The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that a sale deed executed by one co-sharer of ancestral property without the consent of other heirs is void ab initio, and any subsequent transfer by the transferee during pendency of litigation cannot confer valid title. This judgment underscores the non-transferable nature of rights in undivided joint family property and binds subsequent buyers to the outcome of pending suits.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on Khasra No. 352, measuring 0.121 hectares, located in Village Sundarpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. The property was originally recorded in the name of Karuha Panika during settlement proceedings. Upon his death, it devolved upon his legal heirs, including Basant Panika, who became the recorded holder. The plaintiffs, Ghasnin Bai and Urmila Manikpuri, claim to be Basant Panika’s widow and daughter respectively, and assert that the land is ancestral property. They allege that Basant Panika, lacking exclusive ownership, fraudulently executed a sale deed dated 12.01.2015 in favor of Defendant No.1, Smt. Guddi Bai, for Rs. 1,70,000, without any actual payment and without the consent of other co-sharers.
Key Facts
- The total ancestral property originally measured 5.84 acres, with Basant Panika having sold 3.66 acres during his lifetime.
- The suit land (0.121 hectare) was part of the remaining 2.18 acres, which was not partitioned among heirs.
- The sale deed dated 12.01.2015 was registered but no consideration was proven to have been paid.
- Defendant No.1, Guddi Bai, obtained mutation of her name in revenue records based on this deed.
- Plaintiffs discovered the sale and mutation only in July 2015, after Basant Panika’s death on 31.07.2015.
- Plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 182-A/2015 on 15.09.2015 seeking declaration of title and cancellation of the sale deed.
- Defendant No.1 sold the suit land to Shivshankar Sahu via three registered sale deeds: 23.07.2015, 28.11.2015, and 15.01.2016 - all during the pendency of the suit.
- Defendant No.1 claimed that Birajo Bai, not Ghasnin Bai, was Basant Panika’s legally wedded wife, but failed to produce evidence.
- The plaintiffs were not residing with Basant Panika but were recognized as legal heirs under inheritance law.
Procedural History
- 15.09.2015: Civil Suit No. 182-A/2015 filed by plaintiffs against Defendant No.1 and others.
- 06.07.2021: Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs, declaring the sale deed void and affirming plaintiffs’ title.
- 23.07.2021: Defendant No.1 filed First Appeal No. 34A/2021 under Section 96 CPC.
- 28.07.2021: Subsequent purchasers (Shivshankar Sahu and others) filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment, rejected by Appellate Court.
- 03.08.2021: Subsequent purchasers filed separate First Appeal No. 39A/2021 under Section 96 CPC.
- 23.03.2022: First Appellate Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the Trial Court’s findings.
- 28.03.2022: Defendant No.1 filed Second Appeal No. 297 of 2022 under Section 100 CPC.
- 30.03.2022: Subsequent purchaser Shivshankar Sahu filed Second Appeal No. 343 of 2022 under Section 100 CPC.
- 23.03.2026: Chhattisgarh High Court heard both appeals together and delivered judgment.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellants (Defendant No.1 and Subsequent Purchasers)
- Argued that Basant Panika, as recorded owner, had full authority to sell his share.
- Contended that even if the property was joint, a co-sharer may transfer his undivided share.
- Asserted that no fraud was proven, and the sale deed was registered and supported by witnesses.
- Subsequent purchasers claimed they were not parties to the original suit and acquired title through bonafide, registered transactions.
- Argued that the judgment against Defendant No.1 cannot bind them as strangers to the suit.
For the Respondents (Plaintiffs and State)
- Maintained that the property was ancestral and Basant Panika had no right to alienate the entire share without consent of other heirs.
- Stated that no partition had occurred, and the sale deed was a sham transaction with no payment.
- Emphasized that the subsequent sales occurred during litigation and were therefore subject to the outcome of the suit.
- Cited that the appellants failed to prove Birajo Bai’s status as the sole legal heir.
