Coparceners Can Only Alienate Their Own Shares, Not Specific Portions Of Joint Hindu Family Property: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that if the property was indeed part of a Joint Hindu Family Property, no coparcener or co-sharer could alienate a specific piece of land without a proper partition.
The petitioners challenged orders that had prohibited them from constructing on the land they purchased, a restriction the petitioners argued caused them irreparable harm. The Court examined whether a specific piece of land that was not part of an individual coparcener’s share could be alienated.
A Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held that, “Although a coparcener or co-sharer can alienate to the extent of his share but he cannot alienate any specific piece of land. Therefore, at the most the petitioners can be said to have purchased a share of coparceners/Co-sharer still they are not entitled for any specific piece of land.”
Advocate Shitla Prasad Tripathi appeared for the Petitioners.
Additionally, the Court reviewed Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which deals with property transactions during the pendency of a legal suit. This section prohibits the transfer or modification of property in a manner that affects the rights of any party involved in the litigation.
The Court noted that Section 52's provisions apply regardless of whether a temporary injunction is in place at the time of the sale. This means that even though no temporary injunction was imposed when the sale deeds were executed, the transactions would still be subject to the constraints of Section 52. Consequently, the rights of the purchasers (the petitioners) would be contingent upon the outcome of the ongoing suit.
The Court found that the lower courts had correctly restrained the petitioners from construction on the disputed land. The Court added, “both the courts below have restrained the petitioners from raising construction over the disputed piece of land, therefore, it cannot be said that the Courts below have committed any material illegality by passing such a temporary injunction order.”
The Court underscored that even though the property was sold during a period without a temporary injunction, the sales were still governed by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court said, “Thus, if any sale-deed has been executed by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioners no. 2 and 3 during the pendency of the suit, and even if there was no temporary injunction order, still the said sale-deeds would be subject to the provisions of section 52 of Transfer of Property Act.”
Cause Title: Ahamad Khan & Ors. v. Bhaskar Ddatt Pandey & Ors.
