Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court

“Joint Sale Deed Means Joint Ownership”, In a significant ruling reiterating settled principles governing co-ownership and the limited scope of interference under Section 100 CPC, the Madras High Court dismissed a Second Appeal and upheld a preliminary decree for partition of half share in favour of the plaintiff.

Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that when a property is purchased under a registered sale deed in joint names, a presumption of co-ownership arises, and a mere plea that the entire sale consideration was paid by one party is insufficient to dislodge such presumption without cogent evidence. The Court further ruled that long or exclusive possession by one co-owner does not amount to ouster unless clear hostile animus is established.

The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were affirmed.

Joint Purchase In 1995, Partition Suit Filed After 15 Years

The suit property was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 08.05.1995 (Ex.A1) in the joint names of the plaintiff and his brother, the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the property was jointly enjoyed and revenue records stood mutated in both their names.

When the plaintiff demanded partition and separate possession of his half share, the defendant allegedly refused. A legal notice demanding partition was issued but went unanswered, compelling the plaintiff to file O.S. No. 140 of 2010.

The defendant resisted the suit contending that he alone had paid the entire sale consideration and that the plaintiff was merely a name lender. He further claimed that he had been in exclusive possession since 1995 and had perfected title by adverse possession and ouster.

The Trial Court decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court confirmed the decree. Aggrieved, the defendant preferred the present Second Appeal.

Substantial Questions Of Law

The Second Appeal was admitted on questions including whether the courts below failed to consider payment of sale consideration under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, and whether the defendant had perfected title by adverse possession since the sale deed dated 08.05.1995.

“When Sale Deed Stands In Joint Names, They Are Considered Joint Owners”

The High Court began its analysis by reiterating the legal presumption attached to a joint sale deed.

“A defendant generally cannot claim exclusive ownership of the property when the sale deed lists both the plaintiff and the defendant as joint owners. When a sale deed stands in the name of both the parties, they are considered joint owners.”

The Court held that if one co-sharer is in physical possession, the other is deemed to be in constructive possession. Mere exclusive enjoyment does not extinguish the rights of the other co-owner unless explicit hostile title is proved.

The defendant had neither examined witnesses nor produced documentary evidence to establish that he alone paid the entire sale consideration. In contrast, the plaintiff produced revenue records (Ex.A2 and Ex.A3) reflecting joint possession.

The Court observed that the burden heavily lay on the defendant to rebut the presumption of joint ownership, which he failed to discharge.

Benami Plea Barred Under The 1988 Act

The defendant’s contention that the plaintiff was only a name lender was treated as a plea of benami.

The Court noted that such a plea is barred under Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. In any event, no specific pleadings or evidence were adduced to establish that the transaction was benami in nature.

The judgment makes it clear that mere assertion of exclusive payment of consideration does not suffice to prove benami character, especially when the registered sale deed stands in joint names.

“Mere Long Possession Or Exclusive Enjoyment Does Not Destroy Co-Ownership”

On the plea of adverse possession, the Court reiterated the strict standard required between co-owners.

“Mere long possession or exclusive enjoyment by one co-owner does not destroy the co-ownership right of the other, unless explicit hostile title is proven.”

To establish adverse possession against a co-owner, the defendant was required to prove open, continuous and hostile possession to the knowledge of the plaintiff for the statutory period, coupled with animus possidendi.

The Court found that:

“The claim of the defendant that he has exclusive right, open, continuous and hostile possession to the exclusion of the plaintiff for a statutory period is also not proved.”

No evidence was produced to demonstrate ouster or hostile animus. On the contrary, revenue records supported joint possession. The defendant’s failure to reply to the legal notice demanding partition also led to an adverse inference.

Scope Of Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC

Justice Thilakavadi emphasized the limited scope of interference in a Second Appeal. The findings of fact recorded by both courts below were based on appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from perversity or misapplication of law.

The substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant.

The Court concluded:

“The courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff which warrants any interference by this Court.”

The Second Appeal was dismissed. The decree and judgment dated 23.08.2016 in A.S. No. 9 of 2013 confirming the decree dated 12.08.2013 in O.S. No. 140 of 2010 were upheld. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No costs were awarded.

Exclusive Payment Alone Cannot Defeat Joint Title

The judgment reinforces three settled principles of property law. First, a registered joint sale deed creates a strong presumption of co-ownership. Second, adverse possession between co-owners requires strict proof of ouster and hostile animus. Third, pleas of benami are heavily circumscribed by statutory bar and stringent evidentiary burden.

The Madras High Court has thus clarified that unsupported claims of exclusive payment or long possession cannot override documentary title reflected in a joint sale deed.

Date of Decision: 05 February 2026