A Consent Decree Cannot Undo a Valid Sale: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the second appeal filed by Sonu Singh, rejecting his challenge to the validity of multiple sale deeds concerning a disputed piece of ancestral land. Justice Nidhi Gupta upheld the findings of the lower courts, ruling that once the land was sold by his father, Sher Singh, in 1990, no subsequent family settlement or consent decree could override the legally registered transaction.

"No Right Accrues from a Consent Decree Passed After the Sale of Property"

Sonu Singh sought a declaration that he and another family member were the rightful owners of half of the disputed land. He argued that the sale deed executed on July 30, 1990, by his father in favor of Pratap Singh was fraudulent, asserting that Sher Singh never signed it and never received the sale consideration. He further claimed that an imposter appeared before the Sub-Registrar to fraudulently execute the transaction.

Challenging this, the defendants pointed out that the 1990 sale was lawfully registered, and the land had changed hands multiple times since then—from Pratap Singh to Anuradha in 2009, and later to Satyanarayan in 2010. The plaintiff relied on a civil court consent decree dated August 30, 1991, which allegedly recognized his ownership over the property.

Rejecting this argument, the High Court made a clear observation: "A consent decree obtained after the land was already sold cannot confer any rights upon the plaintiff. The property was no longer available for any settlement or transfer by Sher Singh once he had divested his ownership through a legally registered sale deed."

The court further noted that Sher Singh himself had previously filed a suit in 1993, challenging the 1990 sale, but the trial court had dismissed his case on January 14, 2002. Neither Sher Singh nor Sonu Singh filed an appeal against that ruling, confirming the validity of the sale.

"Once a registered sale deed is executed and upheld by law, subsequent family settlements, consent decrees, or oral claims cannot nullify it. The plaintiff’s claim is legally untenable."

Sonu Singh alleged that his father was deceived into executing the 1990 sale deed or that someone else fraudulently signed the document. However, the court found that no evidence was presented to substantiate these claims. The plaintiff failed to seek forensic verification of the signatures or produce any witnesses to support the fraud allegations.

Dismissing the appeal, the court concluded: "If the plaintiff truly believed that the sale deed was fraudulent, he should have pursued forensic verification or raised the issue at the time of execution. Instead, he chose to rely on a consent decree that came after the sale—this, in itself, demonstrates that the property had already changed hands lawfully."

Justice Nidhi Gupta upheld the lower court's ruling, reinforcing that a registered sale deed takes precedence over any subsequent court decree unless fraud is unequivocally proven. The court ruled: "The sale deed of July 30, 1990, stands legal and binding. The plaintiff cannot claim ownership over property that was already sold decades ago. The appeal is dismissed."

This ruling reinforces a critical legal principle—property transactions registered under law cannot be undone by later settlements or consent decrees. The case serves as a cautionary precedent, highlighting the importance of timely legal challenges and the supremacy of validly executed sale deeds.

Date of Decision: February 7, 2025