No Title Can Pass if Seller Has None; 'Bona Fide Purchaser' Plea Fails Without Due Diligence: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Cancellation of Sale Deed Under Indian Easements Act, 1882 - 2025-07-16

Sale of Joint Family Courtyard Invalid, Buyer's 'Bona Fide' Claim Rejected: Chhattisgarh HC

RAIPUR , C.G. - The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a trial court's decision to nullify the sale of a portion of a joint family courtyard, ruling that a seller cannot transfer a better title than they possess. Justice Narendra KumarVyas , in the case of Shri Kaushik Kumar Katta vs. Santosh Rao Dani (Died) & Ors. , dismissed the appeal filed by the purchaser, holding that the plea of being a "bona fide purchaser" is not sustainable without proof of due care and attention before the transaction.

The court affirmed that the plaintiffs, members of the Dani family, had successfully established a long-standing customary and easementary right over the common courtyard, which could not be sold off by individual family members.

Case Background

The dispute originates from a property known as " Dani Bada " in Raipur, which was partitioned among the ancestors of the Dani family in 1895. The plaintiffs contended that a common courtyard within the compound was intentionally excluded from the partition to be used by all family members for access and movement.

In 2004, two members of the family, Balasahab Dani and Chandrakant Dani (defendants No. 2 and 3), sold a portion of this common courtyard to Shri Kaushik Kumar Katta (appellant/defendant No. 1) for a sum of Rs. 50,000. When Katta began construction on the disputed land, the other family members (plaintiffs) filed a suit seeking to declare the sale deed null and void.

The trial court, in 2006, sided with the plaintiffs, voiding the sale and ordering the demolition of the new construction. Aggrieved, the purchaser, Katta, filed the present first appeal before the High Court.

Key Arguments

Appellant's Contentions (The Purchaser): -

Bona Fide Purchaser: Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate for the appellant, argued that his client was a bona fide purchaser who had acted in good faith, relying on the partition deed of 1895 presented by the sellers. -

Lack of Property Description: The suit was not maintainable as the plaint did not sufficiently identify the property in violation of Order 7 Rule 3 of the CPC. -

Failure to Prove Easement: The plaintiffs failed to plead and prove a continuous easementary right for over 20 years as required by law. -

No Standing to Sue: One of the plaintiff's witnesses, Madhukar Rao Dani, had already sold his personal share in the property and thus had no right to sue.

Respondents' Contentions (The Dani Family): -

No Right to Sell: Mr. Anurag Singh, counsel for the respondents, argued that the sellers (defendants No. 2 and 3) never had exclusive title over the common courtyard and therefore had no legal right to sell it. -

Common Use: The partition deeds and long-standing use proved that the courtyard was meant for the common enjoyment of all family members. -

No Due Diligence by Purchaser: The appellant failed to conduct a proper inquiry before purchasing the property, which negates his claim of being a bona fide purchaser.

High Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Vyassystematically addressed the key legal issues, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

On Easementary Rights: The Court found that the plaintiffs had successfully established an easement of necessity and a customary right under the Indian Easements Act, 1882. Witness testimonies confirmed that the courtyard had been used as a common passage by all branches of the family since the 1895 partition. The Court observed:

"The plaintiff was able to plead and prove that he has easementary right to use common courtyard as way which has not been rebutted by the defendant No.1 by adducing that other common pathway is available..."

On the 'Bona Fide Purchaser' Defense: The Court rejected the appellant's claim of being a bona fide purchaser, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies on the person making such a claim. Justice Vyas noted the appellant's failure to demonstrate adequate due diligence.

"The defendant has also not stated in his evidence that he was residing far away from the suit property, as such also no information with regard to right of defendant No. 2 and 3 to sell the suit property can be ascertained by conducting some factual enquiry. In absence of any such material, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is bonafide purchaser."

Citing the Supreme Court, the judgment reiterated that "good faith" under law requires "due care and attention" and not just honesty.

On Property Identification: The argument that the suit failed due to improper property description was also dismissed. The Court held that since the challenged sale deed itself contained a description of the property, its identity was well-known to all parties involved.

Final Decision

The High Court concluded that the trial court's findings were well-reasoned and free from perversity or illegality. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decree—voiding the sale deed and ordering the removal of the illegal construction—was confirmed. The interim stay granted by the High Court in 2006 was vacated, clearing the way for the enforcement of the original decree.