Prior Registered Sale Deed Prevails Under Section 48 TPA; Vendor Cannot Sell What He No Longer Owns: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Swaraj Pal Singh and another v. Arun Kumar and others
Date of Judgment: 06 July 2026
Citation: RSA-2793-2013
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where the same vendor executes multiple sale deeds regarding the same property, the transfer prior in time will prevail under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Once the vendor has already transferred his remaining right, title and interest, he cannot subsequently create any valid title in favour of another purchaser.
The Court further held that a suit seeking declaration of ownership on the basis of registered sale deeds is not barred by limitation merely because an ancillary challenge is also made to a subsequent sale deed. A declaration concerning title under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is distinct from cancellation of an instrument under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Summary: The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming ownership and possession over land comprised in Khasra No.196, relying upon registered sale deeds dated 12.06.1985 and 29.08.1985 executed by defendant No.1. They also challenged a later sale deed dated 20.08.1987 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, along with consequential mutation.
The defendants argued that the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs were sham transactions and were actually part of an alleged exchange arrangement involving a Panchkula plot. They also contended that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the later sale deed was executed in 1987 while the suit was filed in 1996.
The Court rejected these contentions. It noted that defendant No.1 admitted execution of the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs. The plea of exchange remained unproved and was contrary to the recitals of the registered sale deeds, which recorded payment of sale consideration.
The Court held that after the earlier transfers, defendant No.1 was left with only 15.5 marlas. Out of this, 6 marlas stood transferred to plaintiffs No.4 and 5, leaving only 9.5 marlas available for transfer to plaintiffs No.1 to 3. Therefore, the sale deed dated 29.08.1985 was valid only to the extent of 9.5 marlas. By the time defendant No.1 executed the sale deed dated 20.08.1987 in favour of defendant No.2, he had no remaining right, title or interest in the suit property.
Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. The judgments of the Courts below were upheld. The plaintiffs were held entitled to ownership and possession over 15.5 marlas of land, i.e., 6 marlas + 9.5 marlas, out of the land comprised in Khasra No.196. The Court also held that the subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of third parties during pendency of the suit was hit by lis pendens and had no bearing on the plaintiffs’ rights.