The Bombay High Court has clarified that, in partition suits, a single coparcener of a Hindu Joint Family cannot alienate joint family property without the consent of other coparceners, including daughters. The judgment upholds settled law that such alienation is only of the undivided share (if any), not the whole property. Unless legal necessity is proven, third-party transferees acquire no better rights. The ruling restores status quo protection over the property, reinforcing the rights of all coparceners. This decision is a binding authority for all subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/9874/2025 of SURESH APPASAHEB PATIL AND ANR Vs SYGNIA DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS THROU. POA YIGANDHAR PRAVIN CHANDANSHIVE AND ORS |
| CNR | HCBM070265102025 |
| Date of Registration | 17-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | At Kolhapur, Circuit Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts under Bombay High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Restores Trial Court’s order; overturns Appellate Court’s contrary order |
| Type of Law | Hindu Joint Family Law, Property Law, Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a coparcener can unilaterally alienate joint family property without consent of other coparceners/daughters, and the status of such transfers in ongoing partition suits. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that a coparcener in a Hindu Joint Family, acting alone, cannot transfer joint family property without the consent of all coparceners—including daughters. A transferee (e.g., a developer) cannot assert exclusive ownership or possession over any part of joint property during the pendency of a partition suit; at best, the transferee succeeds only to the undivided share, if any, of the vendor coparcener. Until the suit for partition is adjudicated, injunctions restraining further alienation are maintainable to protect the rights of all coparceners. The Appellate Court erred by disregarding the consent requirements and the rights of daughters. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principles of Hindu Joint Family law regarding alienation of joint property, requirement of consent, restrictions on exclusive alienation by a coparcener, rights of daughters. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The original plaintiff sued for partition and injunction, claiming listed properties as joint family properties. During suit pendency, defendant no.1 (purportedly a self-acquirer) sold a house property to defendant no.7, who asserted sole ownership based on a sale deed and a subsequent compromise deed (signed by the plaintiff, but not other family members). The Trial Court restrained third party interest during the suit, but the Appellate Court allowed defendant no.7’s injunction application, enabling assertion of exclusive rights. The High Court has now restored the Trial Court’s protection, recognizing the interests of all coparceners, including daughters. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in matters regarding Hindu Joint Family property |
| Overrules | The impugned order of District Judge-I, Jaysingpur in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal Nos.33/2023 and 37/2023 |
| Follows | Established principles of Hindu Joint Family law (specific cases not mentioned in judgment) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court has reiterated that consent of all coparceners—including daughters—is required for valid alienation of joint family property.
- Purchasers from a coparcener during pendency of partition suit stand only in the shoes of their transferor and cannot claim exclusive rights pending adjudication.
- Notarised consent or compromise deeds by some, but not all, joint family members do not validate an alienation of entire property.
- Interim orders restraining alienations or creation of third-party interests are maintainable to preserve coparcener rights till final decision.
- Lawyers should take care to ensure that partition/alienation transactions involving joint family property follow strict procedures of consent and necessity—even for development projects.
- The High Court’s restoration of the Trial Court’s order stresses protection of daughters’ rights in joint family assets.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined whether defendant no.1, as a coparcener in a Hindu Joint Family, could lawfully transfer a specific property in favour of a third party (defendant no.7) during the suit for partition.
- It was noted that in a suit for partition, all members—including daughters—are coparceners, and rights must be preserved until proper adjudication.
- Defendant no.1 was unable to show an independent income or evidence of self-acquisition, and a prior injunction application in his favour had been dismissed.
- The so-called compromise/consent deed was not signed by all coparceners; even if the plaintiff relinquished rights, that did not alter the status of property as joint family property, or permit its absolute alienation.
- The court reaffirmed the established principle: an individual coparcener cannot create third party interest in any specific joint family property, only transfer an undivided share, if any, and only with consent or proven necessity.
- The Appellate Court had erred by granting exclusive injunction relief to the developer, disregarding the rights of all, especially daughters.
- The High Court thus restored the interim restraint on alienation and possession, pending full trial on partition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted suit properties are joint family assets purchased from the joint family’s nucleus.
- Defendant no.1 had no independent source of income to claim self-acquisition.
- The Trial Court had properly protected coparcener rights by restraining alienation.
- Other joint family members had not consented to the sale; alienation was invalid pending partition.
Respondents (Developer/Defendant no.1)
- Argued that the concerned property was self-acquired by defendant no.1 via registered sale deed.
- Stated the plaintiff had expressly consented to a transfer by way of a notarized compromise (which involved two flats and rent accommodation).
- Claimed transaction was public, with proper consideration paid and alternative accommodation/benefits extended to the plaintiff.
- Asserted exclusive ownership by defendant no.7 via sale deed and compromise.
Factual Background
The dispute concerned partition and ownership rights over several properties alleged to be joint family properties under Hindu law. The original plaintiff filed a suit to claim partition and injunction against alienation. During the pendency of the suit, one coparcener (defendant no.1) sold the principal house property to a developer (defendant no.7), relying on a signed compromise with the plaintiff but without the consent of other coparceners, including daughters. The Trial Court granted an injunction preventing alienation; the Appellate Court reversed this, but the High Court set this aside, restoring the status quo to protect all coparceners’ rights.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted provisions of Hindu Joint Family law, particularly the principle that a coparcener cannot alienate joint family property without consent of other coparceners or legal necessity.
- Cited the legal maxim that in partition suits, all claimants are essentially plaintiffs for their share.
- Discussed Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC (temporary injunctions) and Order I Rule 10(2) CPC (impleadment) regarding maintainability and protection pending suit outcome.
- Examined the validity and effect of compromise/consent deeds executed by some, but not all, coparceners.
Procedural Innovations
- Court restored the Trial Court’s broad interim prohibition on alienation and creation of third-party interest, pending complete adjudication in the partition suit.
- No new procedural guidelines issued, but firm reiteration of maintainability of such injunctions to preserve the rights of all coparceners.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows established precedent restricting alienation of joint family property by a single coparcener and reiterates protection of daughters’ rights.