A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v. Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3183 of 2009) deals with the consequences of non-joinder of necessary parties in a suit brought for administration of a deceased’s estate where an ancillary prayer effectively sought partition/possession. The plaintiff (a daughter and co-heir) sued after learning that her brother Vishnu had purportedly obtained relinquishments and sold ½ of the suit property to the 2nd defendant.

The Trial Court declined to entertain the administration suit as non-maintainable because certain heirs (children of Vishnu who died during pendency) were not impleaded, yet it declared the sale void and directed delivery of possession to the plaintiff. On first appeal the High Court reversed the Trial Court’s decree insofar as it set aside the sale and granted possession, holding that the sale was valid to the extent of Vishnu’s undivided share and that possession could not be decreed without impleading proper co-owners and/or partition proceedings.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court:

(i) the principal prayer for administration being non-maintainable precluded conferring consequential partition/possession relief without proper parties;

(ii) the sale deed executed by Vishnu is valid only to the extent of his undivided 1/5th share (as he became entitled on the death of the widow),

(iii) the plaintiff’s possession should not be disturbed until lawful partition. The Court relied on principles of necessary parties, Order I CPC, and Section 44, Transfer of Property Act and followed precedents emphasising that reliefs must be within pleadings, fees and proper parties.

Keywords: Non-joinder of necessary parties; Administration of estate; Ancillary prayer/partition; Undivided share; Transfer by co-owner; Order I CPC; Section 44, Transfer of Property Act.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute concerns a Bandra property (“Sai Niwas”, CTS No.1048) which the deceased Gangaram Thakoji Shelar owned; on his death (13.05.1967) statutory heirs included his widow, one son Vishnu, and four daughters (the plaintiff and three sisters). After the death, Vishnu managed the property and purportedly obtained signed papers/relinquishment by siblings and executed a sale deed dated 10.01.1969 in favour of the 2nd defendant, representing that half the property was sold.

The plaintiff filed Suit No.2060 of 1970 seeking administration of the estate, declaration of shares and a declaration that the sale deed be set aside and consequent delivery of possession of ½ to her. The Trial Court found that the suit for administration was not maintainable because certain necessary heirs (notably children of Vishnu who died during pendency) were not impleaded; despite that, the Trial Court declared the relinquishment unproved, set aside the sale deed in toto and directed possession to the plaintiff and permitted her to pursue other reliefs.

On appeal the High Court reversed the Trial Court’s setting aside of the sale and held the purchaser took to the extent of the vendor’s undivided share (High Court found Vishnu had a 1/6th share on sale date and 1/5th later), and that possession decree could not be granted absent partition/impleaded parties. The Supreme Court considered the correctness of the High Court’s principle that, where principal relief (administration) is non-maintainable, consequential partition/possession relief cannot be given without proper impleadment; it also examined whether the sale was valid to extent of vendor’s undivided share.

The Court affirmed the High Court with directions to protect the plaintiff’s possession until partition and to expedite any partition suit.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The deceased owned the entire suit property; after his death the family consisted of the widow, son Vishnu and four daughters including the plaintiff. Vishnu assumed management and allegedly procured signatures of sisters on blank papers and a relinquishment dated 11.12.1967 in his favour. There was a letter dated 10.01.1969 from purchaser to plaintiff’s husband indicating Vishnu claimed to have sold ½ the property; plaintiff replied asserting tenant status and co-ownership. Plaintiff instituted Suit No.2060/1970 seeking administration of the deceased’s estate, declaration of shares, nullification of the sale deed dated 10.01.1969 and delivery of possession of ½ to her, interim reliefs and directions to disclose estate dealings.

