Property Law

T.G. Ashok Kumar v. Govindammal

(2010) 14 SCC 370

Facts

Govindammal instituted a partition suit in 1985, claiming a half share in several properties.
During the suit, the other claimant sold one of the disputed properties to T.G. Ashok Kumar through a sale deed dated 11 April 1990.
Ashok Kumar claimed that:
he was a bona fide purchaser;
he had no knowledge of the partition suit; and
his vendor was the absolute owner.
The partition suit was eventually decreed.
In the final division:
approximately three-fourths of the disputed property was allotted to Govindammal;
the remaining portion, including the house, was allotted to Ashok Kumar’s vendor.
Ashok Kumar sought declaration of ownership over the entire property.

Whether the sale during the partition suit was void.
What interest a pendente lite purchaser from a co-sharer acquires.
Whether the purchaser could claim the entire property or only the part allotted to his vendor.

A transfer pendente lite is not void or illegal.
It remains subject to the rights declared in the pending litigation.
A purchaser from a co-sharer acquires:
that co-sharer’s undivided interest; and
after partition, rights only in property ultimately allotted to the transferor.
Courts may, where practical and equitable, allot the transferred property to the transferor’s share to protect the purchaser.

The sale deed could not defeat Govindammal’s pre-existing claim in the pending partition suit.
Ashok Kumar stepped into the legal position of his vendor.
His lack of actual knowledge did not prevent Section 52 from applying.
However, the lower courts were wrong to suggest that he obtained no title whatsoever.
The transfer remained operative to the extent of the share ultimately allotted to his vendor.
The final decree gave the vendor approximately one-fourth of the suit property.
Ashok Kumar therefore became owner of that portion.
He had no title over the larger portion allotted to Govindammal.
The result balanced:
the binding effect of the partition decree; and
the limited validity of the pendente lite transfer.

The sale was not void but was subject to the partition decree.
Ashok Kumar acquired title only to the portion finally allotted to his vendor.
He was entitled to declaration and protection of possession over that limited portion, but not over the entire property.