M/S EUREKA BUILDERS & ORS. versus GULABCHAND S/O VELJEE DAND SINCE DECEASED BY L.RS. & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 03-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
779
M/S EUREKA BUILDERS & ORS.
v.
GULABCHAND S/O VELJEE DAND SINCE DECEASED BY
L.RS. & ORS. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4757-4760 of 2018)
MAY 3, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Karnataka Village Abolition Act, 1961: Grant of property and
re-grant of property in favour of the original holders by the State –
Devolution on holders – Held: Person can only transfer to other
person a right, title or interest in any tangible property which he is
possessed of to transfer it for consideration or otherwise – Once it
is proved that on the date of transfer of any tangible property, the
seller of the property did not have any subsisting right, title or interest
over it, then a buyer of such property would not get any right, title
and interest in the property purchased by him for consideration or
otherwise – Such transfer would be an illegal and void transfer –
On facts, appellants failed to substantiate the right, title and interest
of the original holders in the suit land through whom they claim to
derive interest in the suit land, whereas the respondent was able to
prove his subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land – Original
holders parted with the suit land, one through court auction
proceedings in 1942 and the other by direct sale/purchase in 1943
in favour of the purchaser– Furthermore, though the original
holders got back the land by re-grant but they lost all their rights,
title and interest in the suit land on the expiry of 12 years from the
date of re-grant in their favour (assuming the re-grant to be valid)
in 1985 – They again lost their ownership rights due to dismissal of
their two suits – In view thereof, the appellants, have no locus to
claim any interest in the suit land – Thus, the High Court rightly
held that neither the original holders and nor appellants, who
claimed through original holders, had any right to claim any interest
in the suit land – Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is a settled principle of law that a person can
only transfer to other person a right, title or interest in any tangible
[2018] 4  S.C.R. 779
 779
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
780
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  4 S.C.R.
property which he is possessed of to transfer it for consideration
or otherwise. In other words, whatever interest a person is
possessed of in any tangible property, he can transfer only that
interest to the other person and no other interest, which he
himself does not possess in the tangible property. So, once it is
proved that on the date of transfer of any tangible property, the
seller of the property did not have any subsisting right, title or
interest over it, then a buyer of such property would not get any
right, title and interest in the property purchased by him for
consideration or otherwise.  Such transfer would be an illegal
and void transfer. The appellants have failed to substantiate the
right, title and interest of the original holders (three PATIL) in
the suit land through whom they claim to derive interest in the
suit land, whereas the respondent (plaintiff) has been able to prove
his subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land on the date
of filing of the suit, out of which these appeals arise. The
appellants, therefore, have no locus to claim any interest in the
suit land. [Para 40-42, 39] [790-C-E; 790-A-B]
1.2 The reasons as to why the appellants failed to prove
the subsisting right, title and interest of the original holders
(intending sellers-three PATIL) in the suit land are more than
one. First, the original holders (three PATIL) had filed two suits,in
relation to the suit land asserting therein their ownership rights
over the suit land against the present plaintiff and other members
of SV but both the suits were dismissed by the Civil Court on
23.11.2004. These dismissal attained finality regardless of the
fact as to on what grounds they suffered dismissal. These
dismissals were binding on the original holder (three PATIL). A
fortiori, these dismissals are binding on the appellants too because
the appellants were claiming through the original holders (three
PATIL). It is for this reason, the original owners did not have any
subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land, which they
could have or/and were capable to transfer to the appellants
whether for consideration or otherwise on the date when they
entered into an agreement of sale of the suit land to the appellants
on 23.03.2001. Second, it

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.