Co-Sharer Cannot Sell Specific Land Without Partition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Mutation Illegal

Possession Cannot Be Disturbed Based on Invalid Mutation," In a decisive ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a permanent injunction in favor of landowners, declaring that a co-sharer cannot transfer specific Khasra numbers without partition. Dismissing the second appeal (RSA-1250-2020) filed by Balbir Singh & Others, the Court ruled that Mutation No. 2116, sanctioned in favor of the defendants, was illegal and void.

Justice Vikram Aggarwal, while delivering the judgment on February 3, 2025, observed, “Ajaib Singh, being a co-sharer, was not entitled to alienate specific Khasra numbers. The mutation sanctioned in favor of the defendants without partition was legally unsustainable.”

The dispute involved 16 kanals of agricultural land in Tarn Taran, Punjab, where the plaintiffs, legal heirs of Massa Singh, had sought declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiffs contended that the land was jointly owned and that the defendants had no legal right over it. They also argued that the mutation, based on a 1977 sale deed, was fraudulent and unenforceable.

The defendants claimed that Ajaib Singh, a co-sharer, had sold specific Khasra numbers to them through a sale deed dated April 11, 1977, and that mutation had been correctly sanctioned in their favor in 2012. Rejecting this claim, the Court observed that no specific Khasra number could have been sold or mutated without a formal partition. “Mutation does not create or extinguish title; it is merely a fiscal entry. Without partition, no co-sharer can claim exclusive ownership over a particular Khasra number,” the Court held.

Crucially, the Court noted that prior litigation in 1977 had already decided the issue in favor of the plaintiffs. A suit for permanent injunction filed by Massa Singh and others had been decreed in their favor, while a possession suit filed by the defendants had been dismissed the same year.

The testimony of DW-1 Balbir Singh, a defendant witness, further weakened their case. During cross-examination, he admitted that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property and that neither the defendants nor Ajaib Singh had ever occupied the land. The Court remarked, “A party cannot claim possession while admitting, in the same breath, that they never occupied the land. The defendants’ claim stands contradicted by their own testimony.”

Dismissing the appeal, the Court concluded, “The plaintiffs’ possession cannot be disturbed based on an invalid mutation. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were correct in granting an injunction. No interference is warranted.”

With this ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinforced the principle that co-sharers cannot claim exclusive ownership over specific portions of land without partition, ensuring legal certainty in inheritance and land ownership disputes.

Date of Decision: 03/02/2025