Nandu Lal asserts that he inherited rights to the property through his late father, Salik Ram, along with his brothers. He contends that his cousin, Brij Mohan—son of Salik Ram’s brother, Sita Ram—lacked the authority to sell the property, particularly to one of the tenants, S.K. Golam Lalchand. Initially, the Title Suit No. 212/2006 filed by Nandu Lal was dismissed for insufficient proof of possession. However, upon appeal, this decision was overturned, and the suit was decreed in Nandu Lal's favor, leading to subsequent affirmations by the High Court.

The crux of the dispute revolves around the original purchase of the property in 1959 by the two brothers, Sita Ram and Salik Ram, who held equal rights. Nandu Lal argues that Salik Ram never gifted his share to Sita Ram, and thus, no family settlement or partition occurred. Brij Mohan’s claims to exclusive ownership following the alleged gifting and subsequent family settlement were challenged.

In contrast, Brij Mohan and Golam Lalchand defended the sale by asserting that Salik Ram had indeed gifted his share to Sita Ram, thus granting Sita Ram full ownership. Upon Sita Ram’s death, they claim, the property devolved solely to Brij Mohan after the relinquishment of rights by Sita Ram’s daughters.

The courts found that the original purchase deed from 1959 confirmed joint ownership of the property between Salik Ram and Sita Ram. Crucially, no evidence was produced to validate Brij Mohan’s claim of having received the entire property through a gift or family settlement. Consequently, all three courts involved—the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court, and the High Court—concluded that the property remained undivided and that Brij Mohan lacked the authority to sell the entire property.

The findings established that upon Sita Ram’s death, the property rights devolved equally to his heirs, including Brij Mohan and his sisters. The courts highlighted the absence of any valid documentation proving a family settlement or relinquishment of rights by the sisters, affirming that the property continued to be jointly owned.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, ruling that Brij Mohan was not competent to transfer the property without partitioning it among all co-owners. The court emphasized the necessity for co-owners to determine their shares before any transfer can occur.

The implications of this ruling are significant for property disputes involving joint ownership, as it reinforces the requirement for clear documentation of ownership and the necessity of involving all co-owners in any transfer of property rights. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded, affirming the position of Nandu Lal and ensuring the continuation of joint ownership among the rightful heirs. This case serves as a critical reminder of the complexities involved in property law, particularly regarding familial relations and joint ownership, highlighting the importance of thorough legal documentation and clear agreements among co-owners.