Undivided share of co-parcener can be transferred but possession cannot be handed over to him

Undivided share of co-parcener can be transferred but possession cannot be handed over to him

Ramdas vs. Sitabai

Para 15: Without there being any physical formal partition of an undivided land property, a co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession although such a co-sharer may have a right to transfer his undivided share. Reliance in this regard may be placed to a decision of this Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao vs. M. Narasimhaswami & Ors. [AIR 1966 SC 470], wherein this court stated as follows:

“Now, it is well settled that the purchaser of a co-parcener’s undivided interest in the joint family property in not entitled to possession of what he had purchased. His only right is to sue for partition of the property and ask for the allotment to him of that which, on partition, might be found to fall to the share of the co-parcener whose share he had purchased.”

Para 16: It may be mentioned herein that the aforesaid findings and the conclusions were recorded by the Supreme Court by placing reliance upon an earlier judgment of this court in Sidheshwar Mukherjee Vs. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh & Ors. [AIR 1953 SC 487], wherein this Court held as under:-

“All that (vendee) purchased at the execution sale, was the undivided interest of the co-parcener in the joint property. He did not acquire the title to any defined share in the property and was not entitled to joint possession from the date of his purchase. He could work-out his rights only by a suit for partition and his right to possession right to possession would date from the period when a specific allotment was made in his favour (Emphasis added).

Para 17: In view of the aforesaid position there could be no dispute with regard to the fact that an undivided share of the co-parcener may be a subject matter of sale, but possession cannot be handed over to the vendee unless the property is partitioned by metes and bounds amicably and through mutual settlement or by a decree of the Court.

Civil Court not to grant interim injunction against departmental inquiry unless it is found that the inquiry is without the jurisdiction

1986 G.L.H. 592

Vidhya Vikas Kelvani Trust V/s. Ghanshyambhai Marghabhai Patel

Civil Procedure Code 1908 – Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 – Interim injunction restraining disciplinary authority from holding departmental enquiry – grant of – Service law – Initiation of Departmental inquiry.

admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *