In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court underscored the fundamental legal principle that a purchaser can acquire a valid title to a property only if the seller possesses a legitimate and transferable title to that property. This ruling emphasizes the necessity of due diligence in property transactions to ensure that the seller has the rightful authority to transfer ownership.
Case Background
The case originated from a property dispute in Munger, Bihar. The complainant, Pramendra Bhushan Prakash, alleged that he had purchased a house situated on five katthas of land in Dalhatta Bazar through a registered sale deed dated August 22, 1957. However, on June 12, 2015, the accused, Surendra Kumar, purportedly sold one kattha of the same property to co-accused individuals, Smt. Shashi Devi and Manoj Kumar Vishwakarma. Following this transaction, the new purchasers approached the complainant, demanding possession of the land. The complainant contended that since the accused had already sold the property in 1957, he lacked the legal title to execute a fresh sale deed in 2015, thereby committing offenses of cheating and forgery.
Legal Proceedings
The accused sought to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing that the dispute was purely civil in nature and did not involve any misrepresentation or forgery. Their counsel submitted that the complainant had already filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Munger, seeking to declare the 2015 sale deed void. The defense posited that the existence of a civil suit negated the grounds for criminal prosecution.
Conversely, the state and the complainant defended the order of cognizance, asserting that the accused had knowingly sold a property in which they had no legal interest, thereby committing fraud. They argued that the criminal proceedings were justified given the fraudulent actions of the accused.
Court's Analysis and Judgment
Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, examined the allegations and the applicable legal standards. The court observed that for an offense of forgery under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to be established, there must be evidence of creating a false document. In this context, a false document is one that is fabricated or altered with the intent to cause it to be believed that it was made by someone who did not make it.
The court referred to the precedent set in Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2009), where the Supreme Court clarified that executing a sale deed in favor of a person, even if the executor does not have title to the property, does not constitute forgery unless the document itself is fabricated. Applying this principle, the court noted that in the present case, the complainant had not parted with any property to the accused, nor had he executed the sale deed in question. Therefore, his title to the land remained unaffected because a purchaser can acquire title only if the seller possesses a valid title to convey.
Justice Kumar stated, "The complainant has not parted with any property to the accused persons, nor has he executed the sale-deed. As such, his title, if any, to the land in question, is still safe, because his title cannot get conveyed to the purchaser if the conveyance deed/sale-deed has been executed by someone else, who is not possessed of the title to the land in question. A purchaser can get the title conveyed only if the seller has title to the property."
Consequently, the court concluded that the essential ingredients required to establish the offenses of forgery and cheating were not present in this case. The dispute was deemed to be of a civil nature, concerning the validity of the title and the sale transaction. As a result, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused, emphasizing that civil disputes over property titles should be adjudicated in civil courts rather than through criminal prosecution.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces the legal doctrine that the transfer of property rights is contingent upon the seller's legitimate ownership of the property. Purchasers are advised to conduct thorough due diligence to ascertain the seller's title before proceeding with any transaction. The judgment also delineates the boundary between civil and criminal jurisdictions, clarifying that not all disputes involving property transactions amount to criminal offenses; many are better suited for resolution within the civil court system.
In essence, the Patna High Court's decision serves as a critical reminder of the necessity for clear and legitimate property titles in real estate transactions and underscores the importance of resolving title disputes through appropriate civil legal channels.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.