A Sale Deed Executed by a Non-Owner Without Authorization Is Void Ab Initio and Not Shielded by Res Judicata

The suit property (agricultural land in Kolavanahalli Village) was originally purchased by Mallige Byrappa in 1944 via public auction

In 1979, Mallige Byrappa’s son, Ramaiah, sold the property to the respondent (Krishnappa) via a sale deed (Ex. D3) using a manipulated RTC (Ex. P24) that inserted his name while his father was still alive

Mallige Byrappa challenged this in 1980 (O.S. No. 81/1980) and executed a registered Will (Ex. P11) in favor of his daughters before passing away in 1982

Although the 1980 suit was dismissed (and confirmed up to RSA in 2001), the daughters sold the land to the current appellants in 2006 (Ex. P5, P6)

Multiple suits followed: the appellants sought declaration/injunction (O.S. 416/2007, etc.), while the respondent sought an injunction (O.S. 10/2015). The Trial and First Appellate Courts ruled in favor of the respondent, citing res judicata and the theory that the son acted as a Kartha

Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which mandates that a person must be entitled to or authorized to dispose of property to effect a valid transfer

Principle of Nemo dat quod non habet (no one can confer a better title than they possess), as affirmed in Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasaseri Roman Catholic Diocese

Maxim Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together), citing Vishnu Vardhan v. State of U.P.

The principle in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, holding that fraud unravels everything and vitiates even the most solemn proceedings, including those supposedly protected by res judicata

The court found that Ramaiah was neither the owner nor authorized by his father to sell the land; the sale deed (Ex. D3) lacked any recital of Kartha status or family necessity, and Ramaiah’s father was alive and residing with him at the time

The court determined that the transfer was based on a fraudulent manipulation of the RTC (Ex. P24), where Ramaiah’s name was inserted without a mutation order—a fact the Trial Court noted but erroneously ignored

The court identified a conflict of interest where the appellants' prior counsel had simultaneously identified/attested documents for the respondent (Ex. P72), amounting to a fraud on the court

Since the original judgment was procured via trickery and the vendor lacked title, the doctrine of res judicata could not be used to protect a transaction that was void ab initio

The court declared the appellants in O.S. No. 416/2007 as the lawful owners based on the validly proved Will of Mallige Byrappa and subsequent sale deeds (Ex. P5, P6)

The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the Trial and First Appellate Courts. The respondent’s suit for injunction (O.S. 10/2015) was dismissed, and permanent injunctions were granted in favor of the appellants