Brother Named On Joint Sale Deed Keeps 1/3 Share Despite Claim He Paid Nothing, Karnataka HC Says

In brief

The question

1. Whether the second respondent was entitled to a one-third share in the property despite the appellant’s contention that he had not contributed to its purchase or construction

The court held

The High Court held that all three brothers were entitled to equal one-third shares and found no substantial question of law warranting interference.

It also directed

It rejected the appellant’s challenge to the reimbursement directions and to the non-award of interest, and dismissed the Regular Second Appeal

01Facts

The respondents, who were the appellant’s brothers, sued for partition and separate possession of one-third shares each in a property purchased in the names of all three brothers.

pp. 2–6 · ¶ 8–9

The appellant disputed the second respondent’s contribution to the purchase and construction, and asserted that he had repaid the outstanding housing loan.

pp. 2–6 · ¶ 8–9

The Trial Court declared each brother entitled to a one-third share and directed the respondents to reimburse the appellant for certain expenses. The First Appellate Court affirmed the equal shares but modified the reimbursement amounts.

pp. 2–6 · ¶ 8–9

The appellant’s second appeal challenged the second respondent’s share and the failure to award interest on the amounts ordered to be repaid

pp. 2–6 · ¶ 8–9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the second respondent was entitled to a one-third share in the property despite the appellant’s contention that he had not contributed to its purchase or construction

pp. 48–49 · ¶ 9

ii.2. Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the amounts the respondents were directed to reimburse for construction expenses and loan repayment

pp. 48–49, 52–53 · ¶ 9, 13–14

iii.3. Whether either issue raised a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure

p. 53 · ¶ 14

03Law Applied

Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, governs interests in immovable property jointly acquired for consideration: where purchasers’ respective contributions are established, their interests ordinarily correspond to those contributions; where there is no evidence of their respective contributions or interests in the fund, they are presumed to be equally interested, absent a contract to the contrary

pp. 49–51 · ¶ 11–12

Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Regular Second Appeal lies only where a substantial question of law arises.

pp. 52–53 · ¶ 13–14

The Court also considered the absence of a counterclaim seeking recovery or interest and the equitable nature of the reimbursement directions made by the courts below

pp. 52–53 · ¶ 13–14

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100 Section 96

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 45

04Reasoning

The registered sale deed named all three brothers as purchasers and contained no indication of unequal contributions. The Court found no contrary material sufficient to displace the presumption of equal interests under Section 45; accordingly, the second respondent’s alleged lack of contribution did not defeat his one-third share

pp. 50–52 · ¶ 12

As to interest, the appellant had not sought recovery of the construction or loan amounts, or interest on them, by counterclaim. The courts below had nevertheless directed reimbursement on an equitable basis. In those circumstances, the High Court held that the absence of an interest award did not justify interference in the second appeal

pp. 52–53 · ¶ 13–14