MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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.

Latest Legal News