Aditya Sood (CA) 10 October 2022

Redemption of property by legal heirs after third-party dispute settlement

The house my uncle & his family live in was originally in the name of my Grandmother. My Grandfather had executed sale deed long time ago in favour of one of his friends as security against a written loan agreement which was to be repaid within 5 years. After a long time of court cases, the dispute was settled by the Supreme Court recently with payment of one large amount to the third party (Grandfather's friend's heirs). On our side, there are 3 first heirs of grandmother - 2 aunts, one uncle & 3 second heirs - mom, myself & brother (as LR's of my dad). Now the order is up for execution of sale deed from the third parties to our names and the problem is that my mother has paid 85% of the settled amount from her own sources. We had tried withdrawing the application from Supreme Court prior to decision, but it was rejected and instead, the final order was issued for executing the sale deeds in all the LR's names. As per our advocate, we cannot claim more than 1/4th share (belonging to my dad being one of 4 heirs of grandmother) which will come to us automatically through succession. Dad's siblings are basically getting 1/4th share each without paying for it, because they all collectively paid only 15% of the total amount. They are also not willing to refund the excess amount paid by my mom.

My query is whether this can be treated as a re-purchase of property with the shares being distributed in the ratio of payment made by each LR? I need some law or case precedent to convince our lawyer so that the sale deed is executed fairly. The only course of action as per our lawyer is get the sale deed with 1/4th share, then file a partition suit for possession and separate suit against dad's siblings for recovery of excess amount, both of which are possible only after execution of the sale deed.

Reply Follow

1 Replies

Faiyaz Takrim 10 November 2025

Your situation can reasonably be treated as a re-purchase or redemption of property rather than mere succession. Although the Supreme Court has directed that the sale deed be executed in the names of all legal heirs, the equitable ownership of each heir depends on the proportion of their financial contribution towards the redemption amount. Under Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, where property is jointly purchased and the consideration is paid from different sources, each contributor is entitled to ownership corresponding to their payment. Here, since the applicant’s mother has paid 85 percent of the total settled amount from her own funds, she acquires an equitable interest in that proportion. While compliance with the Supreme Court order requires executing the sale deed equally in all heirs’ names, the applicant’s mother can subsequently seek a partition and declaration before a competent civil court to record her higher share, or alternatively claim reimbursement from other heirs for their unpaid contribution. The earlier mortgage-like arrangement between the grandfather and his friend was only a security transaction; therefore, its redemption by the heirs amounts to a fresh transfer of ownership based on repayment, consistent with the spirit of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act and the equitable doctrine that a person who redeems from their own resources gains a superior beneficial interest. In short, the property may be conveyed equally for procedural compliance, but legal equity favours apportionment of ownership according to actual payment, allowing the applicant’s mother to assert her larger right through appropriate civil proceedings after execution of the sale deed.

To ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive and to protect your mother’s rightful interest, the immediate step should be to execute the sale deed in equal shares among all legal heirs as ordered, to avoid procedural delay or contempt. Once the deed is executed, your mother should file a civil suit for partition and declaration under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking judicial recognition of her 85% equitable ownership based on her actual financial contribution, as supported by Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In the alternative, she may pursue a money recovery suit against the other heirs to recover the proportionate amounts they failed to pay. It is essential to preserve all proof of payments, bank records, and settlement receipts to substantiate her claim. This approach ensures procedural compliance with the Supreme Court’s order while simultaneously securing her substantive equity and financial contribution in the property.