D--> Defendant. P-->Party/Plaintiff.
The dispute is between Anil(P1) and "Prabhat(D1-elder), Sandip (D2-younger)" for partition and possession.
Anil(P1) and Prabhat(D1) who are cousin brothers bought Property X of 3000 sq feet in Pune jointly from there Salary as self-earned money by registered sale deed in 1995.
Anil(P1) cousin brother who is only 7th pass, know ONLY Marathi but doesn't know ( can't Read and write in)English language.
After getting possession in 1995, Prabhat(D1) and Sandip (D2) had started Kirana shop on old construction with permission of Anil (only on notebook paper permission letter), but no rent agreement and no rent, due to good affection between all brothers.
In the year 2000, All three had started 2 storey superstructure construction on the free plot behind Kirana shop.
Most of the construction transaction done by cash at that time by all person but Prabhat did few transaction by cheque.
Prabhat(D1) and Sandip(D2) who are the real brother, they submitted an assessment of building completion to income tax authority in 2002 that they two(Prabhat and Sandip) ONLY spent money for new superstructure construction. All the letters are in English.
Income tax officer raised query, regarding "Who is Sandip (D2)? Why his name is not in owner of land? Why his name not present in permission/completion certificate? The lawyer had written a letter to IT officer on plain paper and took signs of all three. The contents are as below:
LETTER CONTENT on PLAIN NOTEBOOK paper (NO revenue stamp or NO notary/judicial stamp)::
"We have allowed construction of some portion of land jointly owned by us to Sandip, who is real brother of Prabhat and cousin brother of Anil.
ONLY superstructure amounting ---Rs is jointly owned by Prabhat and Sandip.
The land is owned by Anil and Prabhat jointly and still is our own property. We are jointly living family members Sandip has been allowed to construct jointly with Prabhat.
Sandip paid construction Amount = X Rs. (half of total construction cost)
Prabhat paid construction Amount = Y Rs. (half of total construction cost)
But Prabhat and Sandip submitted letter and claimed that they are the owner of the superstructure and using shop since its purchase, means complete owner of construction.Hence Anil(P1) partition suit is not maintainable.
If Anil wants property to be partitioned, Anil must pay construction cost as per today's market rate of construction cost.
I heard dual ownership is recognised by India.
But in most of cases there is some lease deed/agreement. Here no such registered document, ONLY above letter.
The query is:
1)Can Sandip and Prabhat (real brother) become owner of the premises by just this I.Tax plain notebook letter? NO lease deed/ NO registered doc.
2)Can document(tax assessment/return) submitted in Income Tax is admissible as evidence? Or Proof of ownership?
3)Can above letter submitted to income tax had given/transferred ownership of/from Anil(P1) to Real brothers(Prabhat,Sandip)?
4)Can Anil(P1) become estopped for parttion/possession suit due to above letter submitted to income tax?
As current market rate of superstructure building construction is too high/increased that Anil(P1) can't affort to pay the huge amount.Hence,
5)Can Anil(P1) request the honr. court to demolish the supertstructure and give possesion of land?
6)Please provide any remedy/alternative/solution to get back property by partition suit withought giving construction cost.