Navigating the Labyrinth of Subsequent Sale Deeds in Indian Property Law: An Analytical Review

Introduction

The transfer of immovable property in India, governed by a complex interplay of statutes and judicial pronouncements, occasionally presents intricate scenarios, one of which is the execution of a subsequent sale deed for the same property by a vendor. This situation, where a property owner purports to sell the same property to different individuals at different times, raises critical legal questions regarding the validity of such transfers, the priority of rights between the competing purchasers, and the remedies available to the aggrieved parties. This article undertakes a scholarly analysis of the legal principles governing subsequent sale deeds in India, drawing upon key statutory provisions and a comprehensive review of judicial precedents, including the reference materials provided. The objective is to elucidate the legal standing of subsequent sale deeds, the protective mechanisms for bona fide purchasers, and the overarching principles that guide Indian courts in resolving such disputes.

Legal Framework Governing Property Transfers in India

The foundation for understanding the implications of subsequent sale deeds lies in the core statutes governing property transactions in India: The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) and The Registration Act, 1908.

The Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section 54 of the TPA defines "sale" as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. For tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, a sale can be made only by a registered instrument. This underscores the criticality of a registered deed of conveyance for the legal transfer of title (Suraj Lamp And Industries Private Limited (2) Through Director v. State Of Haryana And Another, 2012 SCC 1 656). Once a valid sale is effected, the vendor divests themselves of their title in the property.

Crucially, Section 48 of the TPA embodies the principle of priority: "Where a person purports to create by transfer at different times rights in or over the same immoveable property, and such rights cannot all exist or be exercised to their full extent together, each later created right shall, in the absence of a special contract or reservation binding the earlier transferees, be subject to the rights previously created." This principle, often summarized by the maxim *qui prior est tempore potior est jure* (he who is earlier in time is stronger in law), generally dictates that the first valid transfer will prevail over a subsequent one.

The Registration Act, 1908

The Registration Act, 1908, mandates the registration of certain documents, including instruments of sale of immovable property (Section 17). Section 47 of the Registration Act stipulates that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration. This means that a sale deed, upon registration, relates back to the date of its execution (Ram Saran Lall And Others v. Mst Domini Kuer And Others, 1961 AIR SC 1747; Mishri Lal Karak Petitioner v. Sri Dinesh Chandra Agarwal And Others, Allahabad High Court, 2012). Section 49 outlines the effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered, stating that such documents shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property, subject to certain exceptions.

The Principle of Priority: Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet

A fundamental legal principle underpinning the issue of subsequent sale deeds is *nemo dat quod non habet*, meaning "no one can give what they do not have." Once a vendor has validly transferred their title in an immovable property to a purchaser through a duly executed and registered sale deed, they cease to be the owner of that property. Consequently, any subsequent attempt by the same vendor to sell the same property to another person is an attempt to transfer a title that the vendor no longer possesses. As established in Atla Sidda Reddy v. Busi Subba Reddy And Others (2010 SCC 6 666), if the vendor had already sold the suit property by a registered sale deed, she was no longer competent to execute a subsequent sale deed in respect of the same property, as the first sale deed extinguished her right in the suit property. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in Azeezulla Sheriff And Ors. v. Bhabhutimul (1972) affirmed that if a person effects a transfer of property in accordance with law, they cannot thereafter deal with the property already transferred by them, ignoring the rights already created by the earlier transfer.

Validity and Effect of a Subsequent Sale Deed

General Rule: Invalidity of Subsequent Transfer of Title

Following the principle of *nemo dat quod non habet* and Section 48 of the TPA, a subsequent sale deed executed by a vendor who has already divested their title through a prior valid sale deed generally confers no title upon the subsequent purchaser. The Supreme Court in KAUSHIK PREMKUMAR MISHRA v. KANJI RAVARIA @ KANJI (2024) indicated that a subsequent sale deed in such circumstances needs to be cancelled. The first validly executed and registered sale deed effectively transfers ownership, leaving the vendor with no residual title to convey subsequently.

The Patna High Court in Darshan Yadav @ Surendra Yadav v. Murat Yadav (1997) held that a subsequent sale deed in respect of the same property executed after the first deed but registered earlier than the first was not effective so as to give good title to the purchaser under the second deed. This aligns with Section 47 of the Registration Act, where the operative date is execution, not registration, for a registered document.

Role of Registration and Section 47 of the Registration Act

As discussed, Section 47 of the Registration Act provides that a registered document operates from the date of its execution. This means that if two sale deeds are executed for the same property, and both are subsequently registered, their priority is determined by their respective dates of execution, not dates of registration. The first executed deed, upon registration, takes precedence (Azeezulla Sheriff And Ors. v. Bhabhutimul, 1972). The case of Mishri Lal Karak (2012) also reiterated that a registered document operates from the date of its execution.

