Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1281
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Pyare and others - Appellants
Versus
Mange Ram and others - Respondents
RSA No.3452 of 1999 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-10-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate.
Headnote:
Transfer of Property Act - Ownership Dispute - Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The court discussed the principle of prior transferees taking precedence over subsequent purchasers under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court held that the prior purchaser's rights could not be disturbed by a subsequent sale deed and that the owner cannot transfer better title than what he himself has.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership of land resulting from multiple transactions and pre-emption decrees. The plaintiff claimed ownership of 95 kanals 19 marlas of land, while the defendants disputed the extent of the plaintiff's ownership.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts were a result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. It held that the plaintiff's ownership was valid only to the extent of 44 kanals 10 marlas, and the defendants were declared owners of the remaining portions of the land.
Issues: The main issues were whether the lower courts' decisions were based on misreading and non-reading of evidence, and whether the owner could transfer better title than what he himself had.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of prior transferees taking precedence over subsequent purchasers under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It emphasized that the owner cannot transfer better title than what he himself has.
Final Decision: The regular second appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff's suit was decreed only to the extent of 44 kanals 10 marlas, while the defendants were declared owners of the remaining portions of the land.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Defendants-appellants are in regular second appeal against concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below.
2. In the considered opinion of this Court, following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present case.
(i) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence?
(ii) Whether the owner can transfer better title then what he himself has?
3. Undisputed facts available on the record are that one Prabhu, defendant no.4, son of Jyot Ram and his sister Suraj Kaur were owner of land measuring 133 kanals 11 marlas. Prabhu was owner to the extent of 3/4th share, whereas Suraj Kuar was owner to the extent of 1/4th share. It is further not in dispute that out of the joint land 5 kanals 13 marlas was acquired by the State (5 kanals 12 marlas as asserted by counsel for the respondent). Thus, Prabhu and Suraj Kaur were left with 127 kanals 18 marlas of land.
4. Suraj Kaur sold her entire property to one Shri Partap on 05.06.1967. Prabhu gifted land measuring 28 kanals 12 marlas to Sunil Kumar, defendant no.1. On the same day, Prabhu also sold land measuring 14 kanals 16 marlas in favour of defendant no.2 and predecessor-in-interest of defendant no.3, 3 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), i.e., legal heirs of Bhakhtawar. Prabhu subsequently pre-empted the sale deed in favour of Partap, vide decree dated 21.06.1969. Thereafter, Prabhu sold the land measuring 40 kanals in favour of the plaintiff Pahlad. Prabhu subsequently sold land measuring 55 kanals 19 marlas in favour of one Bale Ram vide sale deed dated 28.06.1973. Plaintiff Pahlad filed a suit for pre-emption. Sunil Kumar, defendant no.1 also filed a suit for pre-emption. The suit filed by Pahlad was decreed vide decree dated 02.08.1974, whereas suit filed by Sunil Kumar, defendant no.1 was dismissed vide judgment Ex.P28 on the file.
5. Pahlad-plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration claiming that he is owner in possession of land measuring 95 kanals 19 marlas.
6. Both the Courts have decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that Pahlad purchased 40 kanals of land vide sale deed dated 31.10.1969 and got land measuring 55 kanals 19 marlas through preemption decree dated 02.08.1974.
7. The Courts have taken a view that since the decree and the sale deed in favour of plaintiff have not been challenged, therefore, the share of Pyare, Bhakhtawar and Sunil Kumar would accordingly stand reduced.
8. Now the stage is set for answering the questions of law framed earlier.
QUESTIONS NO.(i) and (ii)
(i) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence?
(ii) Whether the owner can transfer better title then what he himself has?
9. It is not in dispute that Prabhu before becoming owner of the share of Suraj Kaur through pre-emption decree sold the land measuring 14 kanals 16 marlas to Pyare and Bhakhtawar, predecessor-in-interest of defendant no.3, 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and transferred land measuring 28 kanals 12 marlas in favour of Sunil Kumar by way of a gift, defendant no.1 on the same date. The rights conferred by gift deed and sale deed dated 01.06.1968, which is prior in point of time have to be honoured. If Prabhu was not left with land measuring 55 kanals 19 marlas, sold to Bale Ram then it is the last purchaser who has to suffer.
10. Merely because the plaintiff pre-empted the aforesaid sale deed from Bale Ram that would not increase what could be transferred in favour of Bale Ram. Prabhu could transfer only that part in favour of Bale Ram, which was left with him. If one makes calculation upto 31.10.1969, Prabhu had transferred land measuring 83 kanals 8 marlas ( sale 14 kanals 16 marlas + gift 28 kanals 12 marlas + sale in favour of Pahlad, plaintiff 40 kanals). Thus, Prabhu was left with only 44 kanals 10 marlas because after acquisition the total land left with Prabhu was 127 kanals 18 marlas on
