In this regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reviewed concurrent judgments from the lower courts that decreed a suit for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff. Justice Parmod Goyal dismissed the appeal, holding that where a co-sharer sells land in excess of his own share by encroaching upon another co-sharer’s share, the sale deed to that extent is void ab initio and does not bind the true owner. The court ruled that revenue records clearly established that the vendor had already exhausted his share prior to executing the disputed sale, and subsequent buyers cannot claim protection as bona fide purchasers without notice when a simple perusal of the jamabandi would have revealed the lack of title.
- Factual Background: The plaintiff purchased land from Krishan Singh via a 2008 sale deed and subsequently initiated partition proceedings. During partition, revenue authorities discovered that Krishan Singh’s brother, Ajmat Singh, had previously sold land in excess of his own $4/15th$ share—encroaching upon Krishan Singh’s share—through successive sale deeds in 1990 and 1997, ultimately leading to the appellant’s acquisition.
- Void Nature of Excess Sales by Co-Sharers: A co-sharer cannot alienate land in excess of their lawful share. Sales executed beyond one’s entitled holding are void ab initio regarding the true owner’s share, regardless of subsequent transfers to third-party vendees.
- Reliability of Revenue Records: Jamabandi entries recorded prior to the disputed transactions reliably demonstrated that the vendor had entirely exhausted his share of land before executing the later sale deeds.
- Rejection of the Bona Fide Purchaser Plea: A purchaser who fails to verify the vendor’s title or inspect readily available revenue records—which would reveal that the vendor held no subsisting share—cannot claim the status of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
- Limitation and Knowledge: A sale deed executed without authority and void ab initio can be challenged within three years from the date of actual knowledge. Because the true owner only discovered the unauthorized sale during partition proceedings, the suit was well within the limitation period.
J.O. (Web) 2026 P&H 36
M/s Astra Lighting Ltd. Lalru Through Its Chairman vs. Sanjay Kumar and Others (D.O.J. 16-07-2026)
J.O. (Web) 2026 P&H 36 click here to view full text of judgment
