The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Bhilai resident Leela Bihari Mishra, upholding a trial court’s order directing him to repay over ₹16 lakh to the buyers of a Durg plot. The Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Radhakishan Agrawal ruled that an earlier registered sale deed executed in 2002 by the original owner had legal priority under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act. The subsequent sale in 2016, through which the plaintiffs purchased the property, was therefore invalid. The court reaffirmed that a seller cannot transfer a better title than he holds and emphasized that registration, not mutation, determines ownership priority.
Leela Bihari Mishra, a Bhilai resident, failed in his appeal to overturn a trial court decree ordering him and a co-defendant to repay over Rs. 16 lakh to the buyers of a Durg plot, the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled on October 13, 2025. A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Radhakishan Agrawal found no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the original owner’s earlier registered sale to a third party deprived later transfers of legal effect, and therefore the subsequent purchasers could not pass good title.
The dispute began with land in village Kohka that had been sold multiple times. The plaintiffs — Rahul Sinha and Yogesh Kumar Pandey — paid Rs. 13.95 lakh plus registration and related expenses to purchase the 1,200 sq. ft. plot in July 2016. Only later did they learn from the police that the property had already been sold years earlier by the original owner, Sudhakar Rao Gaikwad, to another person by a registered deed dated July 4, 2002. The trial court accepted evidence that the earlier registered sale remained effective despite delays in revenue mutation, and it entered a decree for recovery of Rs. 16,26,724 with interest from the defendants.
On appeal, Leela Bihari argued he was a bona fide purchaser who had innocently bought the land and subsequently sold it to the plaintiffs. The High Court reiterated settled principles of property law, citing Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act and Supreme Court precedents that a seller cannot convey a better title than he himself possesses. Because Sudhakar Rao’s 2002 registered sale created prior rights, later transfers could not override that priority. The bench therefore found no reason to disturb the trial court’s findings and dismissed the appeal, leaving the decree for recovery and interest intact.
The judgment underscores a practical risk in real-estate transactions: absence of prompt mutation in revenue records does not necessarily defeat an earlier registered transfer. Buyers and intermediaries are left exposed where due diligence does not reveal prior registered conveyances. The court’s ruling reinforces that registered instruments carry decisive weight in establishing priority of title, and that equitable or procedural lapses in record-keeping do not automatically validate subsequent transfers. The appeal was dismissed and each party was directed to bear its own costs. A decree will be drawn as ordered by the court.
Case Details : First Appeal No. 54 of 2023, Leela Bihari Mishra vs Rahul Sinha and Others
For Appellant : Mr.Manoj Paranjpte, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shivani Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pushp Gupta, Advocate