Under Section 45 TPA, joint purchasers are presumed equally interested absent evidence of their respective contributions.

The plaintiff and defendant, full brothers, were named as joint purchasers in a registered sale deed dated 20 January 2011 for four decimals of land.

After 1½ decimals were acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), the plaintiff sued for partition of the remaining 2½ decimals and the building on it.

The defendant resisted, asserting that he and their father had paid the purchase price and that the plaintiff’s name had been included only because other brothers were minors.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff had not proved a contribution to the purchase price and relying, in part, on NHAI having paid compensation to the defendant alone.

Whether the plaintiff and defendant jointly purchased the suit property under Sale Deed No. 568 dated 20 January 2011

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a one-half share in the remaining Schedule-A property

Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 governs interests in immovable property transferred for consideration to two or more persons.

Where consideration is paid from separate funds, the transferees’ interests are generally proportionate to their respective contributions; where there is no evidence of the respective interests in the fund or contributions, they are presumed to be equally interested in the property.

The registered sale deed named both parties as purchasers but did not specify their respective shares or identify who paid the consideration.

The defendant did not claim to have paid the entire price; his case was that he and the parties’ father contributed, but neither the amount contributed by each nor supporting payment records were established.

The father was not named as a purchaser or witness to the deed, and the evidence concerning the asserted purchase price was inconsistent with the amount recorded in the deed.

In the absence of reliable evidence establishing unequal contributions, Section 45’s presumption of equal interests applied.

The NHAI compensation payment to the defendant did not determine ownership between the parties, and the alleged transfer of part of the compensation to the plaintiff’s wife did not displace the equal-share presumption.

Nor did the evidence establish that the defendant alone funded construction of the building.

It set aside the trial court’s judgment and decree, allowed the appeal, and decreed partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s half share.

It directed appointment of a survey-knowing pleader commissioner to prepare an allotment chart and map, with the final decree to be passed in accordance with the commissioner’s report.