The Aryavarth Express
Agency(New Delhi):The Supreme Court recently made a pivotal declaration, stating that a sale deed signed by an individual who is not the actual owner of the property does not grant the right to claim ownership or possession to the beneficiary of the sale deed. This pronouncement came as a reversal of a prior judgment by the High Court, which had erroneously recognized the plaintiff as the rightful owner of the property in question.
The esteemed justices, Sanjay Karol and Sanjay Kumar, clarified that the mere involvement of a non-owner as a signatory in the sale deed does not automatically confer upon the signee the rights to the property’s ownership or title. The case centered around a disputed property that was legally bequeathed to Meghraj (identified as defendant no.2), through a will by his grandfather, Babulal. Despite this, various properties under Babulal’s estate were sold to the plaintiff, including the contested property, with Meghraj’s mother (defendant no.1) participating in the sale deeds as a signatory. However, her involvement did not legitimize the transfer of ownership to the plaintiff, as she herself did not hold title to the property.
The dispute originated when the plaintiff sought to assert ownership over the property, arguing that the participation of defendant no.1 (the mother of the actual owner) in the sale deed’s execution was sufficient grounds for their claim. Contrarily, defendant no.1 refuted claims of having sold or transferred possession of the property to the plaintiff, citing her lack of education and misplaced trust in relatives who facilitated the sales on other properties.
Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, recognizing that ownership rights of the contested property remained with Meghraj, the rightful heir according to the will. Nonetheless, the High Court’s decision contradicted these findings, erroneously declaring the plaintiff as the legitimate owner, a decision that was subsequently appealed in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court underscored the significance of legal ownership and the authenticity of the will, which had duly bequeathed the property to Meghraj. It pointed out that the High Court had overlooked the will’s legitimacy, basing its doubts solely on the fact that it was not introduced earlier in the proceedings. The apex court stressed that the genuine execution of the will, corroborated by witnesses, affirmed Meghraj’s ownership, rendering the subsequent sale deed and defendant no.1’s participation moot.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment reinstates the importance of rightful ownership and adherence to legal formalities in property transactions. It rectified the High Court’s error, reasserting the decisions of the lower courts and confirming that a sale deed executed by someone without legal title does not transfer property ownership. This ruling reinforces legal precedents and ensures the integrity of property law is upheld.
