The main legal point established in the judgment is that a vendee cannot take advantage of the concealment or fraud committed by the vendor, and what is not owned by a person cannot be sold.

ORDER :

Arun Monga, J.

1. By way of regular second appeal under challenge herein is a judgment of trial Court affirmed by first appellate court, whereby the appellant herein has suffered a decree of declaration holding that sale deed No. 2282 dated 17.12.2009 executed by defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 2 herein) in favour of defendant No. 1 appellant herein) is illegal, null and void to the extent of 1/3rd share of plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) in the suit land. As a result thereof, mutation No. 2983 has also been declared as illegal, null and void. Consequently, the Courts below have permanently restrained the defendants in civil suit from alienating 1/3rd share of the plaintiff in the suit land in any manner.

2. The controversy relates to agricultural land measuring 51 Kanal and 3 Marias located at Village Biroke Murd, Tehsil Budlada, District Mansa, being the suit property. The said land was in the name of deceased Hardam Singh who died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff (daughter) and defendant No. 2 (son) and defendant No. 3 (second daughter). An earlier suit was preferred by Balwant Kaur alias Kulwant Kaur seeking declaration that upon the death of her father Hardam Singh, the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3 inherited the suit property in equal shares by operation of law of succession. However, before the trial concluded, defendant No. 2 got the entire land mutated in his name by virtue of mutation of inheritance of Hardam Singh on 19.02.1986. Aforesaid earlier suit was decreed in favour of respondent No. 1 herein (plaintiff) vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.1994 whereby she was declared as owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit land. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, son preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the first Appellate Court. The regular second appeal filed before this Court was also dismissed, upholding the judgment passed by the trial Court, as affirmed by the first appellate Court on 12.10.1999. Notwithstanding this, the son did not disclose the previous litigation and the finality thereof, wherein it was declared that he is owner to the extent of only 1/3rd share of the suit land. He surreptitiously executed sale deed dated 17.12.2009 in favour of appellant herein qua the entire suit land claiming himself to be exclusive owner of the same. After the said sale deed, appellant proclaimed himself to be the owner of the entire suit land as against the earlier declaration, vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.1994 whereby both the daughters and the son of deceased Hardam Singh were held owner to the extent of 1/3rd in the suit land in equal shares. This resulted in filing of civil suit No. 1676 of 2013 by one of the daughters of Hardam Singh which was decreed in her favour, leading to the present second appeal.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record appended with the appeal herein.

4. The main thrust of the argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant is bona fide purchaser. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that being a vendee the appellant made appropriate inquiry and checked the revenue records to ascertain whether the vendor/transferrer of the land was the recorded owner or not and having satisfied himself, he purchased the same from the son of deceased Hardam Singh. The appellant, therefore, acted in good faith after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferrer/vendor of the land had the power to make the transfer as contemplated under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in case titled as, "Jagan Nath v. Raj Kumar and others", 1986 (2) PLR 101. Speaking for this Court, J.V. Gupta, J as his Lordship then was, made the following observations:

"Apart from the above, as regards the facts of the present case, the mutation in favour of Kewal Krishan an