A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v. Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs and Ors., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 184 : 2025 INSC 355, examines the interplay between suits for administration of an estate and incidental reliefs which effectively seek partition or possession. The plaintiff sued for administration of her deceased father’s estate and declaratory reliefs that a sale deed executed by her brother Vishnu in favour of the 2nd defendant was void.

The Trial Court found the administration suit non-maintainable for non-impleadment of necessary heirs of a subsequently deceased party but nevertheless declared the sale void and directed possession to be delivered. The High Court reversed on two grounds:

(i) the sale deed could not be set aside in toto because the transferor held only an undivided share and

(ii) possession relief was unsustainable in a suit where co-owners claiming their shares were not properly before the court.

The Supreme Court approved the High Court’s approach, holding that once the principal relief for administration was struck down as non-maintainable for want of necessary parties, consequential reliefs amounting to partition or possession could not be granted until proper impleadment; and that the sale by V was valid only to the extent of his undivided 1/5th share. The plaintiff’s possession was to remain undisturbed until partition according to law, and the 2nd defendant’s title stood limited to the share actually transferred.

Keywords: necessary party; non-joinder; administration of estate; undivided share; partition; possession; relinquishment deed; Transfer of Property Act; Code of Civil Procedure.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arises from a residential property “Sai Niwas” left by Gangaram Thakoji Shelar who died in 1967, survived by his widow, one son (Vishnu) and four daughters (including the plaintiff). The plaintiff occupied a room therein as tenant. Sometime after the death, Vishnu claimed title and, by a relinquishment deed and a subsequent sale deed dated 10.01.1969, purportedly transferred ½ of the entire property to the 2nd defendant.

The plaintiff, aggrieved, instituted Suit No.2060 of 1970 primarily seeking administration of the deceased’s estate, declaration of her share and a declaration that the sale deed was null and void, together with consequential possession relief. The Trial Court held the administration suit non-maintainable because, during litigation, Vishnu died and his children were not impleaded; yet the Trial Court nonetheless set aside the sale deed in toto and decreed possession in favour of the plaintiff.

On first appeal the High Court reversed: it held the sale valid to the extent of Vishnu’s undivided share (1/5th) and set aside the possession decree because the relief amounted to partition/possession which could not be granted without proper parties and correct pleadings.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s legal analysis: when the principal relief (administration) is non-maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties, ancillary reliefs effectively seeking partition/possession cannot be granted; and a transfer by one co-owner is effective only as to his own undivided share under s. 44, Transfer of Property Act.

The Court therefore limited the 2nd defendant’s entitlement to the share actually transferable by Vishnu and protected the plaintiff’s present possession until partition is conducted in accordance with law.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The deceased owned C.T.S. No.1048 (Sai Niwas). He died on 13.05.1967 leaving his widow, one son (Vishnu), and four daughters (plaintiff and defendants 3–5). The plaintiff occupied Room No.1 as a tenant of the deceased and continued in occupation. Vishnu managed the property and allegedly procured signatures of his sisters on blank papers, later used to execute a relinquishment deed dated 11.12.1967.

Thereafter, Vishnu executed a sale deed dated 10.01.1969 selling ½ of the suit property to the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff learnt of this sale via a letter on 10.01.1969 and promptly filed suit in 1970 claiming administration of the estate, declaration of shares and that the sale was null and void and for delivery of possession of the ½ portion. During litigation Vishnu died; his widow was impleaded but his children were not.

The Trial Court found the administration suit non-maintainable for non-impleadment of Vishnu’s heirs but still declared the sale void and directed possession to the plaintiff. The High Court allowed the purchaser’s appeal, holding the sale valid to the extent of Vishnu’s undivided share (1/5th) and vacated the possession decree because reliefs in the nature of partition/possession required proper parties and separate suit or adequate pleadings. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court was right to restrict reliefs and whether Vishnu’s sale was valid only to his share.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether, when the principal prayer for administration of an estate is found non-maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties, the court may nevertheless grant ancillary reliefs effectively seeking partition or possession?

2. Whether a sale deed executed by one co-owner (here Vishnu) who professes to sell more than his share is void in toto, or is valid only to the extent of his undivided share under s. 44, Transfer of Property Act?

3. Whether a decree of possession can be granted in a suit where co-owners claiming possession were not impleaded and no partition suit was instituted?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the plaintiff/appellant argued that Vishnu could not transfer more than his share and, in any event, as on the date of sale he had effectively alienated his entire interest and therefore the purchaser represented his estate; consequently the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and possession in excess of the transferer’s entitlement was maintainable as ancillary to administration. It was further urged that the purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser without notice and that the pendency of the suit since 1970 precluded equitable relief to the vendee. Counsel relied on s. 44, Transfer of Property Act to contend that demarcation by the purchaser should follow and that the plaintiff’s possession must be protected.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The 2nd defendant’s LRs contended that one co-owner can validly transfer his undivided share and that the Trial Court erred in setting aside the deed entirely. They argued the plaintiff’s reliefs effectively sought partition and separate demarcation which cannot be supplied in an administration suit; proper remedy lay in a partition suit. They also placed a quantification and offer to pay consideration or interest as a pragmatic settlement of equities. The respondents relied upon recognized principles limiting reliefs to those pleaded and the necessity of correct parties being before the court.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court. Two central points guided reasoning.

