Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Mahinder Kaur VS Jatinder Singh...
Checking relevance for State of Punjab VS Baldev Singh...
2017 0 Supreme(P&H) 2909 : A subsequent purchaser cannot acquire a better title than that of the previous (transferor) if the previous title is invalid. This is established by the principle that a person cannot confer better title than they themselves possess. The Transfer of Property Act, 1881, Section 41, which provides an exception allowing a bona fide purchaser for value to acquire valid title even if the transferor lacked authority, does not apply when the transfer violates a statutory provision, such as the Punjab Utilization and Surplus Area Scheme, 1973, Clause 10, which prohibits transfer of allotted land before 15 years. In such cases, where the transferee fails to make reasonable enquiry about the transferor’s competence—especially when revenue records explicitly restrict transfer—the sale deed and mutation are set aside, and the plaintiff cannot be considered a bona fide purchaser. Thus, the subsequent purchaser acquires no better title where the prior title is invalid due to statutory prohibition and lack of due diligence.Checking relevance for Mohinder Singh (died) through his LRs. VS Banta Singh...
2012 0 Supreme(P&H) 627 : A subsequent purchaser cannot acquire a better title than that of the previous vendor if the previous title was invalid. In the case described, the first sale deed executed by ''''w'''' in favor of the plaintiff was valid and transferred the property. The subsequent sale deed by ''''w''''s heirs in favor of subsequent vendees was held invalid because the heirs had no transferable rights in the property, which had already been transferred for valuable consideration to the plaintiff. Therefore, the subsequent vendees could not claim protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as they were not bona fide purchasers, particularly because the plaintiff''''s relationship to ''''w'''' and the fact that the subsequent vendees were residents of the same village made it impossible for them to claim ignorance of the prior sale.Checking relevance for Fazri VS State Of Haryana...
2021 0 Supreme(P&H) 229 : A subsequent purchaser cannot acquire a better title than that held by the previous owner if the previous title is invalid. This principle was explicitly applied in the case where the Financial Commissioner held that the authorities below had wrongly conferred ownership upon respondent Nos. 4 & 5, meaning they were not owners by any stretch of imagination. Consequently, they could not transfer a better title to subsequent purchasers, and thus no protection could be given to the petitioner who knowingly bought the property during pending litigation.Checking relevance for Usha Arora And Others VS State Of Punjab...
2009 0 Supreme(P&H) 1928 : A subsequent purchaser cannot acquire a title better than the one held by the transferor. If the vendor''''s right to challenge acquisition proceedings is lost due to inordinate delay, laches, and acquiescence, the transferee claiming under them cannot claim a better right to do so. This principle is supported by multiple Supreme Court decisions, including U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P., Ajay Krishan Shinghal v. Union of India, Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, and Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, which all hold that transfers of land after the issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, do not bind the Government or the beneficiary of acquisition, and that subsequent purchasers acquire no better title than the transferor.Checking relevance for Joginder Singh VS Financial Commissioner (Cooperation), Punjab, Chandigarh...
2012 0 Supreme(P&H) 1064 : A subsequent purchaser cannot acquire any right, title or interest in the land if the previous title is invalid, as the sale may be void against the State. However, despite not acquiring title, the subsequent purchaser is entitled to step into the shoes of the original owner and claim compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly when the alienation occurred after notification under Section 4. The purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings or the validity of the notification, but retains the right to compensation as a bonafide purchaser.
