AMITA SOOD vs HARMESH KUMAR AND ORS - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2780

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Scope of interference with concurrent findings of fact - Concurrent findings of fact will not be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of the powers under Section 100, unless the conclusions drawn were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at by ignoring material evidence (Paras 23, 24).

(B) Title and Possession - Validity of sale deed - When a vendor has no title or ownership with respect to the suit land, they cannot convey a valid title in favour of the vendee - A sale deed executed on the strength of wrong revenue entries is non-est, null and void, especially if the property had already been sold by the vendor's predecessor-in-interest to another party (Paras 21, 22).

(C) H.P. Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 - Section 54 - Correction of revenue entries - Where land is wrongly recorded in the name of a party during consolidation, the rightful owner can seek correction under the Act to restore the allotment (Para 21).

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a suit for declaration and possession based on a registered sale deed executed by a vendor. The respondents contested the suit, asserting that the vendor's father had already sold the suit land to their predecessor-in-interest decades prior, as evidenced by a mutation entry. It was argued that the vendor's name appeared in the revenue records only due to a mistake during consolidation proceedings, which was subsequently corrected by the predecessor-in-interest under the relevant local consolidation law.

Findings of Court:
The court found that since the vendor's father had already conveyed the title to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, the vendor possessed no legal right, title, or interest to sell the land to the appellant. The sale deed relied upon by the appellant was based on an erroneous revenue entry and was therefore void. Furthermore, the revenue records indicated possession by the respondents, and the appellant failed to establish any ownership or possession.

Issues: Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below were the result of misinterpretation and misconstruction of oral as well as documentary evidence as placed on record.

Ratio Decidendi: A vendor without a valid title cannot transfer ownership to a vendee; thus, a sale deed executed by a person who has no title is null and void. In a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the court cannot re-appreciate evidence to disturb concurrent findings of fact unless those findings are perverse, illegal, or based on inadmissible evidence.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Suit for declaration and possession based on a sale deed — Vendor lacked title. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )

2. Plaintiff claimed title via sale deed; defendants contended vendor had no title as land earlier sold. (Para 11 , 12 )

3. Appeal dismissed — concurrent findings of fact upheld; sale deed held void ab initio. (Para 13 , 28 )

4. What is the scope of interference under Section 100 of the CPC in second appeal?

The High Court will not reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, or ignore relevant evidence. (Para 24 , 25 )

5. Can a person who has no title convey a valid title to another?

No. If the vendor had no title or ownership over the suit land at the time of sale, the sale deed is null and void and conveys no right, title, or interest to the purchaser. (Para 21 , 22 )

6. What constitutes a 'substantial question of law' under Section 100 CPC?

A question of law is substantial if it is of general public importance or directly and substantially affects the parties' rights and is either not finally settled or calls for discussion of alternative views. (Para 24 )

7. Under the H.P. Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, can a consolidation officer correct a wrongly recorded khasra number?

Yes. The consolidation officer can make deficiency good and allot the correct khasra number after an inquiry, even if the revenue record previously showed a different person. (Para 18 , 21 )

( 2026:HHC:17940 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

RSA No. 166 of 2023,

Decided on :13^th May, 2026.

Amita Sood ...Appellant.

Versus Harmesh Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

For the Appellant: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Himalvi and Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocates, for respondents No.1 to 4 and 8(iii).

Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate, for respondents No. 9(ii) to 9(iv), 9(vi), 10(iii), 11 to 13, 15(i) to 15 (iii).

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral).

The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, as passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. dated 31.03.2023, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree, as passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division), Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H. P., dated 30.06.2015, was affirmed whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration and possession was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit for declaration and possession before the learned trial Court. It has been averred that the plaintiff is owner of the land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 55 min/72 Khasra No.57, measuring 0-11-18 bigha share out of total land measuring 0-12-4 bigha, situated in Muhal Kanaid/6, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. The plaintiff has purchased the suit land from Smt. Guti d/o Durgu, vide sale deed No.716, dated 2.12.1992, registered before Sub Registrar Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. on 02.12.1992. The said Smt. Guti put the plaintiff in possession of the suit land on dated 02.12.1992 and thereafter the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit land till 28.06.2009, the date on which plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants No.1 to 7 forcibly and refused to admit the title of plaintiff over the suit land. It has been averred that the defendants are claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit land on the basis of sale in favour of late Sh. Ram Lal s/o Sh. Shyamu, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 8, mentioned in mutation No.903 dated 6.01.1994.

3. As per the plaintiff, the aforesaid mutation entry in favour of Sh. Ram Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 8 is totally wrong and illegal and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and the sale/transfer in favour of late Shri Ram Lal s/o Sh. Shyamu and mutations thereof qua the suit land in his name be declared as null and void. Further, it was prayed that defendants No.1 to 7 be directed to handover the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff.

4. The suit was contested by defendants No.1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 by filing written statement raising various preliminary objections with respect of maintainability, estoppel, cause of action and non joinder etc. On merits, it was averred by the said defendants that the suit land was already sold by Durgu, father of Smt. Guti in favour of Ram Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants in the year 1960 and in that regard necessary mutation No.1561 was duly attested on 31.01.1960 in favour of Ram Lal. Smt. Guti was neither owner nor in possession of the suit land as such she was having no legal right, title and interest in the suit land, as such, she was not competent to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Further, it has been averred that deceased Ram Lal purchased the suit land from Durgu in the year 1960 and since then Shri Ram Lal and after his death his legal heirs/representatives are in possession of the suit land as owners continuously till today and revenue entries to this effect are true and correct. Consequently, it wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2780

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA
AMITA SOOD – Appellant
Versus
HARMESH KUMAR AND ORS – Respondent
RSA/166/2023

Concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC are not disturbed unless perverse or illegal. Additionally, a vendor without valid title cannot convey ownership to a vendee, rendering any such sale deed null and void.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the scope of interference under Section 100 of the CPC in second appeal?

5. Can a person who has no title convey a valid title to another?

6. What constitutes a 'substantial question of law' under Section 100 CPC?

7. Under the H.P. Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, can a consolidation officer correct a wrongly recorded khasra number?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2780

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMAAMITA SOOD – AppellantVersusHARMESH KUMAR AND ORS – RespondentRSA/166/2023

Concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC are not disturbed unless perverse or illegal. Additionally, a vendor without valid title cannot convey ownership to a vendee, rendering any such sale deed null and void.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the scope of interference under Section 100 of the CPC in second appeal?

5. Can a person who has no title convey a valid title to another?

6. What constitutes a 'substantial question of law' under Section 100 CPC?

7. Under the H.P. Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, can a consolidation officer correct a wrongly recorded khasra number?

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA
AMITA SOOD – Appellant
Versus
HARMESH KUMAR AND ORS – Respondent
RSA/166/2023