Contributions To Construction Do Not Confer Exclusive Title Unless Backed By Proof Of Consent Or Separate Agreement: Calcutta High Court Affirms Equal Ownership In Joint Property

In a significant judgment Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal in a partition suit affirming that all co-sharers of a jointly owned property are entitled to equal ownership unless exclusive title is proven through clear evidence of consent or agreement. The Bench, comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Subhendu Samanta, upheld a preliminary decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court at Barasat, in 2015, declaring equal shares of all co-sharers in the disputed property, including the land and the entire G+2 building constructed on it.

The Court clarified that contributions by a co-sharer to the construction of any part of the property do not automatically grant exclusive ownership. Instead, such contributions can be considered during the final decree stage for adjustments of owelty money or allocation of possession.

The dispute arose over a jointly owned property located in North 24 Parganas. The appellants (legal heirs of the original defendant) claimed exclusive ownership of the first and second floors of the building, alleging that they were solely responsible for funding their construction. They argued that by virtue of their contributions, they were entitled to exclusive possession of those portions of the property.

The plaintiff/respondent, on the other hand, contended that the entire property, including the land and all the floors of the building, was jointly owned, as the construction of the additional floors was part of a G+2 plan sanctioned in the names of both parties.

The trial court, in its preliminary decree dated January 22, 2015, declared equal shares for all co-sharers in the entire property, including the additional constructions. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants filed the present appeal.

The appellants argued that the first and second floors were constructed solely by the defendant (now deceased) with her own funds and with the assistance of her sons. They submitted that DW1 (Defendant Witness 1) had produced documents during trial to establish this claim, including receipts for construction materials.

It was argued that the defendant and her family had been in exclusive possession of the first and second floors, while the plaintiff occupied only the ground floor. The appellants pointed out the existence of separate entrances, water, and electricity connections as evidence of exclusive possession.

The appellants alleged that the trial court misconstrued the defendant’s statements during cross-examination and failed to appreciate the evidence produced to establish the exclusive ownership of the upper floors.

The respondent emphasized that the sanctioned plan for the G+2 building was obtained jointly by both co-sharers. In the absence of documentary proof to establish exclusive funding for the construction of the upper floors, the entire property, including the additional constructions, remained joint property.

The respondent pointed out that the appellants had failed to produce admissible evidence during the trial to substantiate their claim of exclusive ownership. The documents relied upon by the appellants were not exhibited before the trial court.

The respondent argued that even if the appellants had made some contributions to the construction of the upper floors, such contributions did not confer exclusive ownership. At best, such claims could be considered during the final decree stage for adjustments of owelty money or allocation of possession.

The Court found that the appellants had failed to produce documentary evidence to prove their claim of exclusive ownership over the first and second floors. The only documents exhibited were the sale deed, occupancy certificate, and municipal tax receipts, which did not support the appellants’ claims.

"The defendant failed to produce admissible evidence to establish exclusive title in respect of the first and second stories of the building."

The Court noted that the sanctioned plan for the G+2 construction was obtained with the consent of both parties. As such, the additional constructions became part of the jointly owned property. Contributions by one co-sharer to the construction, even if proven, do not automatically confer exclusive ownership.

"The additional constructions, built on the already-existing joint property, would be part of the hotchpot of the partition suit."

The Court clarified that any claims of contributions to the construction could be addressed during the final decree stage, where adjustments could be made through owelty money or allocation of possession.

"It will be open to the parties to establish their possession and contributions during the final decree stage for due credit."

Based on the evidence, the Court held that the trial court was justified in declaring equal shares for all co-sharers in the property, including the land and the entire building.

"The trial court rightly declared equal shares of all parties, as no exclusive title was established."

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s judgment and preliminary decree, declaring equal ownership of all co-sharers in the property. It directed the trial court to expedite the final decree proceedings, ensuring cooperation from all parties.

The Court also emphasized that adjustments for contributions to construction, if proven, could be made during the final decree stage.

"There is no scope of interference with the judgment and preliminary decree. The trial court’s findings are affirmed."

This judgment reiterates the principle that contributions to the construction of joint property do not confer exclusive ownership unless there is clear evidence of consent or a separate agreement among co-sharers. It highlights the importance of treating additional constructions as part of the joint property unless proven otherwise.

The decision also underscores the distinction between preliminary and final decrees in partition suits. While a preliminary decree establishes ownership, claims of contributions and possession can be addressed during the final decree stage, ensuring fairness in the allocation of shares.

Date of Decision: January 2, 2025