Co-sharer cannot alienate specific portion of joint property without proving prior valid partition.

The dispute concerns agricultural land in Village Chainpur, Survey No. 13, admeasuring 0-31-36 Hectares.

The land was originally owned by Babaji Bapuji Thakore and subsequently held jointly by his sons, Ghabaji and Jugaji (Defendant No. 1).

The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Ghabaji.

On 02.05.2017, Defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed for the northern half of the land (0-15-68) in favor of the appellant (Defendant No. 2), claiming an oral partition had occurred in 1995.

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of the sale deed, asserting the property remained joint and undivided.

Evidence revealed a prior registered Banakhat (Agreement to Sell) [Exh. 55] and a subsequent cancellation deed [Exh. 56] executed by Defendant No. 1, both of which explicitly described the suit land as "undivided property".

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the sale deed void.

Defendant No. 2 appealed, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser.

1. Whether the suit property was joint and undivided or if a valid oral partition had taken place.

2. Whether the appellant (Defendant No. 2) qualified as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

3. Whether the sale deed executed by one co-owner without the consent of others was legal and binding upon the plaintiffs.

The court applied Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which exclude oral evidence that contradicts or varies the terms of a written contract or disposition of property reduced to a document.

It further relied on Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, regarding the cancellation of void or voidable instruments.

The court also invoked the principle that a bona fide purchaser must exercise reasonable care, including conducting a title search and issuing public notices, to claim protection under the law.

The court found that Defendant No. 1’s plea of an oral partition was directly contradicted by his own registered documents.

Under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, the court held that the recitals in the registered Banakhat [Exh. 55] and the cancellation deed [Exh. 56]—which characterized the land as "undivided"—precluded the admission of oral testimony to the contrary.

Regarding the appellant's status as a bona fide purchaser, the court noted significant lapses in due diligence: no public notice for title clearance was issued prior to the sale.

no search was conducted at the Sub-Registrar’s office.

the appellant was unaware of the existing registered agreement to sell.

The court observed that the sale consideration was paid via cheques that cleared only after the deed's execution, and the appellant's bank balance was insufficient at the time of the transaction.

The court concluded that a co-owner cannot alienate a specific portion of joint property without a formal partition.

It held that the suit property was joint and undivided, and the sale deed dated 02.05.2017 was illegal, void, and not binding on the plaintiffs.

The appellant failed to establish himself as a bona fide purchaser due to a lack of reasonable inquiry.

The court granted a four-week extension of the status quo order to allow the appellant to seek further legal remedies.