Sale Agreement Signed By Some Family Members Not Binding On Others Holding Independent Shares Under Partition Decree: Madras High Court

"After partition, each party gets a separate and distinct share and this share becomes their self-acquired property and they have absolute rights over it and they can sell, transfer, or bequeath it as they wish," Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, held that an agreement of sale executed by only a few members of a Hindu Undivided Family cannot be enforced against other members who hold independent shares under a prior partition decree.

A bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Rajasekar observed that once a property is divided through a partition deed or decree, the shares become the self-acquired property of the respective allottees, and no member can be deemed a Karta for the others' distinct portions.

The appellant, V. Thiagarajan, entered into an agreement of sale in September 2006 to purchase approximately 23 acres of agricultural land for a total consideration calculated at Rs. 3,11,000 per acre. The agreement was signed by the first and second defendants and one Rangasamy, who had obtained the properties through a compromise partition decree in 1992. Although the appellant paid a total advance of Rs. 32,00,000 in various installments, the defendants eventually denied the agreement, leading the appellant to seek specific performance against all legal heirs and subsequent purchasers.

The primary question before the court was whether a sale agreement entered into by certain family members could bind other co-sharers who were not signatories to the document. The court was also called upon to determine whether the signatories could be considered Kartas of their respective joint families and whether the property retained its ancestral character after a formal partition decree.

Signatories Did Not Act In The Capacity Of Karta

The Court meticulously examined the sale agreement, marked as Ex.A1, and found that the first defendant and the deceased Rangasamy had signed the document in their individual capacities. The bench noted that there was no recital in the agreement suggesting that the signatories were acting as Kartas of a Joint Hindu Family or that the sale was necessitated by family debts or legal necessity.

"There is no covenant in the agreement of sale that the first defendant and Rangasamy had entered into the agreement of sale as Karta of a Joint Hindu Family," the Court observed.

Effect Of Prior Partition Decree On Property Status

The bench emphasized the significance of the 1992 partition decree in O.S.No.805 of 1992, which had already divided the properties between the branches of the first defendant and Rangasamy. The Court held that this decree created separate and distinct shares for the third, fourth, and fifth defendants, who were not parties to the 2006 sale agreement.

"Once separate and distinct shares are allotted in a partition, then such shares become an acquired property and the allottees have absolute rights over the said shares," the bench held.

Distinction Between Karta’s Power And Independent Allottees

While the appellant relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa regarding the powers of a Karta to alienate joint property, the High Court distinguished the present case. The bench noted that because the partition had already taken place, the first defendant and Rangasamy could no longer be deemed Kartas over the shares allotted to the other defendants.

Court Applies Supreme Court Dictum On Post-Partition Rights

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar and Others (2025), the High Court reiterated that after a partition, every party receives a separate share that functions as self-acquired property. The bench affirmed the Trial Court's finding that specific performance could only be granted regarding the specific shares held by the actual signatories of the agreement.

"The agreement of sale can bind only to their shares and not the shares of the defendants who were not signatories," the Court clarified.

Failure To Challenge Subsequent Alienations

The Court also took note of the fact that during the pendency of the litigation, the non-signatory defendants had sold their portions to third parties, who further transferred the titles to others. The bench observed that the plaintiff had failed to seek a declaration that these subsequent sale deeds were null and void or not binding upon him.

"There is no relief sought in the plaint to declare that these sale deeds are null and void and there are no pleadings that these sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff," the bench noted.

The High Court concluded that there was no infirmity in the Trial Court’s decision to limit the relief of specific performance to the shares of the signatories. Since the other defendants held independent, post-partition titles and never consented to the sale, their interests remained protected. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the partial decree in favor of the appellant only against the first and second defendants' shares.

Date of Decision: 20 April 2026