If Deed Was Executed By Person Without Title, Successors Cannot Enforce Rights On Property Based On Such Deed : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held if someone tries to transfer property rights to another person through a legal document but doesn't actually own those rights, the new owner or their successors won't have the legal right to claim those rights from that document.

"If right, title or interest in certain property is sought conveyed by a person by an instrument who herself does not possess any such form of entitlement on the subject being conveyed, even with a subsisting deed of conveyance on such property, the grantee on her successors-in-interest will not have legal right to enforce the right the latter may have derived from such an instrument."

The Court also held that if it is apparent on the face of a deed that the conveyer did not have title over the property, then a specific declaration need not be sought from the Court that the document is invalid.

The Court can examine the question of title if any party to the suit raises the defence of title, even if no specific declaration regarding the invalidity of the document is sought.

The case relates to the conveyance of the first husband's property by his wife (Chiruthey) through a lease deed over which she doesn't hold the title.

"If a document seeking to convey immovable property ex-facie reveals that the conveyer does not have the title over the same, specific declaration that the document is invalid would not be necessary. The Court can examine the title in the event any party to the proceeding sets up this defence. Chiruthey could not convey any property over which she did not have any right or title.", the Bench Comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia said.

"The plaintiff (now represented by his successors as respondents) sought to claim his share of suit property through Chiruthey. But as we have already explained, Chiruthey had lost her right over the subject property on her contracting second marriage. Secondly, her status over the said property, post-1910 if at all was that of lessee. There is no indication in any of the deeds that the said lease (Exhibit A-1) could travel beyond the stipulated term of twelve years. The ownership of the suit property could not be said to have devolved in any manner whatsoever to the original plaintiff, who was born within the wedlock of Chiruthey and Neelakandan. Hence, we set aside the decision of the High Court and the decision of the First Appellate Court shall stand confirmed.", the Judgment authored by Justice Aniruddha Bose added.

After the death of the first husband, the wife(Chiruthey) contracted a second marriage. Through a second marriage, the wife gave birth to another son, who claimed some share in the property vested in her mother from her first husband. 

For the sake of clarity, the appellants herein were the original defendants in the civil suit, whereas the respondents were the plaintiffs. 

The plaintiff (son born out of second marriage) filed a suit for partition, which was allowed by the trial court. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision observing that the wife would not derive title to her deceased husband's property when she contracted a second marriage. Further, the first appellate court held that the wife had no authority to create a lease and such a transaction by which she sought to lease out the subject property was not permissible in law.

The High Court reversed the First Appellate Court decision, following which the appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court by the successors of the son born out of the first marriage. 

Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the Appellants/defendants (successors of wife's son born out of first marriage) that the respondents/plaintiff (successors of wife's son born out of a second marriage) cannot claim partition over the property as the wife had lost her right over the subject property on her contracting second marriage. 

Accepting the Appellant's contention, the Judgment authored by Justice Aniruddha Bose held that the plaintiffs/respondents cannot claim partition over the subject property through his mother (Chiruthey) as she had lost her right over the subject property on her contracting second marriage.

"The plaintiff (now represented by his successors as respondents) sought to claim his share of suit property through Chiruthey. But as we have already explained, Chiruthey had lost her right over the subject property on her contracting second marriage. Secondly, her status over the said property, post-1910 if at all was that of lessee. There is no indication in any of the deeds that the said lease (Exhibit A-1) could travel beyond the stipulated term of twelve years. The ownership of the suit property could not be said to have devolved in any manner whatsoever to the original plaintiff, who was born within the wedlock of Chiruthey and Neelakandan. Hence, we set aside the decision of the High Court and the decision of the First Appellate Court shall stand confirmed.", the court observed.

Based on the above premise, the appeal was allowed to disentitle the respondents/plaintiff to claim partition over the subject property owned by Chiruthey's first husband.

Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. V. Chidambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. P. Rajagopal, Adv. Mr. Jaimon Andrews, Adv. Mr. Piyo Harold Jaimon, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Mr. John Mathew, AOR

Case Title: KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (D) THR. LRS vs. THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 293

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment