Co-ownership
3 articles
Delhi High Court: Absence From a Property Is Not Ouster — Partition Decreed on Admissions
In a first appeal from a preliminary decree of partition, the Delhi High Court held that a co-owner who had not lived in a family flat since 1993 remained a co-owner in constructive possession, because the party in physical occupation never pleaded facts showing hostile, exclusive possession to his knowledge. The court also held the partition suit was within limitation, since the cause of action accrued only when the co-owner's share was expressly denied in 2018 — and that these questions could be resolved on admitted pleadings under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, without a trial.
13 min readPurchased Together, Divided in Court: What Bajoria v. Bajoria Says About Limitation in Partition Suits Between Co-Owners
Two brothers who built a business together fell out over who owned what. The Bombay High Court's answer to when their clock started running is a compact lesson in how limitation actually works for co-owned property — and why a plaintiff cannot always choose to drop an inconvenient property from a partition suit.
13 min readMutation Is Not Title: Jamnabai v. Vasudev on Revenue Entries, Relinquishment and the Limits of Second Appeal
A name removed from the revenue record in 1990 did not cost a co-owner his share. This case note works through all four issues the Supreme Court decided in Jamnabai v. Vasudev, from Section 117 of the MP Land Revenue Code to the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
14 min read