TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Co-owner's Lack of Exclusive Possession Prevents Valid Title Transfer</h1> <h3>Baldev Singh Versus Smt. Darshani Devi And Anr.</h3> The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that a co-owner lacking exclusive possession cannot transfer valid title to a specific land portion. The ... - Issues:- Validity of title transfer by a co-owner in exclusive occupation of specific land portionAnalysis:The judgment pertains to a Second Appeal questioning the validity of a co-owner transferring title in a specific portion of land not in their exclusive occupation. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a land portion acquired through a sale deed, alleging dispossession by the defendants. The defendants claimed possession through an oral agreement with a co-owner, raising a residential house. The trial court granted possession to the plaintiff, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision, finding the defendants in lawful occupation pre-sale. The judgment cited the importance of possession in co-ownership scenarios, emphasizing joint possession principles. The court referred to a Division Bench of Punjab High Court's principles on co-ownership rights, highlighting the need for actual possession for valid title transfer.The court analyzed the evidence, noting the defendants' prior possession and construction on the land before the sale deed. It highlighted the plaintiff's admission of defendants' occupation at the sale date, supporting the finding that the co-owner transferring the title was not in actual possession. Referring to legal principles, the court emphasized that a co-owner not in exclusive possession cannot transfer valid title to a specific land portion. The judgment cited a Delhi High Court decision affirming the need for defined possession in joint family property for partition. Ultimately, the court held that the plaintiff's remedy lies in seeking compensation or a share in partition from the co-owner but not in claiming possession against the defendants.In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that a co-owner lacking exclusive possession cannot transfer valid title to a specific land portion. The judgment highlighted the importance of possession in co-ownership disputes and clarified the appropriate remedies for parties in such scenarios. The decision underscored the need for actual possession for valid title transfer and emphasized the principles governing co-ownership rights in joint property.
TaxTMI 
