Alienation of ancestral property by a co-sharer exceeding his entitlement without consent is null and void.

The Plaintiffs (Respondents 1 and 2), being the wife and daughter of the late Basant Panika, filed a suit for declaration of title over ancestral land (Khasra No. 352, area 0.121 hect.) and to declare a sale deed dated 12.01.2015 executed by Basant Panika in favor of Defendant No. 1 (Guddi Bai) as null and void

The Plaintiffs alleged the property was ancestral, devolved from Karuha Panika, and that the sale deed was a fraudulent paper transaction without consideration

Defendant No. 1 contested, claiming the land was not ancestral, the Plaintiffs were not legal heirs, and that she was a bona fide purchaser for value

During the pendency of the litigation, Defendant No. 1 sold portions of the suit land to Shivshankar Sahu (Appellant in SA 343/2022) via three sale deeds

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs, declaring the 2015 sale deed void because Basant Panika lacked the authority to alienate the entire ancestral property without the consent of co-sharers

The First Appellate Court affirmed this judgment, dismissing appeals by both the original defendant and the subsequent purchaser

1. Whether the suit property was ancestral in nature and whether Basant Panika was competent to alienate it without the consent of other co-sharers

2. Whether the sale deeds executed in favor of the subsequent purchaser during the pendency of the suit are valid or binding upon the Plaintiffs

3. Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts give rise to any substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC

The Court primarily applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which restricts the scope of a Second Appeal to cases involving a "substantial question of law" and prohibits interference with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or contrary to law

The Court relied on the precedent State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal (2019) 8 SCC 637, which establishes that concurrent findings can only be assailed if recorded de hors the pleadings, based on misreading of evidence, or if the decision is one no judicial mind could reasonably reach

Additionally, the Court applied principles of Hindu Succession law regarding ancestral property and the rights of daughters as co-sharers, alongside the doctrine of lis pendens regarding transfers made during litigation

The High Court observed that both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court correctly identified the property as ancestral, originally settled in the name of Karuha Panika

The Court noted that Basant Panika had already alienated 3.66 acres out of the total 5.84 acres of ancestral land during his lifetime, which exceeded his individual share

Consequently, his attempt to sell the remaining suit land to Defendant No. 1 without a formal partition or the consent of his daughter (Plaintiff No. 2) was legally unsustainable

Regarding the subsequent purchaser (Shivshankar Sahu), the Court determined that because the transfers occurred during the pendency of the suit, the purchaser was bound by the final outcome of the litigation and could not claim independent title

The High Court concluded that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any perversity or misapplication of law in the lower courts' findings; the challenges raised were essentially questions of fact rather than substantial questions of law

The Court held that the sale deed dated 12.01.2015 in favor of Defendant No. 1 is null and void, and the subsequent sale deeds executed during the pendency of the suit confer no valid title

The Plaintiffs’ title over the suit land was affirmed