Ownership Flows From Title, Not Just Sale Deed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Claim Of Ownership Without Proven Share

“No One Can Sell More Than They Own”: Sale Of 3/4th Share By 1/4th Co-sharer Invalid, Holds High Court. In a significant judgment reinforcing fundamental principles of property law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by Nirmaljit Kaur, reaffirming that ownership rights cannot arise from a sale deed executed by a person who does not possess a valid title. Justice Alka Sarin upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, rejecting the appellant’s claim of ownership over agricultural land.

The Court categorically held: “A person cannot confer a better title than he possesses. The execution of a sale deed without lawful ownership does not confer ownership rights.” (Para 9)

The case concerns a classic dispute over agricultural land ownership where a plaintiff sought declaration and injunction based on a sale deed executed by her husband, while the revenue records reflected a much smaller share than claimed in the sale deed. The judgment reiterates that legal ownership emanates from recorded title and possession, not merely from documents of sale.

The appellant, Nirmaljit Kaur, filed a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership over 5 kanals of land situated in Khewat No.418, claiming title through a registered sale deed executed by her husband, Gurlal Singh. Her case was that certain defendants had illegally sold land in excess of their share, while her title over 5 kanals through her husband stood perfected by sale deed and mutation.

Both the Trial Court (judgment dated 24.01.2017) and the First Appellate Court (judgment dated 20.01.2020) dismissed her suit, holding that her vendor, Gurlal Singh, had ownership rights only to the extent of 1/4th share, and therefore, could not validly sell 5 kanals (purportedly representing 3/4th share). These concurrent findings prompted the present regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Sale Deed Is Not Conclusive of Title

The Court emphasized that valid ownership arises from lawful title, not from mere execution of a sale deed: “Though the sale deed has been proved, the title of the vendor has not been established before the Court below. Execution of the sale deed does not cure the defect of title.” (Para 9)

The Court highlighted that the Jamabandi (Ex.P4) clearly reflected Gurlal Singh’s share as only 1/4th in the disputed property. Yet, the sale deed recited a 3/4th share without any supporting documents.

Vendor’s Limited Share Rendered Sale Beyond 1/4th Invalid

Justice Alka Sarin ruled: “The plaintiff’s husband could not have transferred more than 1/4th share. Sale beyond the vendor’s lawful share is ineffectual to confer ownership.” (Para 9)

The Court reaffirmed this cardinal rule of property law, holding that purchasers cannot acquire better title than what their vendor lawfully holds.

No Evidence Of Excess Sale By Defendants

The Court also found that the plaintiff failed to substantiate the allegation that other defendants (respondent Nos.3 to 5) sold land beyond their legitimate share. The Court observed:

“Both Courts rightly concluded that after the sale deed executed by Gurlal Singh, the defendants had residual shares and their sale of 10 marlas to respondent No.1 was within their lawful entitlement.” (Para 9)

No Substantial Question Of Law

Reiterating the limited scope of second appeals under Section 100 CPC, Justice Sarin concluded: “This Court finds no perversity or misapplication of law in the concurrent findings. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.” (Para 10)

The High Court thus refused to interfere, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgments of the courts below. The decision reinforces the principle that title in immovable property flows from lawful ownership reflected in revenue records, and mere execution of a sale deed cannot vest rights beyond the vendor’s recorded share.

Summarizing its conclusion, the Court held: “In the absence of any cogent evidence to depict a higher share in the vendor, the plaintiff’s claim rightly stood rejected. The appeal is wholly devoid of merit.” (Para 10)

The pending applications were also disposed of.

Date of Decision: 21 July 2025