However, the act of registration itself does not validate an otherwise invalid transfer. If the vendor had no title to pass at the time of executing the subsequent sale deed (having already sold it), the mere registration of the subsequent deed cannot create title in the subsequent purchaser. The Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp (2011) has firmly established that only registered conveyance deeds can legally transfer title, implicitly suggesting that attempts to transfer non-existent title, even if registered, would be futile.

An interesting aspect is the registrar's role. In N. Ramayee v. Sub-Registrar, Registration Department And Another (Madras High Court, 2020), it was held that there is no absolute bar for creating a subsequent transfer of immovable property, but its effect is always subject to the earlier transfer. The court clarified that a registrar cannot refuse to register a subsequent document (like a settlement deed) merely on the basis of a prior registered agreement for sale, as this would deprive the owner of their constitutional right to deal with their property. This distinction is important: a prior *agreement to sell* does not extinguish title, unlike a prior *sale deed*.

Impact of a Prior Agreement to Sell

The situation is different if the first transaction was merely an agreement to sell, which does not by itself create any right, title, or interest in the property (Section 54, TPA; Narandas Karsondas v. S.A Kamtam, 1977, cited in Suraj Lamp). If a vendor, after entering into an agreement to sell with one party, executes a registered sale deed in favour of another party (a subsequent purchaser), the rights of the agreement holder are governed by Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This section allows specific performance of the contract against the subsequent transferee, unless the transferee has purchased the property for value in good faith and without notice of the original contract. The cases of Ram Niwas (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Bano (Smt) And Others (2000 SCC 6 685) and R.K Mohammed Ubaidullah And Others v. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab (D) By Lrs. And Others (2000 SCC 6 402) extensively discuss the parameters of "good faith" and "notice" (actual or constructive) in this context.

Rights and Remedies of Parties

Rights of the First Purchaser

Assuming the first sale deed is valid, duly executed, and registered (or registered after execution), the first purchaser acquires title to the property from the date of execution. They are entitled to possession and enjoyment of the property. If a subsequent sale deed is executed and registered, the first purchaser can seek a declaration of their title and a decree for cancellation of the subsequent sale deed as it casts a cloud on their title (as seen in KAUSHIK PREMKUMAR MISHRA v. KANJI RAVARIA @ KANJI, 2024). They can also seek a permanent injunction restraining the subsequent purchaser from interfering with their possession.

Position of the Subsequent Purchaser

The position of the subsequent purchaser is generally precarious if the first sale deed is valid.

Subsequent Purchaser where First Transaction was a Sale Deed

If the vendor had already transferred title through a prior sale deed, the subsequent purchaser, even if they paid consideration and acted in good faith, typically acquires no title. The principle of *nemo dat quod non habet* applies. Their primary remedy would be against the vendor for fraud or breach of covenant of title (if any), seeking a refund of the consideration paid and damages (KAUSHIK PREMKUMAR MISHRA v. KANJI RAVARIA @ KANJI, 2024, noted it would be open to respondent no.1 (subsequent purchaser) to recover sale consideration from respondent No.2 (vendor)). The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kulwant Singh v. Balvir Kaur And Others (2010) observed that execution of a subsequent sale deed by those not the owner does not constitute forgery per se, but the subsequent purchaser is the one cheated.

A nuanced situation arises from the practice noted in KHOSHO RANA v. MOSOMAT DAKHIYA (Jharkhand High Court, 2022), prevalent in Bihar, where title may not pass despite execution and registration if consideration is not paid and the registration slip (Chirkut) or possession is not delivered, if such is the intention of the parties. If title did not pass under the first "sale" due to such circumstances, a subsequent sale might be argued as valid, but this is highly fact-dependent and relies on specific contractual intentions and regional practices.

Subsequent Purchaser where First Transaction was an Agreement to Sell (Bona Fide Purchaser Defence)

As mentioned, if the prior transaction was an agreement to sell, Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, protects a subsequent transferee for value who has paid their money in good faith and without notice of the original contract. The burden of proof for being a bona fide purchaser without notice typically lies on the subsequent purchaser (Ram Niwas, 2000; R.K Mohammed Ubaidullah, 2000). "Notice" can be actual or constructive (Section 3, TPA). If the original agreement holder was in possession, this could constitute constructive notice to the subsequent purchaser, obligating them to inquire into the nature of such possession.

Transfers Pending Litigation (Lis Pendens)

If a subsequent sale occurs while a suit relating to the property is pending (e.g., a suit for specific performance by a prior agreement holder), Section 52 of the TPA (doctrine of *lis pendens*) comes into play. A transfer *pendente lite* is not void or illegal, but the purchaser is bound by the decision in the pending litigation (A. Nawab John And Others v. V.N Subramaniyam, 2012 SCC 7 738; M.A.K Balakrishnan & Others /D3 To D6 v. P. Chandran & Others, Madras High Court, 2012). Thus, if the prior agreement holder succeeds, their rights will prevail over the subsequent *pendente lite* purchaser.