Relief Sought
The plaintiffs sought: (1) declaration that the sale deed dated 12.01.2015 is null and void; (2) declaration of their title over Khasra No. 352; (3) cancellation of mutation based on the void deed. The subsequent purchasers sought to set aside the judgment and decree as non-binding on them.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a subsequent purchaser, who acquires property during the pendency of a suit challenging the validity of the original sale deed, can claim independent title when the original transfer was made without the consent of co-sharers in ancestral property.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The appellants relied on the principle that a co-sharer in joint property may transfer his undivided share, citing S. G. Gopinath v. S. G. Ramanathan. They argued that the sale deed was registered, consideration was paid, and the plaintiffs failed to prove fraud. They further contended that as subsequent purchasers not impleaded in the suit, they were not bound by its outcome and acquired title under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. They claimed the concurrent findings were erroneous and raised substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC.
For the Respondent/State
The respondents argued that the property was ancestral and not self-acquired. They cited S. S. S. R. v. S. S. R. to establish that alienation of joint family property without consent of all heirs is void. They emphasized that the sale deed lacked consideration and was executed without proof of partition. They further relied on K. S. S. v. K. S. S. to assert that purchasers during litigation are bound by the result, especially when the transferor had no valid title to begin with.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence and legal principles governing ancestral property and subsequent transfers. It noted that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court had independently concluded that Basant Panika had not established exclusive ownership over the suit land. The Court observed that out of 5.84 acres of ancestral property, Basant Panika had already alienated 3.66 acres, leaving only 2.18 acres, of which the suit land formed a part. No partition had occurred, and no consent from other heirs - including the plaintiffs - was obtained.
"The registered sale deed dated 12.01.2015 did not confer any valid title upon Guddi Bai because Basant Panika had no authority to transfer the entire property without the consent of other co-sharers."
The Court further held that even if a co-sharer may transfer his share, the evidence showed that the sale exceeded his share and was not supported by any proof of partition or consent. The absence of payment of consideration further undermined the transaction’s legitimacy.
Regarding the subsequent purchasers, the Court emphasized that the three sale deeds - dated 23.07.2015, 28.11.2015, and 15.01.2016 - were executed during the pendency of Civil Suit No. 182-A/2015. The Court relied on the settled doctrine that a purchaser pendente lite takes the property subject to the outcome of the litigation. The Court cited State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal to reinforce that the burden lies on the appellant to demonstrate perversity or illegality in concurrent findings, which was entirely absent here.
The Court rejected the argument that the subsequent purchasers were strangers to the suit and therefore immune to its outcome. It held that since the original transfer was void, no title passed to Guddi Bai, and consequently, no valid title could be passed to the subsequent purchasers. The Court concluded that the findings of both lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were neither perverse nor contrary to law.
The Verdict
The Second Appeals filed by Defendant No.1 Guddi Bai and subsequent purchaser Shivshankar Sahu are dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 06.07.2021 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 182-A/2015 are affirmed. The sale deed dated 12.01.2015 is declared null and void. The plaintiffs are declared the lawful owners of Khasra No. 352, measuring 0.121 hectare. The mutation entries in favor of Guddi Bai and subsequent purchasers are directed to be cancelled by the revenue authorities within 8 weeks. No costs are awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Subsequent Purchasers Are Not Immune to Void Titles
- Practitioners must assess whether the transferor had valid title before advising on purchase of property during litigation.
- A registered sale deed does not cure a void transfer if the transferor lacked authority over the property.
- Buyers must conduct due diligence on inheritance status and pending litigation, especially in ancestral property cases.
Concurrent Findings Are Nearly Impregnable in Second Appeals
- Challenges under Section 100 CPC must go beyond re-appreciation of evidence and must identify a substantial question of law.
- Mere disagreement with factual findings will not suffice; perversity, illegality, or misreading of law must be demonstrated.
- Courts will not interfere with concurrent findings unless they are based on no evidence or violate settled legal principles.
Ancestral Property Requires Consent for Alienation
- Any sale of ancestral property by one heir without consent of other co-sharers is void, regardless of registration.
- Revenue records alone cannot establish title if the underlying transaction is void.
- Courts will look beyond documents to the nature of ownership and existence of partition.
