No One Can Transfer Better Title Than They Possess: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Rectification of Mutation After Inheritance Fraud

In the presence of a Class-I heir, mutation of land in favour of Class-II heirs was wrong” —Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a significant ruling in a land succession dispute involving the misapplication of inheritance law and fraudulent entries in the revenue records. Justice Anil Kshetarpal held that upon the death of Pritam Singh, who died issueless, his mother, Smt. Santo, being his only Class-I legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act, was solely entitled to inherit his remaining property. The Court directed the revenue authorities to rectify the mutation that had wrongly recorded the names of Pritam Singh’s siblings, thereby triggering a series of illegal land transfers.

The dispute concerned the inheritance of land originally held by four brothers — Pritam Singh, Dayal Singh, Mehma Singh, and Dara Singh — each of whom had an equal share in 63 kanals and 16 marlas. During his lifetime, Pritam Singh had lawfully sold approximately 12 kanals and 13 marlas of land. He was left with only 3 kanals and 3 marlas at the time of his death. However, following his death, the revenue officials erroneously mutated his entire one-fourth share of the property (15 kanals and 16 marlas) in the names of his three brothers and his sister, Daro, without recognising that his mother was alive and the sole Class-I heir under the law.

The Court observed that “on the death of Pritam Singh, his mother was alive. She was the only Class-I heir. In the presence of a Class-I heir, mutation of land in favour of Class-II heirs was wrong.” The Court further held that only Smt. Santo could have inherited the residual 3 kanals and 3 marlas and that she alone was competent to transfer that portion through a valid sale deed. Sale deeds executed by Mehma Singh and Smt. Daro, purporting to convey portions of Pritam Singh’s share, were deemed invalid as they exceeded any right those individuals possessed under succession law.

The First Appellate Court had upheld the validity of these sale deeds on the basis of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which protects bona fide purchasers from ostensible owners. However, the High Court categorically rejected this interpretation, holding that the conditions for invoking Section 41 had not been met. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007) 2 SCC 404, the Court reiterated that for Section 41 to apply, the vendor must be an ostensible owner, the transaction must be for consideration, the transfer must occur with the express or implied consent of the true owner, and the buyer must exercise reasonable diligence to verify the title. In the present case, none of these conditions were fulfilled.

Justice Kshetarpal emphasized the cardinal legal principle that “no one can transfer better title than he owns,” rendering the sales by individuals with no lawful claim to Pritam Singh’s land void. The Court was particularly critical of the role played by the revenue officials, stating, “since the entire mess has been created by the revenue authorities,” the Court was constrained to pass specific directions to ensure rectification.

The Court ordered the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, to correct the revenue records within two months and to ensure that only the land measuring 3 kanals and 3 marlas that had devolved upon Smt. Santo be recognised as legitimately sold by her. Sales executed by Mehma Singh and others for land they never inherited were to be disregarded, and if any such transactions had been recorded in the revenue register, they were to be expunged.

The Court added that a compliance report must be submitted under the signature of the Financial Commissioner and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Punjab, to ensure administrative action and accountability for the lapse.

By setting aside the First Appellate Court’s endorsement of unauthorised sales, the High Court has reaffirmed that inheritance and title under personal law cannot be overridden by errors in revenue entries or transactions by those with no legal standing. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering strictly to succession laws and ensuring administrative rectitude in land mutation processes.

Date of Decision: 02 May 2025