A vendor cannot transfer better title than they possess; a sale deed executed by a non-owner is void, reaffirming the principle of title validity in property transactions.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the Judgement dated 18.08.2016 (decree dated 09.09.2016) passed by the learned District Judge-VI, Gumla in Title Appeal No.22 of 2009 whereby the title appeal has been dismissed. The trial court’s judgment is dated 20.06.2009 (decree dated 04.07.2009) passed by the learned Munsif, Gumla in Title Suit No.12 of 1999 whereby the suit was decreed and the registered Sale Deed No.2672/1998 dated 07.12.1998 was declared to be void, illegal and inoperative and the Defendant No.1 was directed to handover the possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs.Defendant No.1 is the appellant before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during the pendency of the partition suit, the elder son of the family sold 5 decimals of land to the Defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 07.12.1998. At that point of time, the appeal arising out of the partition suit was pending. The Partition Suit No.8 of 1993 was dismissed and the corresponding appeal was Title Appeal No.32 of1994. The learned counsel submitted that after the sale of the property, there was a compromise in the partition suit dated 11.12.1998 and as per the compromise, each of the parties to the suit was to remain in possession of their respective portions and was not to sell it to anybody else. As a sequel to the compromise, the plaintiff had unilaterally executed a deed of cancellation dated 14.12.1998. However, having realized that unilateral cancellation of sale deed is not permissible in law, he had filed the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 07.12.1998.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the vendor of the appellant is Respondent No.4, who was Defendant No.2 in the suit and the present appellant namely Surajnath Sahu, who is the purchaser of the property covered by sale deed dated 07.12.1998, was the Defendant No.1 in the suit. The suit was filed by Prasad Rautia, son of Manbir Rautia, and Laxmi Kumari, daughter of Late Manbir Rautia.

5. The learned counsel has submitted that after having executed the sale deed dated 07.12.1998, the parties in the Title Appeal No.32 of 1994 had entered into compromise and by that time, the right, title and interest with respect to 5 decimals of land was already transferred in favour of the appellant, and therefore, the learned courts were not justified in cancelling the registered sale deed dated 07.12.1998 and declaring the same as null and void and inoperative in the eyes of law.

6. The learned counsel has submitted that the principle of lis pendens will not apply as the compromise was collusive between the parties to the Partition Suit No.8 of 1993/Title Appeal No.32 of 1994.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the Defendant No.1-appellant, this Court finds that the case of the plaintiffs was that the land under Khata No.101, Plot No.945 area 0.05 acres of Village Chainpur, District Gumla was recorded in the name of Pillu Rautia and Bandhu Rauta jointly, but in the remark column regarding possession, it was shown according to their mutual partition and possession. The aforesaid land [the suit land] was under the possession of Pillu Rautia who was the father of Manbir Rautia. It was their further case that both the recorded tenants were separated and after the death of recorded tenants, their heirs were in separate possession according to their actual possession. In