First, procedural fairness and the substantive requirement of necessary parties under Order I Rules and routed jurisprudence including Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector (2003) 3 SCC 472 and Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal (2008) 17 SCC 491 dictate that a suit cannot proceed to determine rights which affect persons not before the court.

The Court emphasized that Rule 9’s proviso excludes non-joinder of necessary parties from being cured, and Order I Rule 10 empowers correction but only where appropriate parties can be impleaded. Given that Vishnu died during proceedings and his children were not impleaded, the principal administration relief was non-maintainable.

Second, on substantive property law, s. 44, Transfer of Property Act provides that a transferee acquires as to the transferred share whatever the transferor was competent to transfer, and the transferee’s right is limited accordingly. Applying these principles, the Court held the sale deed could not be set aside in toto; it was valid only to the extent of Vishnu’s undivided 1/5th share that accrued on the death of the original owner.

The possession decree in favour of plaintiff was unsustainable because it amounted to partitionary relief which could not be granted without proper parties and pleadings. The Court therefore restored the High Court’s reversal: the purchaser obtains the share actually transferable; the plaintiff’s possession remains undisturbed until partition; the parties were given liberty to pursue partition; and the Trial Court was directed to dispose of any partition suit expeditiously (three months). The Court also continued status-quo against alienation of the subject matter until partition.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative ratio is twofold.

(i) Non-joinder of necessary parties is fatal to maintenance of an administration suit and where the principal relief is rejected as non-maintainable the court cannot grant ancillary reliefs which in substance effect partition/possession without bringing necessary parties before it.

(ii) Under s. 44, Transfer of Property Act, a transferee acquires only the transferor’s existing share; therefore a sale by a co-owner professing to transfer more than his share is not void in toto but effective only to the extent of the undivided share actually transferable. These principles together compelled limitation of the sale’s efficacy to Vishnu’s 1/5th undivided share and the setting aside of the possession decree.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed, obiter, that courts must be cautious in granting relief beyond the scope of pleadings, court fee, and parties; that equitable considerations such as long pendency, altered circumstances and offers to compensate may inform directions for determination of monetary adjustments; and that procedural remedies to implead heirs and avoid abatement should be liberally exercised where appropriate.

The bench also noted public interest in speedy determination of title and urged trial courts to decide partition suits promptly given prolonged pendency spanning decades. These observations underline judicial sensitivity to both technical pleading rules and substantive justice.

c. GUIDELINES 

1. Impleadment of legal heirs: When a party dies during suit, successors whose interests are directly affected are necessary parties and must be impleaded; failure renders reliefs touching their rights unsustainable.

2. Scope of ancillary reliefs: Ancillary or consequential prayers cannot be used to obtain partition or possession where the principal cause is non-maintainable; a separate partition suit is the proper forum.

3. Effect of transfer by co-owner: A transferor-co-owner’s sale is valid only to his transferable undivided share as per s. 44, Transfer of Property Act; the purchaser acquires that share and associated rights to joint possession insofar as necessary to effect the transfer.

4. Relief framing and court fee: Courts must grant reliefs strictly within the scope of pleadings, court fee paid and parties before it; deviation risks reversal on appeal.

5. Directions for expeditious disposal: Where litigation is decades-old, courts should expedite partition proceedings and may give interim protections (status quo) to prevent further prejudice.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces two enduring rules: procedural completeness (necessary parties and correct pleadings) and the substantive limitation on alienation by co-owners. Practically, it curbs overbroad attempts to nullify transfers by labeling deeds void in toto when the transferor held only a fractional interest. The Court’s approach balances protection of possessory rights of long-standing occupants (the plaintiff’s undisturbed possession until partition) with the commercial certainty of transfers limited to a transferor’s share.

For practitioners, the case is a cautionary exemplar:

(i) carefully identify and implead all heirs and successors before seeking administration/partitionary reliefs;

(ii) plead partition or ancillary demarcation clearly and ensure appropriate court fee and parties to avoid curative reversals; and

(iii) when defending a purchaser, quantify what exactly passed by the deed and press s. 44 where co-ownership dynamics occur.

Academically, the decision aligns with precedents that restrict courts from granting reliefs beyond pleadings and underscores the policy that non-joinder of necessary parties cannot be cured cavalierly. It also reflects judicial pragmatism protecting possession and urging speedy partition while recognizing the limited proprietary rights conveyed by a co-owner’s sale. The judgment, therefore, is a useful guidepost for litigation strategy in succession, co-ownership and property transfer disputes.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v. Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs and Ors., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 184 : 2025 INSC 355.

2. Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Collector, (2003) 3 SCC 472.

3. Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (India) — especially Order I Rules 9–10 (mis-joinder/non-joinder; impleadment).

2. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (India) — Section 44 (Transfer by one co-owner).