Jharkhand HC Declares Brothers Equal Co-Owners of Jointly Bought Land, Sister Entitled to One-Third of Mother’s Property

The appellant sued his brother for partition of properties in Schedules A and B, claiming a half share in each.

Schedule A comprised properties purchased jointly by the appellant and respondent No. 1; Schedule B comprised property acquired by their mother.

The trial court found no proved prior partition and decreed a one-third share to each of the appellant, respondent No. 1, and their sister in both schedules, holding the sister to be a necessary party and finding no evidence of a relinquishment in her brothers’ favour

On appeal, the appellant challenged the one-third share awarded in Schedule A, arguing that the sister had no interest in jointly purchased property and had relinquished her interest in Schedule B.

The sister was impleaded as respondent No. 2 but did not file a written relinquishment

The Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure

It applied the principle that property acquired jointly by two persons belongs to them, and that a third party has no share absent proof that the property was acquired from a joint-family nucleus.

It also held that relinquishment of an interest in immovable property must be evidenced by a registered instrument, or by a valid judicial order recognising the relinquishment; an oral plea alone is insufficient.

In respect of property belonging to a deceased mother, the Court held that her three legal heirs—the two sons and the daughter—were equally entitled to share in it.

The sale deeds showed that Schedule A properties were purchased in the names of the appellant and respondent No. 1, and the trial court had itself found them to be jointly acquired.

There was no evidence that they derived from a joint-family nucleus; accordingly, the sister had no share in Schedule A, and the brothers were each entitled to one-half.

Schedule B, by contrast, admittedly belonged to their mother.

Because no registered instrument or judicial order established the sister’s alleged relinquishment, her equal share remained unaffected by the oral claim.

Questions concerning the parties’ possession and constructions were left open for consideration when preparing the final decree, subject to an equitable partition