The Trial Court held administration suit non-maintainable because certain necessary heirs were not on record (children of Vishnu who died during pendency were not impleaded) but found the relinquishment unproved and set aside the sale in toto, directing possession. High Court allowed the purchaser’s appeal, held the sale is effective only to the extent of Vishnu’s undivided share (1/6th on sale date; 1/5th later), and set aside the decree of possession since those entitled to shares had not sued; it further held that when principal relief is non-maintainable, consequential partition/possession relief cannot be granted. Supreme Court affirmed this analysis but protected plaintiff’s possession until partition and directed expedited trial if partition suit filed.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a suit for administration of an estate is maintainable where necessary heirs (successors of a deceased co-owner) were not impleaded?
ii. Whether a Trial Court that holds an administration suit non-maintainable can nevertheless grant consequential reliefs amounting to partition/possession without impleading necessary parties?
iii. Whether a sale by a co-owner who purported to sell ½ of the entire property is void in toto or valid only to the extent of the vendor’s undivided share under Section 44, Transfer of Property Act?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The plaintiff argued Vishnu could not transfer more than his share; at best he transferred 1/6th on the date of sale and 1/5th after the widow’s death, so decree declaring sale void/inoperative overreach was justified.
ii. Reliance was placed on Section 44, Transfer of Property Act to argue purchaser must demarcate separate share and plaintiff’s possession rights be vindicated.
iii. It was argued the vendee was not a bona fide purchaser without notice since legal proceedings were instituted immediately after the sale.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The 2nd defendant (vendee) contended that an undivided share in HUF/co-owned property can validly be sold; purchaser acquires only what vendor was entitled to transfer and sale cannot be void merely because it purported to convey a larger portion.
ii. It was urged that relief of partition/possession cannot be granted in a suit for administration; such reliefs are properly sought only in partition proceedings and require appropriate court fees and impleaded parties.

H) JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the High Court’s conclusions. First, it endorsed the Trial Court’s finding that the administration suit was non-maintainable because necessary parties (children of Vishnu who succeeded on his death) were not impleaded, and emphasised the distinction between mere misdescription and non-joinder of a necessary party under Order I, Rule 9 (proviso) and Rule 10, CPC; non-joinder of necessary parties is substantive and may be fatal. The Court followed Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector and Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal to stress that a court cannot grant relief beyond pleadings, limitations, or in absence of proper parties and requisite court-fee. Thus the Trial Court could not, after holding the principal relief non-maintainable, still pass a consequential partition/possession decree against a purchaser without proper impleadment or partition suit.

Second, on the sale deed, the Court accepted the High Court’s legal proposition that a transfer by one co-owner operates only as to his share (principle embodied in Section 44, Transfer of Property Act). Even if Vishnu professed to sell ½ of the property, he could only transfer his undivided share; hence the sale is not void ab initio but effective to the extent of his share quantified as 1/6th at sale date and 1/5th thereafter (on widow’s death).

Consequently, the decree setting aside the sale in toto was unsustainable. The Court balanced equities: while purchaser’s title is limited to vendor’s share, the plaintiff’s actual possession should not be disturbed until partition is carried out in accordance with law. Therefore the Supreme Court affirmed that the purchaser’s entitlement is limited and the Trial Court’s possession order must be set aside. The Court also directed expedition of partition proceedings and imposed a long-standing status quo against alienation until partition.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative ratio is twofold:

(i) when a primary relief (administration of estate) is non-maintainable for lack of necessary parties, courts cannot grant consequential partition/possession relief which affects rights of non-impleaded persons;

(ii) a sale by a co-owner operates only to the extent of his undivided share under Section 44, Transfer of Property Act, therefore a sale purportedly of the whole is effective only to the vendor’s share.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that courts must be cautious to grant only those reliefs that are pleaded, within fees and limitation, and that remedy by partition must follow proper procedure. It reiterated authorities stressing the substance of party-description and the peremptory nature of impleading necessary parties. The Court also commented on the equities of long delay and the need for trial courts to decide pending partition suits expeditiously.

c. GUIDELINES

• Where a suit for administration is found non-maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties, no consequential partition/possession decree should be granted without impleading those parties.

• A transfer by one co-owner passes only his undivided share — the purchaser acquires only what the transferor was entitled to convey (Section 44, TPA).

• Possession of co-owners in situ should ordinarily not be disturbed until a proper partition is effected.

• Trial courts should expedite partition suits where long delays render records stale; parties must not alienate the subject property in the interim (status quo direction).

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision reinforces orthodox civil procedure principles: substance over form in party-joinder and strict application of rules regarding necessary parties. It pragmatically protects bona fide transferees to the extent of vendor’s share while guarding co-owners’ possession rights until partition an equitable outcome that respects statutory transfer rules and procedural safeguards. For practitioners: pleadings must be shaped to include all necessary successors when administration or partition-adjacent reliefs are sought; reliance on ancillary reliefs is hazardous if principal reliefs are non-maintainable. The judgment is a useful precedent on interaction between Order I CPC principles and Section 44 TPA, and on courts’ limits in granting relief beyond pleadings or without proper impleadment.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Collector, (2003) 3 SCC 472.
ii. Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491.
iii. Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v. Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs & Ors., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 184 : 2025 INSC 355.

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order I, Rules 9 & 10).
ii. Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 44.