Supreme Court Upholds Co-sharer Rights in Property Dispute: T. Ramalingeswara Rao vs. N. Madhava Rao (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 05, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 309

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can one co-owner of a property seek an injunction to prevent another co-owner from using it? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a dispute among family members over inherited land. The Court examined whether the High Court was right in granting an injunction in favor of one set of co-owners against another. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute among co-sharers. The land in question was originally owned by Poornayya, who had several sons. After his death, the land was inherited by his sons, making them co-sharers. The plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1-3), who are the sons of one of the co-sharers, filed a civil suit seeking a perpetual injunction against the defendants (appellants, defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and respondent Nos. 5-9, defendant Nos. 4-8). The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession of the suit property. The appellants had purchased the suit land from another co-sharer through a registered sale deed.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiffs filed a first appeal before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, who also dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s decision. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a second appeal in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and granting a decree of perpetual injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. This led to the defendants (appellants) filing a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal principle at play here is that the possession of one co-sharer is considered the possession of all co-sharers. This possession is not adverse to other co-sharers unless there is a clear denial of their rights, which must be known to them, followed by exclusion and ouster for the statutory period. The Supreme Court referred to the case of Mohammad Baqar & Ors. vs. Naim-un-Nisa Bibi & Ors. (AIR 1956 SC 548) to support this principle.

Arguments

The plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1-3) argued that they were in peaceful possession of the suit property and were entitled to an injunction to protect their possession from interference by the defendants. They claimed that their possession was exclusive and should be protected against the other co-sharers and those claiming through them.

The defendants (appellants) contended that they had purchased the suit property from one of the co-sharers. They argued that as purchasers, they stepped into the shoes of their vendor (the co-sharer) and had the right to defend their title and possession against other co-sharers. They also argued that the plaintiffs had failed to prove exclusive possession to the exclusion of other co-sharers.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the central issue as:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the plaintiffs’ second appeal and decreeing their suit by granting a decree of perpetual injunction against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in relation to the suit property.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

• Mohammad Baqar & Ors. vs. Naim-un-Nisa Bibi & Ors. (AIR 1956 SC 548): The Supreme Court cited this case to reiterate the principle that the possession of one co-sharer is considered the possession of all co-sharers, and it cannot be adverse to them unless there is a denial of their right to their knowledge, and exclusion and ouster following thereon for the statutory period.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have interfered with these findings unless they were against the law, pleadings, evidence, or were perverse. Additionally, the Court reiterated the principle that the possession of one co-sharer is the possession of all, and it is not adverse to other co-sharers unless there is a clear denial of their rights. The Court also found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their exclusive possession of the suit property.

The Court stated, “In our considered opinion, the High Court erred in interfering in the concurrent findings of facts of the two Courts below, which dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit.”

The Court further noted, “It is a settled principle of law that the possession of one co-sharer is possession of all co-sharers, it cannot be adverse to them, unless there is a denial of their right to their knowledge by the person in possession, and exclusion and ouster following thereon for the statutory period.”

The Court concluded, “In the light of the aforesaid admitted position arising in the case, in our view, the plaintiffs had no case to claim injunction against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in relation to the suit property.”

Key Takeaways

• A co-sharer cannot claim a perpetual injunction against another co-sharer regarding a joint property unless they can prove adverse possession, meaning a clear denial of the other co-sharer’s rights, which must be known to them, followed by exclusion and ouster for the statutory period.
• Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding on the High Court unless they are against the law, pleadings, evidence, or are perverse.
• Purchasers of property from a co-sharer step into the shoes of the vendor and have the right to defend their title and possession against other co-sharers.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restored the judgment/decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a co-sharer cannot claim a perpetual injunction against another co-sharer regarding a joint property unless they can prove adverse possession. This judgment reinforces the established principle that the possession of one co-sharer is the possession of all, and it is not adverse to other co-sharers unless there is a clear denial of their rights, which must be known to them, followed by exclusion and ouster for the statutory period. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and reinstating the decisions of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to prove their exclusive possession and were not entitled to an injunction against the other co-sharers. The judgment reinforces the principle that the possession of one co-sharer is the possession of all, and it is not adverse to other co-sharers unless there is a clear denial of their rights, which must be known to them, followed by exclusion and ouster for the statutory period.