Supreme Court: If Principal Prayer For Estate Administration Is Rejected As Non-Maintainable, Any Other Prayer For Partition Cannot Be Granted Without Impleading Proper Parties
The Supreme Court dismissed an Appeal challenging the validity of a sale deed executed in 1969 concerning a property dispute.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that when the principal prayer for administration of the estate is rejected as non-maintainable, any other prayer indirectly seeking partition cannot be granted until the proper parties are impleaded in the suit.
The Court dismissed an Appeal challenging the validity of a sale deed executed in 1969 concerning a property dispute. The Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision, which had reversed the Trial Court’s decision that declared the sale deed null and void.
A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held, “We accord our imprimatur to the conclusion drawn by the High Court that when the principal prayer for administration of the estate was rejected by the Trial Court, that too as non-maintainable, any other prayer which indirectly seeks partition cannot be granted, until the proper parties are impleaded in the suit. As noted hereinbefore, the third to fifth defendants, who are the Plaintiff’s sisters, have not filed any suit seeking their share in the suit property.”
Senior Advocate Prasenjit Keswani appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Ajit Bhasme represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The dispute concerned a property inherited by the Appellant and her siblings after their father’s death in 1967. One of the heirs, allegedly obtained the sisters' signatures on blank papers and sold half the property in 1969 to the respondnet. The Appellant challenged the sale, claiming it was unauthorised and sought administration of the estate, a declaration that the sale deed was void, and possession of the sold portion.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court explained, “We are of the firm opinion that the High Court rightly reversed the finding of the Trial Court which set aside the Sale Deed dated 10.01.1969 in favour of the second defendant by Vishnu in toto, inasmuch as Vishnu had 1/5th undivided share in the suit property, belonging to the deceased.”
The Bench further explained, “The High Court has also rightly set aside the decree of possession against the second defendant, as the said relief was incapable of being granted by reason of the fact that the third to fifth defendants had not filed any suit in this behalf, whilst the Plaintiff herself was entitled only to a 1/5th share in the suit property. The suit, as filed by the Plaintiff, sought administration of the deceased’s estate, with the ancillary prayer being to ascertain the share of the Plaintiff and the original defendants no.1 and 3 to 5 in the suit property.”
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the reasons stated above, this Court directs that the Plaintiff cannot be disturbed with her possession until the suit property is partitioned in accordance with law. The second defendant shall only have 1/5th share in the suit property, which fell to Vishnu on the demise of the deceased, as the Sale Deed dated 10.01.1969 in favour of the second defendant by Vishnu is held valid only to such extent.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the Appeal.
Cause Title: Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v. Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 355)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Prasenjit Keswani; AOR Manik Karanjawala; Advocates Debmalya Banerjee, Kartik Bhatnagar and Rohan Sharma
Respondents: Senior Advocate Ajit Bhasme; AOR Sanjay Kumar Visen and Bina Gupta; Advocates Parth Sarathi, Prashant Sharma, Gyanendra Vikram Singh, Soumya Gulati, Ram Chandra and Shoumik Dutta