LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 22 September 2026

Can a co-sharer sell his share of joint property to a third party subject to the result of the partition suit?

A.JEBA SINGH v. A. Kaleesha
CRP.1928/2023 · CRP No. 1928 of 2023
Coram: Justice R.Rajesh Vivekananthan
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow O.XX r.4(2) Code of Civil Proced…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

A co-sharer can sell his share of joint property to a third party subject to the result of the partition suit.

Yes. A co-sharer can sell his share of joint property to a third party and the said alienation is subject to the result of the partition suit. Where the plaintiff's own case is that she is only a co-sharer entitled to a fractional share, a sale deed executed by the other co-sharers of the joint property will not bind her, and the trial court was bound to consider that position before decreeing the suit. (¶12)

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O.XX r.4(2) — O.XX r.5 — O.IX r.13 — Limitation Act, 1963 — s.5 — Ex parte decree without reasons — Sufficient cause — Condonation of delay — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O.XX r.5 — Ex parte decree — Reasoned order still required — Held: Every judgment must contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination and the reasons for the decision, and an ex parte judgment must equally answer the requirements of a reasoned order. (¶12) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O.XX r.5 — Co-sharer's alienation — Subject to the partition suit — Held further: A co-sharer may sell his share of joint property to a third party and the alienation is subject to the result of the partition suit; it does not by itself bind the other co-sharer. (¶12) Limitation Act, 1963 — s.5 — Sufficient cause — Conduct of the earlier counsel — Held further: The conduct of the earlier counsel and the circumstances in which the defendants remained ex parte constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act. (¶13, 15) Limitation Act, 1963 — s.5 — Liberal approach — Limitation pitted against merits — Held further: Where rejection of an apparently meritorious matter on limitation is pitted against a decision on merits, the Court is entitled to take a liberal approach. Delay condoned subject to costs. (¶17, 18)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 12In the said judgment in Ayyasamy case, it has been held that every judgment should contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination and reasons for such decision and even an ex parte judgment should answer the requirements of a reasoned order. This is more so, when the defendant does not contest the suit. As stated earlier, the judgment contained in the suit in O.S.No.672 of 2009 dated 04.08.2011 does not contain any reasons to arrive at the conclusion, especially, admitted case of the 1 st respondent that she is entitled only for lesser extent and she filed partition suit for her share. Even as per her own case, she is only a co-sharer and the sale deed executed by the co-sharers of the joint property, will not bind her. Any co-sharer can sell his share of property to any third party and the said alienation is subject to the result of the partition suit. These facts were not considered by the Trial Court. The judgment in Ayyasamy case stated supra squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
Acts & Sections
O.XX r.4(2) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908O.XX r.5 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908O.IX r.13 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.5 Limitation Act, 1963

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of A.JEBA SINGH v. A. Kaleesha — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does an ex parte judgment that states no reasons answer the requirements of Order 20 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?Does the conduct of the earlier counsel that kept a defendant from contesting a suit amount to sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?Does a liberal approach apply where rejection of an apparently meritorious matter on limitation is pitted against a decision on merits?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections