Before partition by metes and bounds, rental income from joint property belongs proportionately to all co-sharers.

The plaintiff, Late Amar Singh, his legal representatives, and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were declared to hold one-third shares each in the suit property by a preliminary decree dated 30 May 2024. No final decree or partition by metes and bounds had yet been effected.

Defendant No. 1 had let out a portion of the property and was exclusively receiving the rent; he had earlier been permitted to lease the portion in his possession by order dated 16 August 2018.

The plaintiff contended that the rented portion was the front portion and that the remaining rear portion could not be independently accessed or effectively used.

Defendant No. 2 also stated that he was unable to use or let out the portion in his possession.

The plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 accordingly sought that the entire property be let out and that the rental income be divided equally among the three co-sharers.

Defendant No. 1 resisted, asserting that the portion let out by him did not exceed his one-third share and that the other parties could independently let out the remaining portion.

The plaintiff’s legal representatives thereafter filed IA No. 14545/2023 under Order XX Rule 12 CPC seeking deposit and release of the rental income.

Whether, before final partition by metes and bounds, Defendant No. 1 could treat the portion let out by him as his exclusive share and appropriate the rent without accounting to the other co-sharers.

Whether the Court could direct that the remaining portion of the jointly owned property be let out and that the rental income from the entire property be shared equally among the co-sharers pending final decree.

Whether Defendant No. 1 should be directed to render accounts and deposit the other co-sharers’ share of rent already collected by him.

Until a final decree partitions jointly owned property by metes and bounds, a preliminary decree declaring shares does not allot any specific physical portion to an individual co-sharer; every part of the property remains jointly owned in the declared proportions.

A co-sharer in possession who lets out any part of joint property is required to account to the other co-sharers for the income derived from it.

The Court relied on Rajinder Kaur v. Gurbhajan Kaur, 2024 INSC 552, holding that a co-sharer who collects rent from joint property must render accounts and contribute the appropriate amount to a common pool for distribution among the co-sharers.

The Court also relied on Dhruv Goel v. Anand Parkash Goyal, CS(OS) 420/1982, order dated 19 March 2010, and Ravinder Pal Singh v. Surender Pal Singh, ILR (2008) 1 Del 187, for the principle that interim monetary directions or mesne profits may be granted where justice and equity so require, even before final adjudication.

Order XX Rule 18(2) CPC empowers the Court, after passing a preliminary decree in a partition suit, to issue further directions concerning the property and its income pending the final decree.

The Court held that the preliminary decree merely declared the parties’ one-third shares and did not confer exclusive title or possession over any identified physical portion.

Accordingly, Defendant No. 1 could not unilaterally designate the front portion as his separate share merely because he was in possession of it or had leased it out.

The rent generated from that portion was therefore income from joint property, in which the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 had the same one-third interest as Defendant No. 1.

Applying the principle of accounting between co-sharers laid down in Rajinder Kaur, the Court rejected Defendant No. 1’s claim to exclusive appropriation of the rent.

Since the rear or unused portion could not practically be enjoyed or separately let out by the other co-sharers, and the Court retained control over the property during the partition proceedings, it considered it just and equitable to direct letting of the remaining portion and equal distribution of the entire rental income pending final partition.

It directed that the remaining unutilised portion of the property be let out, preferably so as to maximise the overall rental income, and permitted the parties to identify suitable tenants.

Copies of all lease deeds were to be shared with the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 and placed before the Court.

The rent from both the existing and newly leased portions was directed to be divided equally among the three co-sharers.

Defendant No. 1 was directed to render accounts of rent previously collected and to deposit the plaintiff’s and Defendant No. 2’s combined two-thirds share in Court on a monthly basis, by the seventh day of each succeeding month, effective from September 2026.

The parties were permitted to seek release of the amounts deposited, and the matter was listed for further consideration on 9 December 2026.