top of page

Execution of Sale Deed by Person Without Title Doesn’t Entitle Transferee or his Successor to Claim any right based on such deed: SC

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in a civil appeal case, setting a crucial precedent in property partition disputes.he case involved a dispute over the ownership and partition of a property situated in survey no. 56/8 in the village Eravattur in the district of Kozhikode, State of Kerala.The appeal arose from a suit for partition filed by Thiyyer Kunnath Meethal Chandu (Chandu), claiming shares in the said property. Representing the appellants were counsels for Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (deceased) and his successors-in-interest.

The case revolved around the succession law applicable before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 and the interpretation of various deeds and transactions related to the property.The judgment, delivered by Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, meticulously examined the evidence and legal arguments presented before the court. Justice Bose, in his detailed analysis, referred to the historical background of the property and the succession rights of the parties involved.One of the key points of contention was the validity and interpretation of several deeds executed over the years, including a mortgage deed dated May 7, 1900, and subsequent lease agreements executed in 1910.

The court scrutinized the legal implications of these deeds and their effect on the parties’ rights.7 remarked Justice Bose, citing Section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856.The court delved into the intricacies of Chiruthey’s remarriage and its impact on her legal rights over her late husband’s property.

The court delved into the intricacies of Chiruthey’s remarriage and its impact on her legal rights over her late husband’s property. It examined precedents and legal principles governing widow’s rights and remarriage under the relevant laws, including the case of Velamuri Venkata Sivaprasad (Dead) by lrs. v. Kothuri Venkateswarlu (dead) by lrs. And Others [(2000) 2 SCC 139].

Chiruthey’s title or interest over the property stood lapsed in terms of Section 2 of the 1856 Act. Thus, her right to deal with the property derived from Madhavan stood extinguished,” the judgment highlighted.Moreover, the court scrutinized the validity of the lease agreements executed in 1910 and subsequent transactions, ultimately ruling against the appellant’s claim of ownership.

In conclusion, the court’s decision affirms that Chiruthey’s second marriage extinguished her rights to the property in question, rendering any subsequent claims by her descendants invalid. The original plaintiff, born within Chiruthey and Neelakandan’s wedlock, cannot claim ownership. As a result, the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the First Appellate Court, with no costs ordered.

Case Name: KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) Vs.THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND ORS

Case No: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8616 OF 2017

Bench: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia


3 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page