Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court laid down that where a person cannot sell a property in which he does not have any right, title or interest. 
• The judgment was delivered by Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Krishna Murari. 

Facts 

• Radhanath Kumhar was the owner of the agricultural land and a house in Mouza Nalita. 
• Radhanath Kumhar died intestate and his property devolved upon his legal heirs. 
• Joto is the son of Radhanath Kumhar (he has 5 other sons) and Mangal Kumhar is the son of Joto. 
• After the death of Mangal Kumhar his widow, Etwari Kumharin purported to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 1,000 to Appellants by way of a Registered Sale deed. 
• Respondent No 1 to 3 who are legal heirs of two sons of late Radhanath Kumhar filed a suit before Court of Munsif on the ground that the suit property was ancestral property and that Etwari Kumharin had no right to sell it. 
• The Respondents impleaded the legal heirs of Mangal Kumhar and Etwari Kumharin i.e. daughters, Phuljhari and Babi and the grandchildren as proforma defendants. 
• The Plaintiffs/Respondents prayed for a declaration that the sale deed was void and illegal and the declaration of title of plaintiffs and proforma defendants over the suit property. 
• The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents on the following grounds: 
  • The suit property was a part of the joint family property of the common ancestor, Radhanath Kumhar. 
  •  Since there was no partition the widow of Mangal Kumhar had no right to sell a part of the ancestral property. 
  • It was further held by the Trial Court that upon the death of Mangal Kumhar his widow Etwari Kumharin did not acquire any exclusive right, title or interest in the suit property and was not competent to transfer the suit property in favor of the Appellants. 
  • Etwari Kumharin was not a necessary party because after executing the sale deed she had no interest in the suit property. 
  • The Trial Court thus passed a decree declaring the sale deed to be void and illegal and confirmed the possession of the Plaintiffs/Respondents and the proforma defendants over the suit property. 
• Aggrieved by the judgment the Appellants filed appeal in the Jharkhand High Court. 
• The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law had arisen for consideration. 
• Aggrieved by the judgment the Appellants filed the present Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.  

Issue Involved  

• Whether the judgment of the Lower Courts is liable to be overturned by the Supreme Court? 

Observations 

• The Court held that the Appellants had failed to prove that the suit property was the self acquired property of Mangal Kumhar. 
• The Court observed that since Mangal Kumhar did not have an exclusive right, title or interest in the suit property, his widow was not legally competent to sell the suit property to the Appellants. 
• The Court held that the non-joinder of Etwari Kumharin in the Suit filed by the Respondents would not be of any consequence, as Etwari Kumharin had no surviving interest in the suit property after the execution of the Sale Deed. 
• Thus, the Court held that the findings of both the Courts below are valid. 

Conclusion 

• Where the seller does not have any right, title or interest in the property he cannot transfer the same. 
• Therefore, the Court in this case held that the sale deed executed is not valid.