In a recent legal dispute of SK. Golam Lalchand v/s Nandu Lal Shaw Nand Lal Keshri Nandu Lal Bayes & Others involving the property located at 100/3 Carry Road, Howrah, the courts faced the challenge of determining rightful ownership among family members. This case highlights complex issues of property rights, family settlements, and the validity of property transfers among co-owners.

Background of the Dispute:

The property in question was jointly purchased by Salik Ram and Sita Ram in 1959. Nandu Lal argues that Salik Ram never gifted his share to Sita Ram, meaning both brothers retained equal rights to the property. Following Sita Ram's death in 1975, his share was supposed to devolve to his heirs, including Brij Mohan and his three sisters.

Brij Mohan and the defendant, S.K. Golam Lalchand, claimed that a family settlement had been reached, allowing Brij Mohan to sell the entire property. However, this claim was met with skepticism, as no evidence of such a settlement was provided during the trial.

The courts consistently emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a gift or family settlement. The original 1959 sale deed clearly indicated joint ownership, and no documentation was presented to validate any transfer of rights between the brothers or their heirs. Furthermore, the court noted that the sisters of Brij Mohan did not relinquish their rights in favor of their brother, thus maintaining the joint ownership status of the property.

As a result, it was concluded that Brij Mohan lacked the authority to sell the entire property without partitioning it first. The appellate court noted that the property remained undivided and could not be transferred by one co-owner alone.

The appeal by S.K. Golam Lalchand was dismissed, reinforcing the decisions made by the lower courts. The ruling clarified that while Brij Mohan may possess a share of the property, he could not unilaterally transfer ownership of the entire estate. This case serves as a significant reminder of the legal principles governing joint ownership and the necessity of proper documentation and agreements when handling shared property rights.

The matter of co-ownership remains unresolved as the court left it open for the parties to seek legal remedies for partition or compensation as per their respective shares. This judgment underscores the importance of understanding property rights within familial contexts and the legal ramifications of property transactions among co-owners.