in order to negative 
the presumption of joint possession on behalf of all, on 
the ground of ouster, the possession .of a co-owner must 
not only be exclusive but also hostile to the knowledge 
of the other as, when a co-owner openly asserts his own 
c title and denies, that of the other. (5) Passage of time does 
not extinguish the right of the co-owner who has been 
out of possession of the joint property except in the event 
of ouster or abandonment. (6) Every co-owner has a right 
to use the joint property in a husband like manner not 
0 inconsistent with similar rights of other co-owners. (7) 
Where a co-owner is in possession of separate parcels 
under an arrangement consented by the other co-owners, 
it is not open to any body to disturb the arrangement 
without the consent of others except by filing a suit for 
E partition. [Para 7) [419-A-H] 
1.2. When a co-sharer is in exclusive possession of 
some portion of the joint holding he is in possession 
thereof as a co-sharer and is entitled to continue in its 
possession if it is not more than his share till the joint 
F holding is partitioned. Vendor cannot sell any property 
with better rights than himself. As a necessary corollary 
when a co-sharer sells his share in the joint holding or 
any portion thereof and puts the vendee into possession 
of the land in his possession what he transfers is his 
G right as a co-sharer in the said land and the right to 
remain in its exclusive possession till the joint holding is 
partitioned amongst all co-sharers. [Para 8) [420-A-C] 
1.3. Sale of subsequent portion of the land out of the 
H joint holding by one of the co-owners is nothing but a 
JAi SINGH & ORS. v. GURMEJ SINGH 
415 
sale of a share out of the joint holding and is pre-emptible 
A 
under Section 15 (1) (b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 
1913. [Para 9) [420-0) 
Bhartu v. Ram Sarup 1981 P.L.J. 204, approved. · 
Pokhar (dead) by Lrs. and Ors. v. Ram Singh Civil 8 
Appeal No. 4418 of 1986 disposed of by SC on August 
14, 2001, relied on. 
Lachhman Singh. v. Pritam Chand AIR 1970 P & H 304, 
referred to. 
C 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR 1970 P & H 304 
Referred to. 
1981 P.L.J. 204 
Approved 
Para 3 
Para 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 321 
of 2009. 
' 
..... 
From the Judgment dated 10.11.2006 of the High Court 
D 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Regular Second 
E 
Appeal No. 3125 of 1994. 
Vijay K. Mehta for the Appellants. 
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sanjay Singh, Umang Shankar and 
Ugra Shankar Prasad for the Respondent. 
F 
The Jud
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.