Legal provisions involved: Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Judgement by: Madras High Court

Judge/Bench: Justice R. Sakthivel

Facts

The plaintiff and the first defendant were sister and brother. Their father, Muthusamy Gounder, owned the suit properties and died without making a Will. After the death of their mother in 2012, both siblings were in joint possession of the properties. Without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, the first defendant sold the entire property to the second defendant. The plaintiff demanded partition, which was refused, leading her to file a suit seeking her share and cancellation of the sale deed.

Key legal provisions

Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Issues raised

Whether mortgaging the property and revenue records in the name of one co-heir can end joint possession, and whether the sale deed was valid against the plaintiff.

Arguments of the case

The plaintiff claimed joint ownership and lack of consent. The defendants argued that the first defendant alone was in possession based on patta and mortgage documents.

Judgement

The Court held that merely mortgaging the property or having revenue records in one co-heir’s name does not break joint possession. Since there was no clear denial of the plaintiff’s rights, ouster was not proved. The plaintiff was held entitled to a ½ share, and the sale deed was declared invalid to that extent. The appeal was allowed.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.