RAMDAS versus SITABAI & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 1106 · Decided: 29-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 1106 
r 
A 
RAMDAS 
V. 
·slTABAI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No .. 6508 of 2005) 
B 
MAY 29, 2009 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. S.S. 
.. 
~ 
CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
J 
-< 
Partition - Suit for partition and possession - Of four plots 
• 
c - Claiming half share -Defendant Co-sharer selling one plot 
, without consent of the plaintiff - Trial Court holding that the 
plaintiff was entitled to only ~ share - First appellate court 
holding the plaintiff entitled to Y2 share - Declaring the sale 
as void, direction to purchaser to hand-over possession of the 
D plot to the co-sharers - High Court in sec·ond appeal, 
y 
modifying the decree holding that sale to the extent of share 
-
of the plaintiff void - Direction to purchaser to hand-over the 
possession of half share to the plaintiff - On appeal, held: 
Plaintiff was entitled to Y2 share in all 4 plots - The co-sharer 
E could not have sold the property more than his share, nor 
could have delivered possession till the partition of the 
property - The Court even under equity cannot give the sold 
)( 
plot to the vendee and adjust the share of the co-sharers from 
the remaining three plots as the sold plot was extremely 
F valuable - Transfer of property. 
Respondent No. 1 filed a- suit seeking decree of 
partition against her brother defendant No. 1 in the 
property (4 plots) left behind by their father, claiming to 
be co-sharer to the extent of half share. It was contended 
i 
G that defendant No.1 had sold one plot in its entirety to 
defendant No. 3 (appellant) without ·her consent, and thus 
the sale was void and not binding on her. She also 
prayed for recovery of possession. Trial court passed a 
H 
1106 
=( 
L 
RAMDAS v. SITABAI & ORS. 
1107 
decree holding that the plaintiff was entitled to Y .. share 
A 
of the suit property and defendant No. 1 was entitled to 
o/ .. share. 
In appeal, first appellate court held that the plaintiff 
was entitled to half share; that sale by defendant No. 1 8 
in favour of defendant-appellant was not binding on her. 
Defendant-appellant was directed to hand over the 
possession of the purchased· property to the co-sharers . 
. Second appeal was filed by appellant. High Court 
disposed of the appeal by way of a consent decree C 
whereby the decree by first .appellate court was modified 
holding that the sale to the appellant was null and void 
and not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of half share 
in that plot. High Court further directed the appellant to 
hand over the possession of the plot to the plaintiff to the 
D 
~ 
extent of her half share. Hence the present appeal. 
) 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Without there being any physical formal 
partition of an undivided landed property, a co-sharer E 
cannot put a vendee in possession although such a co-
sharer may have a right to transfer his undivided share. 
[Para 15) [1114-F-G] 
M. V. S. Manikayala Rao vs. M. Narasimhaswami and 
F 
Ors. AIR 1966SC 
470; 
Sidheshwar Mukherjee 
vs. 
Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh and Ors. AIR 1953 SC 
487, relied on. 
2. All the 4 plots of land which are the suit property 
were joint property and therefore, the plaintiff and 
G 
defendant No. 1 owned and possessed half undivided 
share each in all the 4 properties. The defendant No.1 
who is the brother of the plaintiff could not have therefore 
sold the piece of land in its entirety in favour of the 
H 
~ 
t 
1108 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. 
, 
' ' 
A defendant-appellant, in as much as the aforesaid land was 
~ 
undivided and the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were two 
co-sharers in the said property. High Court, therefore, 
was correct and legally justified in declaring the plaintiff 
as the owner and holder of half of the shares in all the 
B four properties which are undivided. The defendant No.1 
being a co-sharer could not have sold by a registered 
~ 
sale deed more than his share nor could he have 
I:-
delivered possession till the said property is partitioned 
·~ .... 
by the parties amicably or through the intervention of the 
I 
c court. (Para 14] [1113-G-H; 1114-A-C] 
3. ltis settled law under the Transfer 'of Property Act, 
that a purchaser cannot have a better title than what his 
vender had. The possession which is claimed by the 
defendant-appellant in respect of the entire land was also 
D illegal and without proper sanction of law. So long as the 
property is joint and not-partitioned, the defendant- · 
y 
,.._ 
appellant is not entit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.