Analysis of Specific Judicial Scenarios from Reference Materials

Several provided references highlight specific scenarios. In Ganesh Prasad And Others, Etc. v. State Of Bihar And Others (Patna High Court, 1984), a pre-emption application was filed concerning a first sale deed. A subsequent sale deed executed by the first purchasers was found to be a sham transaction and was not registered at the time the pre-emption application was filed. The court held the pre-emption application against the first sale deed was maintainable, and it was not necessary to file a separate pre-emption application against the subsequent (sham and unregistered at the time) sale deed, though the subsequent purchasers were impleaded.

The case of Md. Noorul Hoda v. Bibi Raifunnisa And Others (1996 SCC 7 767) dealt with a situation where the petitioner claimed title through a subsequent sale deed from his benamidar, who was a party to an earlier partition suit. The court imputed the benamidar's knowledge of the prior proceedings to the petitioner (real owner) and held the suit for declaration of title based on the subsequent deed to be barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, as the petitioner was deemed to have knowledge of the decrees affecting the property.

In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020 SCC CIV 4 128), the Supreme Court dealt with a suit for cancellation of a sale deed on the ground of non-payment of full consideration. While not a direct case of two competing sale deeds from the same vendor to different parties, it underscores that even a registered sale deed can be challenged, and if successfully cancelled, it would impact any subsequent dealings by the purchaser under that deed. If the first sale deed is voidable (e.g., for fraud or non-payment of consideration as per agreement) and is subsequently set aside, the vendor might regain title, which could then validate a sale made in the interim, or allow them to make a fresh, valid sale. However, this is complex and depends on the specific grounds and timing.

The judgment in Prabhat Kumar Dubey v. Jyoti Variyani (Chhattisgarh High Court, 2025) illustrates a chain reaction: if a sale deed (Sale Deed A) is executed based on a court decree, and that decree is later set aside, Sale Deed A becomes void. Consequently, any subsequent sale deed (Sale Deed B) executed by the purchaser under Sale Deed A would also be ineffective as the transferor under Sale Deed B would have no title to pass.

Section 43 of the TPA, discussed in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs. (2007 SCC 2 404), known as the doctrine of "feeding the estoppel," might have limited application. It applies where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorized to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists. If a vendor executes a second sale deed without title (having already sold it), and somehow reacquires title later (e.g., the first sale is set aside for reasons not attributable to the vendor's fault in the second sale), Section 43 might be invoked by the second purchaser if they acted in good faith. However, this is a rare scenario in typical subsequent sale deed cases where the first sale remains valid.

Challenges and Considerations

Fraudulent Transfers

Subsequent sale deeds are often instruments of fraud, where unscrupulous vendors attempt to gain illicitly by selling the same property multiple times. The legal system provides remedies, but litigation can be protracted and costly.

Due Diligence by Purchasers

The principle of *caveat emptor* (buyer beware) is highly relevant. Prospective purchasers must conduct thorough due diligence, including title searches in the Sub-Registrar's office to check for prior registered transactions, public notices, and physical inspection of the property to ascertain possession, which might indicate prior rights (Ram Niwas, 2000; R.K Mohammed Ubaidullah, 2000).

The Registrar's Role and Encumbrances

While N. Ramayee (2020) clarifies that a registrar cannot refuse registration of a subsequent deed merely due to a prior agreement to sell, the situation with a prior *sale deed* is different, as title itself has passed. However, registrars typically do not adjudicate title. The case of S.VEERAKUMAR v. THE SUB REGISTRAR (Madras High Court, 2024) stated that existence of a mortgage liability is not a ground to refuse registration of a subsequent sale deed, implying that encumbrances don't bar transfer, though the transfer would be subject to such encumbrances. This is distinct from a double sale of the title itself.

Conclusion

The legal position in India regarding subsequent sale deeds is firmly anchored in the principle that a vendor cannot transfer a better title than they possess (*nemo dat quod non habet*) and that the first valid transfer of title will generally prevail (Section 48, TPA). A registered sale deed operates from its date of execution (Section 47, Registration Act), solidifying the rights of the first purchaser who diligently completes their transaction. While subsequent purchasers who buy property already sold by the vendor generally acquire no title, the primary remedy available to them is to proceed against the vendor for recovery of consideration and damages. An exception exists for bona fide subsequent purchasers for value without notice, primarily in cases where the prior transaction was an agreement to sell (Section 19(b), Specific Relief Act).

The judiciary consistently upholds the sanctity of the first valid transfer, thereby aiming to protect innocent purchasers and maintain certainty in property transactions. The emphasis on registered instruments, as highlighted in Suraj Lamp, and the imperative for thorough due diligence by purchasers remain critical safeguards against the complexities and potential fraud associated with subsequent sales of the same immovable property. The legal framework, while providing a clear hierarchy of rights, also underscores the necessity for vigilance from all parties involved in property dealings.