Summary
A daughter of the deceased owner sued for administration of his estate, a declaration that the sale deed of 10 January 1969 by her brother (who claimed the whole property under an unproved relinquishment deed) in favour of the second defendant was void, and possession of the half portion sold. The Trial Court held the administration suit not maintainable but declared the sale void and decreed possession; the High Court reversed, holding the sale valid to the extent of the brother's undivided share and that no possession decree could be passed. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court: a co-owner's sale of more than his share is valid to the extent of his one-fifth share, and relief in the nature of partition cannot be granted in an administration suit held non-maintainable without the necessary parties; it protected the plaintiff's possession until partition and directed status quo.
Issues
- Whether a sale deed by which one co-owner purported to sell half of the suit property is void in its entirety or valid to the extent of the vendor's undivided share.
- Whether, once the principal prayer for administration of the estate was rejected as not maintainable, the Trial Court could grant a consequential declaration and a decree for possession that in substance amounted to partition, when the vendor's legal heirs and the other co-owners' claims were not before the Court.
- What interim protection should govern the parties until the property is partitioned.
Provisions considered
- Section 44, Transfer of Property Act, 1882The plaintiff relied on Section 44 (transfer by one co-owner) to argue that it was for the purchaser to seek partition of the share acquired. The Court held that the purchaser acquired only the undivided one-fifth share that fell to the vendor on the owner's death, the sale deed being valid only to that extent. (¶¶ 17, 23, 26)
- Order I Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Although no suit is to be defeated for misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, the proviso excludes non-joinder of a necessary party; care must be taken that necessary parties are before the court. On the vendor's death only his widow was brought on record and not his sons and daughters, so a prayer that indirectly sought partition could not be granted until the proper parties were impleaded. (¶ 24)
Held
- The High Court rightly reversed the Trial Court's finding setting aside the sale deed of 10 January 1969 in its entirety: the vendor had a one-fifth undivided share in the suit property and the sale deed in favour of the second defendant is valid to that extent only. (¶¶ 23, 26)
- The decree for possession against the second defendant was rightly set aside, since the plaintiff's sisters (defendants 3 to 5) had filed no suit for their shares and the plaintiff herself was entitled only to a one-fifth share; half the property could not be handed to her. (¶ 23)
- When the principal prayer for administration of the estate is rejected as non-maintainable, any other prayer which indirectly seeks partition cannot be granted until the proper parties are impleaded. Relief in a civil suit is confined by the pleadings, prayers, court fee, parties and evidence, and a court cannot grant whatever relief it thinks fit on the facts. (¶¶ 24, 25)
- Directions: the plaintiff shall not be disturbed in her possession until the suit property is partitioned in accordance with law; the second defendant has only the one-fifth share that fell to the vendor; a partition suit, if filed, is to be decided by the Trial Court within three months of filing given the passage of half a century; and the order of 1 May 2009 restraining alienation continues as status quo till partition. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
- Applications to condone delay, set aside abatement and bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent were allowed, the legal representatives already being on record as parties to the appeal. (¶ 30)
Result
Appeal disposed of with directions: sale deed valid only to the extent of the vendor's one-fifth share; plaintiff's possession protected and status quo on alienation to continue until partition; any partition suit to be decided within three months of filing. Costs made easy. I.A. Nos. 14513/2022 and 72967/2021 allowed.