In a notable civil appeal concerning property rights in the matter of SK. Golam Lalchand v/s Nandu Lal Shaw, Nand Lal Keshri Nandu Lal Bayes & Others, the dispute revolves around a parcel of land measuring approximately 6 Cottahs, 1 Chittack, and 30 sq. ft., located at 100/3 Carry Road, Howrah. The plaintiff, Nandu Lal, asserts that he inherited his rights in the property from his late father, Salik Ram, alongside his brothers. He contends that his cousin, Brij Mohan, who is the son of their uncle, Sita Ram, lacked the authority to sell the property to S.K. Golam Lalchand, the defendant-appellant.

Initially, the Trial Court dismissed Nandu Lal's Title Suit No. 212/2006 due to insufficient evidence of possession. However, upon appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, ruling that there was no valid family settlement or partition that would grant Brij Mohan exclusive rights over the property. The High Court upheld this decision in a subsequent appeal, leading to the current civil appeal by the defendant.

The crux of the case lies in the ownership of the property, purchased jointly by Salik Ram and Sita Ram in 1959. Nandu Lal argues that Salik Ram never gifted his share to Sita Ram, thereby keeping the property jointly owned. Conversely, Brij Mohan claims that he became the sole owner following alleged gifts and relinquishments by his sisters.

Despite the assertions from Brij Mohan and Golam Lalchand, the courts found no substantial evidence supporting their claims of a family settlement or the relinquishment of rights by the sisters. The courts consistently emphasized that both brothers retained equal rights over the property, which remained undivided after their deaths.

As a result, the appellate courts determined that Brij Mohan was not authorized to unilaterally sell the entire property. The sale deed executed in favor of Golam Lalchand is deemed invalid as it does not take into account the rights of the other co-owners. The courts concluded that any transfer of property must follow legal partition procedures to be valid.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the previous judgments that recognized the joint ownership of the property. The courts left the matter open for the co-owners to pursue legal partition or compensation as per applicable laws, underscoring the importance of validating ownership before executing transfers. No costs were imposed on the parties involved in this dispute.

  Transfer of Property Act, 1882    Specific Relief Act, 1877