Registered Sale Deed Is Supreme – Co-owner’s Name Cannot Be Illegally Deleted From Municipal Records: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Mutation Entries Cannot Override Title Under Registered Sale Deed; Co-owner’s Rights Must Be Restored”:  On 21st July 2025, the Punjab & Haryana High Court delivered a decisive judgment upholding co-ownership rights flowing from a registered sale deed. Justice Alka Sarin categorically ruled that, “Where title flows from a registered sale deed, mutation entries without legal basis cannot erase co-ownership,” while dismissing a second appeal challenging concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the appellant’s challenge to the mandatory injunction directing rectification of property records was frivolous and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

The dispute concerned House No. 1442-T in Palwal, jointly purchased by the plaintiff (respondent no.1) and the defendant no.2-appellant through a registered sale deed dated 01.05.1996 from one Rama Devi. The plaintiff alleged that, without any basis, his name was surreptitiously deleted from the municipal records in 2002 through an internal survey and mutation process while the appellant, an employee of the Municipal Council, manipulated the records to claim exclusive ownership. The plaintiff remained in possession but discovered the fraud only after obtaining information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The appellant resisted the suit by citing prior litigation in 2004 concerning a different joint property (a common Haveli and flour mill), claiming that the present dispute was barred by res judicata.

The High Court framed the central issue: could a co-owner’s name be erased from municipal property records despite clear proof of joint purchase through a registered sale deed? Further, could prior litigation on a different property extinguish co-ownership rights?

Justice Alka Sarin answered in the negative, making the foundational observation: “The registered sale deed dated 01.05.1996 conclusively establishes that the plaintiff and the appellant purchased the property in equal shares. The rights flowing from a registered title deed cannot be annulled merely by internal municipal record manipulations or alleged prior litigations concerning entirely different properties.” [Para 10]

The Court held that mutation entries, changed during the 2002 survey, could not create or extinguish ownership rights. Justice Sarin ruled:

“Mutation entries do not confer ownership. They are fiscal entries for revenue purposes. Ownership flows from title documents, and where such documents exist, mutation contrary to the sale deed cannot be sustained.” [Para 10]

The Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on the principle of res judicata: “The previous litigation concerned different properties—common Haveli and flour mill—not the suit property. No evidence was led to show how the municipal records were unilaterally altered in 2002 concerning the present property. Res judicata does not apply where subject matter is distinct.” [Para 10]

Justice Alka Sarin thoroughly examined the documentary evidence, including:

• The registered sale deed (Ex.P-2) confirming joint ownership,

• RTI reply (Ex.P-3) admitting deletion of the plaintiff’s name without justification,

• Absence of any order or document supporting the unilateral mutation in appellant’s favour.

The Court observed: “Not only did the appellant fail to rebut the plaintiff’s documentary evidence, but no plausible explanation was furnished as to how or why municipal records were altered to exclude the co-owner’s name.” [Para 10]

In a key pronouncement protecting co-ownership rights, Justice Sarin stated: “The Trial Court and First Appellate Court rightly decreed mandatory injunction for rectification of records, reinstating the name of the plaintiff as co-owner. This Court finds no perversity or legal infirmity in their findings.” [Para 10]

Dismissing the appeal, the Court concluded: “There arises no substantial question of law where concurrent findings are based on clear documentary evidence reflecting joint ownership. Mutation cannot defeat the sanctity of a registered sale deed.” [Para 11]

The High Court upheld both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court judgments, confirming the co-owner’s right to have his name restored in municipal records, and dismissed the appeal as meritless. The judgment sends a strong signal that ownership rights cannot be trampled through administrative manipulation or misuse of official positions.

Justice Sarin succinctly summarized the judicial mandate:

“Rights acquired through a registered sale deed cannot be undone by survey entries or surreptitious mutations. Law protects legitimate title, not administrative convenience.” [Para 10]

Date of Decision: 21 July 2025