MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Rights in Joint Property Purchases Proportional to Individual Contributions: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment concerning the interpretation of joint property ownership, Justice Sathish Ninan of the High Court of Kerala underscored the necessity of ascertaining proportional contributions in jointly purchased properties.

The crux of this case revolves around the interpretation of joint ownership under Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, particularly in a situation where two parties claim different contributions towards the purchase of a property. The appeal was made against the preliminary decree in a partition suit, challenging the recognition of joint ownership and the details of the purchase agreement.

The dispute involves two brothers, the appellant Nazimudeen and the respondent Muhammed Shafeeq, over a property bought through a sale deed (Ext.A1). Shafeeq claimed that the property was jointly purchased while he was abroad, and he contributed half of the consideration. Contrarily, Nazimudeen denied any joint ownership, asserting that the purchase was made solely with his funds. The trial court had earlier recognized the property as a joint purchase, granting equal shares to both parties.

Justice Ninan critically examined the trial court's decision, focusing on the proper application of Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act. The judgment stated, "When there is a joint purchase, the right of the sharers over the property will be proportionate to the consideration paid by each other." The High Court found that the trial court had not adequately addressed the issue of each party's share in the contribution towards the purchase.

Moreover, the Court emphasized the importance of re-examining evidence to ascertain the actual nature of ownership and contributions. Justice Ninan remarked, "It is only proper that the matter be disposed of afresh by the trial court." The necessity for additional evidence to determine the actual contributions of each party was highlighted.

The High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, remanding the suit for fresh disposal. The parties were allowed to present additional evidence to substantiate their claims regarding their contributions towards the purchase. The case has been directed for expeditious disposal, preferably before September 30, 2024.

Date of Decision: 16th February 2024

Nazimudeen Vs. Muhammed Shafeeq & Ors.

Similar News