The single judge bench of the Jharkhand high court held that in the case of co-owners and successors who succeed the property of their ancestor, they are always deemed to be in possession of the property jointly unless and until the partition takes place by mets and bound. The possession of one co-sharer is possession for all.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that one B. Sarojani instituted the Partition suit. It was alleged that the suit property belonged to one Bollu Nar Singha Rao leaving behind him two daughters, namely, B. Sarojani (Plaintiff) and Kaligatla Chinna (mother of defendant no.2), and one adopted son namely, B. Mohan Rao (defendant no.1) as his legal heirs and successors and they came into joint possession over the suit properties. It was furthermore alleged that the plaintiffs asked the defendants for the amicable partition of the suit property by mets and bounds, however they declined.
The written statement was filed by defendant no. 1 in which it was alleged that the after death of Bollu Nar Singha Rao his both daughters, plaintiff and defendant no.2 were residing at their matrimonial home after marriage. The suit property has never been in joint possession and enjoyment of both the parties of the suit and the same is being possessed by the answering defendant himself exclusively after the death of his father.
The learned trial court held that there is unity of title and possession between the parties over the suit property and each party has got 1/3rd share therein which resulted in the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant submitted that the daughters were not in joint possession as they were both living in their matrimonial home. It was furthermore submitted that all the legal heirs of B. Nar Singha Rao have not been joint as a party in this suit.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent submitted that both the parties are Hindu and will be governed by the provision of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was furthermore submitted that there exists no doubt that B. Nar Singha Rao died intestate therefore, the property left by him was devolved upon his heirs and legal representatives of the deceased as per provision of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and the plaintiff and defendants are class 1 heirs of the deceased, hence, entitled for an equal share in the property left by the deceased.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that unless and until the property is divided by mets and bounds, co-owners and successors who inherit their ancestor's property are always considered to be in joint possession of the property. The Possession of one co-sharer is possession for all.
It was furthermore observed that for claiming partition of the joint property there is no prescribed limitation and it may be claimed at any time by any of the co-sharers who feel in-convenience or his share is denied.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the learned trial court had considered all the aspects in the proper perspective of the factual background of the case and appreciating the evidence available on record rightly decided the share of the original plaintiff. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree which is hereby upheld and confirmed.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: T. Shailja @ T. Shailza Vs B. Sarojani
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: F.A. No. 261 of 2019
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mrs. Prachi Pradipti, Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
