Sale of Specific Khasra Numbers Doesn’t Make You Exclusive Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules Vendee Steps into Shoes of Co-sharer Only

“Co-sharer Cannot Sell What She Doesn’t Own Exclusively — Vendee Purchases an Undivided Share, Not a Specific Plot”, In a decisive ruling that reinforces the legal character of co-ownership in undivided joint property, the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a Regular Second Appeal filed by purchasers claiming exclusive ownership over specific khasra numbers in a joint holding.

Justice Pankaj Jain upheld concurrent findings of the courts below and ruled that a co-sharer cannot alienate specific parcels from a joint khewat as if she had exclusive title. Any sale of land with reference to khasra numbers is, in law, a sale of an undivided share, and the vendee merely becomes a co-sharer in the joint holding, not an exclusive owner.

“A co-sharer has an interest in the entire property and also in every parcel of the joint land... such a vendee would be deemed to be a co-owner/co-sharer in the entire joint khewat, irrespective of the artificial divisions of the joint land into different rectangles, khasra and killa numbers,” the Court reaffirmed, quoting the Full Bench in Ram Chander v. Bhim Singh, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 685.

Partition of Abadi Land Lies With Civil Court, Not Revenue Authorities — Possession Under Sale Deed Cannot Block Partition

The dispute revolved around 141 kanals of joint land, part of which was agricultural, and part abadi. While agricultural land was partitioned by revenue authorities, 26 kanals 9 marlas of abadi land was excluded from those proceedings following directions of the Financial Commissioner. The plaintiffs, claiming through one co-sharer (Kartar Kaur), filed a suit for partition of the abadi portion, which the Trial Court and First Appellate Court both decreed in their favour, holding them entitled to 1/5th share.

The defendants, purchasers from another co-sharer (Parsin Kaur), challenged the decree in second appeal, asserting exclusive ownership based on sale deeds of specific khasra numbers. They argued that since they were put in possession of demarcated land through registered deeds in 1980, their parcel stood excluded from any future partition.

However, the High Court rejected this argument, citing not only Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but also the Full Bench precedent in Ram Chander, holding that:

“The sale of a portion of the land out of the joint holding by one of the co-sharers is nothing but a sale of the share out of the joint holding.”

The Court emphasized that even where sale deeds reference particular plots or boundaries, they do not confer absolute title, unless there has been a valid and complete partition among co-owners.

“Once You Agree It’s Abadi Land, You Can’t Resile Later”: High Court Applies Estoppel Against Vendee’s Claim

Another key argument from the defendants was that the land sold to them was agricultural, and therefore rightly excluded from further partition. But the record revealed that the defendants themselves had consented before revenue authorities to treat Khasra Nos. 997, 998, 999, and 1000 as abadi land, which was excluded from partition.

Rejecting the attempt to now deny that fact, the Court observed:

“Once the parties agreed that the land comprised in khasra nos.997, 998, 999 and 1000 was abadi land and needs to be excluded from partition proceedings, no fault can be found with the revenue authorities in proceeding with the partition of agricultural land.”

Justice Jain also noted that the defendants had actively participated in partition proceedings before the Assistant Collector and had even filed appeals which were dismissed. Having not challenged the final partition of agricultural land, the Court held they cannot now indirectly attack those proceedings through civil litigation.

Preferential Rights Under Section 48 TPA Can Be Considered at Final Decree Stage — Not at Preliminary Decree Stage

The appellants also attempted to assert preferential rights as prior purchasers under co-sharer Parsin Kaur, citing Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court, while not denying that such a plea may be relevant, held that this issue was premature at the current stage.

“Only the share of the co-sharers has been ascertained by judgment and decree impugned under appeal. The defendants are granted liberty to raise the plea regarding their preferential rights at the time of final decree proceedings.”

Appeal Dismissed — Co-sharer Cannot Sell Exclusive Parcels of Undivided Property

The High Court’s ruling sends a firm message on the legal consequences of buying land from co-sharers in undivided joint property: “You buy a share, not a plot.” Even if the sale deed describes specific numbers or boundaries, such conveyance does not confer exclusive ownership unless partition by metes and bounds has already occurred.

Summing up, Justice Jain held:

“In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the Courts below that the suit land being joint needs to be partitioned and the plaintiffs being co-sharers are entitled for their share.”

Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications stood disposed of.

Date of Decision: 20 January 2026