Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 718 (CHH)

Leela Bihari Mishra S/o Ramganesh Mishra v. Rahul Sinha S/o Rajendra Sinha

2025-10-13

Radhakishan Agrawal, Sanjay K Agrawal

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Appellant/Defendant No. 1 has preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment and decree dated 28/01/2023 passed by learned 6 th Additional District Judge Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 15B/2018 whereby the suit filed by respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs has been decreed and plaintiffs have been held entitled to get Rs. 16,26,724/- from the defendants along with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit i.e. 20/09/2018. (For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.) 2. The suit land bearing Khasra No. 909 area 1200 sq. ft., plot No. 7 situated at Village Kohka, P.H.N. 14, Tahsil and District Durg was originally owned and held by Sudhakar Rao Gaikwad. He sold the said suit land to Bharat Lal by registered sale deed dated 04/07/2002 (Ex. P/6), however, Bharat Lal did not get his name mutated in the revenue records for a fairly long time and thereafter, Sudhakar Rao Gaikwad again sold the suit land to H. Laxmi by sale deed dated 05/02/2010 (not exhibited) and subsequently, H. Laxmi sold the suit land to defendant No. 1 Leela Bihari Mishra by sale deed dated 16/09/2010 (not exhibited) and lastly, defendant No. 1 Leela Bihari Mishra alienated the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs by sale deed dated 15/07/2016 (Ex. P/2). 3. Plaintiffs filed a civil suit stating inter alia that they have purchased the suit land owned by defendant No. 1 Leela Bihari Mishra through defendant No. 2 by registered sale deed dated 15/07/2016 (Ex. P/2) and have paid an amount of Rs. 16,26,724/- to defendant No. 2 in total including Rs. 13,95,000/- as sale consideration, Rs. 98,530/- as registration fees and some expenditure related to attestation etc. P/2) and have paid an amount of Rs. 16,26,724/- to defendant No. 2 in total including Rs. 13,95,000/- as sale consideration, Rs. 98,530/- as registration fees and some expenditure related to attestation etc. However, after two years from the execution of the said sale deed, they received a notice from Police Station Supela, Durg that the suit land has already been sold to Bharat Lal by its original owner Sudhakar Rao Gaikwad and since plaintiffs are subsequent purchasers, therefore, they would not have any right over the suit land, which led to the filing of the civil suit by the plaintiffs for recovery of amount of Rs. 16,26,724/- from the defendants. 4. Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement opposing the plaint averments and stated that he is bonafide purchaser of the suit land and has rightly transferred the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs, therefore, the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. 5. Defendant No. 2 filed his separate written statement and stated that plaintiffs showed interest to purchase the suit land and he arranged their meeting with defendant No. 1 and thereafter, rest of the transaction took place between plaintiffs and defendant No. 1, therefore, plaintiffs’ suit deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned trial Court framed 3 issues and answered them as stated below :- 7. In sum and substance, the trial Court has held that since original owner namely Sudhakar Rao Gaikwad sold the suit land in favour of Bharat Lal by registered sale deed dated 04/07/2002 (Ex. P/6), therefore, he could not have subsequently sold the suit land to H. Laxmi and proceeded to grant decree of recovery of Rs. 16,26,724/- from the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. 8. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant No. 1, would submit that the trial Court has committed grave legal error in granting decree in favour of the plaintiffs, as claimed by them. 8. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant No. 1, would submit that the trial Court has committed grave legal error in granting decree in favour of the plaintiffs, as claimed by them. The trial Court ought to have seen that defendant No. 1, who is bona fide purchaser, without knowing the fact of suit land having been transferred in favour of Bharat Lal by its original owner Sudhakar Rao Gaikwad, rightly alienated the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 9. Mr. Pushp Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff No. 2, would support the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and submit that the trial Court is absolutely justified in granting decree in favour of the plaintiffs as Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1872 enshrines the Doctrine of Priority which incorporates an important principle that no man can convey a title better than what he himself possesses. As such, the the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant No. 1 is liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 11. The question that arises for determination in this first appeal is, “whether the trial Court is justified in granting decree for recovery of Rs. 16,26,724/- along with 6% interest in favour of the plaintiffs ?” 