A Decree Based on No Pre-existing Right and Procured Through an Impostor is Void and Unenforceable: P&H HC

“A Decree Born of Fraud Has No Leg to Stand On”, In a stern and emphatic ruling, Justice Virinder Aggarwal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a batch of four Regular Second Appeals and a contempt petition arising from a long-running land dispute involving fraudulent decrees, impersonation, and questionable revenue entries. The case concerned agricultural land ownership and possession claims based on a decree dated 14.01.1983, allegedly obtained through a family settlement. The Court declared the decree to be fraudulent, unregistered, and legally void, affirming the concurrent findings of both the trial and first appellate courts.

The matter revolved around land originally owned by Sukh Ram, an aged, issue-less man, who was allegedly manipulated into transferring property via fraudulent legal instruments. Justice Aggarwal held that the courts below had rightly exposed a pattern of impersonation, illegal possession, and collusive litigation, branding the decree as one that “carries no sanctity in law.”

“A Decree Procured Through Impostor and Not Based on Lawful Relationship Cannot be Enforced”

The crux of the litigation was the alleged decree dated 14.01.1983, by which appellants Mohinder Singh and Satpal, minor sons of Lakhmi, claimed ownership of land based on a purported family settlement. It was alleged that Sukh Ram, the landowner, had acknowledged their ownership before the civil court.

The High Court, however, found that Sukh Ram never suffered the decree, nor did he make any appearance or submit to the claims. Instead, the decree was obtained by using an impostor, a conclusion supported by fingerprint expert evidence, which compared the thumb impressions on court documents with Sukh Ram’s known impressions and found them to be fundamentally different.

Justice Aggarwal noted, “The expert concluded that the disputed thumb impressions were of whorl type, while Sukh Ram’s standard prints were of double-loop type… this fundamental difference rendered the decree legally non-existent.”

The Court emphasized that no family relationship existed between Sukh Ram and the appellants, nor was there any pre-existing right to the land. Thus, even if the decree had been genuinely executed, it required mandatory registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, in the absence of a prior legal entitlement. Justice Aggarwal held, “The absence of registration and any pre-existing right rendered the decree a mere paper transaction—one that could not pass title.”

“Revenue Entries Without Notice Cannot Validate Illegal Possession”

The appellants also sought to claim possession through revenue entries in the name of Lakhmi, citing changes made in Khasra Girdwari and Jamabandi records from 1979 onward. However, the Court noted that these entries were made without issuing notice to Sukh Ram, violating legal procedure and instructions laid down by the Financial Commissioner.

The First Appellate Court had reversed the trial court's finding that Lakhmi was in possession, stating categorically that “Change effected without following due process of law is not maintainable.”

Justice Aggarwal agreed, holding that “Possession recorded in official documents without lawful notice to the landowner is not only irregular but entirely void in law.”

Even where Sukh Ram stated during cross-examination that Lakhmi had occasionally cultivated the land, the Court clarified that such occasional use did not amount to legal possession, especially in the face of manipulated revenue entries. The Court concluded that Sukh Ram had remained in possession of the suit land and was entitled to the protective relief of declaration and injunction.

“Fraudulent Litigation Must Not Be Rewarded With Relief—Second Appeals Fail on Merits”

Justice Aggarwal reiterated that the second appeals, having arisen under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, did not require a substantial question of law as a condition for maintainability. Referring to the binding precedents of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi v. Chandrika (2016), Kirodi v. Ram Parkash (2019) and Satender v. Saroj (2022), the Court confirmed that the High Court’s jurisdiction in such second appeals is limited to correcting perverse findings, which was not the case here.

“The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below are supported by cogent reasoning and unimpeachable evidence—there is no perversity or illegality,” observed the judge.

He further remarked, “This Court cannot lend its authority to transactions tainted with fraud, fabricated documents, and unlawful possession cloaked under collusive litigation.”

“Vague Allegations Cannot Sustain Contempt—Petition Dismissed as Misconceived”

The High Court also dealt with Contempt Petition COCP-1620-2008, filed by the appellants claiming that the respondents violated the status quo order passed during the pendency of appeals. It was alleged that Girraj Singh, Sukh Ram’s legal heir, had executed a sale deed in favour of one Kashturi, and forcibly took possession despite court orders.

The Court found the contempt allegations vague and unspecific, stating that “Petitioners failed to specify the date, month, or year of the alleged dispossession… the pleading that possession was ‘recently’ taken lacks the precision necessary for contempt proceedings.”

Importantly, the Court held that Mahinder Singh and Satpal were never in possession to begin with, thus no violation of the status quo order could be said to have occurred.

“A contempt petition cannot be sustained on conjecture and loose assertions—it requires clear, convincing, and categorical evidence of willful disobedience,” concluded the Court, dismissing the petition as wholly misconceived.

“Litigation Built on Falsehood Cannot Prevail in a Court of Equity”

In summing up, Justice Aggarwal directed that “All four appeals are dismissed… the decree dated 14.01.1983 is declared invalid, and the findings regarding Sukh Ram’s possession are affirmed.” The Court also directed that its judgment be placed on the record of all connected files to ensure clarity and consistency in related proceedings.

By exposing the fraud, fabrication, and procedural violations, the High Court has sent a clear signal that civil courts are not havens for land-grabbers and impostors. The judgment stands as a reaffirmation of the maxim that fraud vitiates everything, including court decrees.

Date of Decision: October 13, 2025