Title-based possession claims fail without precise property identification; transferee from co-owner cannot demand exclusive possession of joint property

A transferee from a co-owner of undivided property acquires only the transferor's share in joint possession, common enjoyment and partition, and cannot claim exclusive possession of a specific portion unless partition or a lawful arrangement exists. In a possession suit based on title, the plaintiff must prove the strength of title and identify the suit property with certainty. Where the sale deed is not produced and the maps and descriptions do not match the plaint schedule, the claim fails because the property claimed is not established with precision. On these principles, the decree for possession could not be sustained, and refund of the consideration paid to the vendor was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a purchaser from a co-owner of an undivided property can exclusive possession of a specific part of the joint property; (ii) Whether the plaintiffs discharged the burden of proving title and proper identification of the suit property so as to obtain a decree for possession.

Issue (i): Whether a purchaser from a co-owner of an undivided property can exclusive possession of a specific part of the joint property.

Analysis: A transferee from a co-owner acquires only the transferor's right to joint possession, common enjoyment, and partition to the extent of the transferred share. Such a transferee stands in no better position than the co-owner and cannot claim exclusive possession of any particular portion of joint property unless the property has been partitioned or there is a lawful arrangement conferring such exclusive possession.

Conclusion: The claim for exclusive possession of a specific part of the undivided property was not sustainable; the proper remedy, if any, was partition.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs discharged the burden of proving title and proper identification of the suit property so as to obtain a decree for possession.

Analysis: In a suit for possession based on title, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the strength of his own title and to identify the property with certainty. The plaintiffs failed to place the sale deed on record and the maps and descriptions did not tally with the plaint schedule. As the identity of the suit land remained uncertain, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the property purchased by them was the very property claimed in the suit.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs failed to prove their title to the specific suit property and failed to discharge the burden of proof required for possession.

Final Conclusion: The decree for possession could not stand, and the appeal succeeded on that issue, while the plaintiffs were granted refund of the consideration paid to the vendor.

Ratio Decidendi: A purchaser from a co-owner of an undivided property cannot claim exclusive possession of a specific portion unless partition has been effected, and a suit for possession based on title must fail if the plaintiff cannot prove both title and precise identification of the suit property.

---