12. Admittedly, the suit land was originally owned by Sudhakar Rao Gaikwad and he sold the said suit land to Bharat Lal by registered sale deed dated 04/07/2002 (Ex. P/6) and though Bharat Lal could not get his name mutated in the revenue records, he would still remain the title-holder of the suit land. However, subsequently, Sudhakar Rao Gaikwad again sold the suit land to H. Laxmi by executing sale deed dated 05/02/2010 (not exhibited) and further, H. Laxmi alienated the suit land in favour of defendant No. 1 Leela Bihari Mishra by sale deed dated 16/09/2010 (not exhibited), who then transferred the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs by executing registered sale deed dated 15/07/2016 (Ex. P/2) after receiving sale consideration amount of Rs. 13,95,000/-, Rs. P/2) after receiving sale consideration amount of Rs. 13,95,000/-, Rs. 98,530/- as registration fees and some expenditure related to attestation, etc which has been proved by plaintiff No. 1 Rahul Sinha (PW-1). Furthermore, Amit Kumar (PW-2), Manager of HDFC Bank, Supela and Pankaj Kumar (PW-3), Manager of Dena Bank, Kurud have been examined and they have proved the transaction carried out between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 and that an amount of Rs. 13,95,000/- has been paid by the plaintiffs to defendant No. 1. Bharat Lal (PW-4) has also been examined before the Court and he has clearly admitted that he purchased the suit land from Sudhakar Rao Gaikwad by registered sale deed dated 04/07/2002 (Ex. P/6), as such, he (Bharat Lal) is the first purchaser and title-holder of the suit land. 13. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the provision contained under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1872, (for brevity “the Act of 1872”) which states as under :- “48. Priority of rights created by transfer. - Where a person purports to create by transfer at different times rights in or over the same immovable property, and such rights cannot all exist or be exercised to their full extent together, each later created right shall, in the absence of a special contract of reservation binding the earlier transferees, be subject to the rights previously created.” 14. Section 48 embodies the well established rule of priority founded on law and justice that if a person purports to create by transfer at different times, rights over the same immovable property and such rights cannot all co-exist or be exercised to their full extent together, each later created transfer shall be subject to rights previously created. (See: S. Arunachalam Asari (died) and Others v. Sival Perumal Asari and Another, AIR 1970 Mad 226 ). 15. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Atla Sidda Reddy v. Busi Subba Reddy , (2010) 6 SCC 666 , has reiterated the principle enshrined in Section 48 of the Act of 1872 by holding that through subsequent sale deed, purchaser does not acquire any title to the suit property, wherein it has been observed in paragraph 9 as under :- “9. The trial court came to the finding that in view of the registered sale deed dated 22-5-1968 executed by Lakshmamma in favour of Thondolu Mahaboob Basha in respect of the suit property, she was no longer competent to execute the subsequent sale deed in respect of the same property in favour of Syed Ghouse Bi alias Chand Begum through whom the petitioner- plaintiff claims title. The trial court thereupon dismissed the suit.” 16. Similarly, in the matter of Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese represented by its procurator Devssia’s son Rev. Father Joseph Kappil , (2022) 7 SCC 90 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that no one can confer a better title than what he himself has and observed in paragraph 19 as under :- “19. It is a fundamental principle of the law of transfer of property that “no one can confer a better title than what he himself has” (nemo dat quod non habet). The appellant’s sister did not have the power to sell the property to the vendors of the respondent. Therefore, the vendors of the respondent could not have derived any valid title to the property. If the vendors of the respondent themselves did not have any title, they had nothing to convey to the respondent, except perhaps the litigation.” 17. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid legal discussion and analysis, by virtue of Section 48 of the Act of 1872, no person can convey a title better than what he himself possesses. If a person effects a transfer of property in accordance with law, he cannot thereafter deal with the property already transferred by him, ignoring the rights already created by the earlier transfer effected by him. 18. In that view of the matter, the trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that original owner of the suit land namely Sudhakar Rao Gaikwad, having already alienated the suit land in favour of Bharat Lal vide registered sale deed dated 04/07/2002 (Ex. P/6), could not have subsequently sold the said suit land to H. Laxmi by sale deed dated dated 05/02/2010, who then sold the suit land to defendant No. 1 Leela Bihari Mishra by sale deed dated 16/09/2010 and thereafter, defendant No. 1 Leela Bihari Mishra alienated the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs by sale deed dated 15/07/2016 (Ex. P/6), could not have subsequently sold the said suit land to H. Laxmi by sale deed dated dated 05/02/2010, who then sold the suit land to defendant No. 1 Leela Bihari Mishra by sale deed dated 16/09/2010 and thereafter, defendant No. 1 Leela Bihari Mishra alienated the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs by sale deed dated 15/07/2016 (Ex. P/2) and as such, the trial Court rightly proceeded to grant decree of recovery of Rs. 16,26,724/- in favour of plaintiffs from the defendants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit i.e. 20/09/2018. We do not find any good ground warranting interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 96 of the CPC. 19. Accordingly, this first appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 20. A decree be drawn up accordingly.