Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: IV,41

Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: XVII,45

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42,54

]Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 41---Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.45---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Mutation, cancellation of---Purchase through registered sale deed---Ostensible owner, purchase from--Scope---Petitioner / plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit land on the basis of registered sale deed which was incorporated in revenue record---Revenue authorities cancelled mutation in the name of petitioner / plaintiff and resultantly respondent / defendant purchased suit land from previous owner---Suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was decreed in his favour by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit---Validity---Person claiming protection under S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was bound to establish that the person from whom suit property was transferred to him was an ostensible owner, while transfer so made was with the consent of real owner, either express or implied---Such transfer must have been made for some consideration and the person who was transferee or purchaser must have acted in good faith with all reasonable care and steps before entering into such transaction for transfer---If any one of such ingredients was missing, then the transferor was not eligible to seek protection of equitable doctrine envisaged under S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Sanctity was attached to a registered document and it was considered a notice to public at large---In order to dislodge such presumption mere inquiry of revenue record was not sufficient---Entries of revenue record were not foundation of title as such entries were made for fiscal purposes---Neither respondent / defendant specifically sought protection under S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 nor had established such fact through any evidence---Sale deed executed in favour of petitioner / plaintiff remained intact and no one had challenged validity and legality of sale deed in question---Although mutation in question had been cancelled, yet petitioner / plaintiff was owner of suit property on the strength of sale deed and previous owner had no right to sell…