Can a defendant challenge his co-defendant's sale deed in a suit by the plaintiff?

A farmer sold the same land twice — once to his neighbour, once to a stranger. When the stranger sued for possession, the farmer said: 'That sale deed is fake.' But the court asked: who are you to judge the neighbour's deed?

It is a question that sounds like a riddle. A man sells land to two different people. One buyer sues him. He defends himself by attacking the other buyer's deed. The court must decide: can a defendant, in a suit filed by the plaintiff, challenge a transaction between two other people — his co-defendant and himself — that has nothing to do with the plaintiff's claim?

The Supreme Court's answer, delivered in May 2023, was a firm no. And in saying so, the court laid down a crisp lesson on the limits of a civil suit, the mischief of inconsistent defences, and why a registered sale deed is not a piece of paper you can wish away with oral evidence.

One farmer, two buyers, one land

The story begins with a farmer in Maharashtra who owned 3 acres and 20 guntas of agricultural land. In 1978, he sold 2 acres 20 guntas to his neighbour — the first defendant — through a registered sale deed. A year later, in 1979, he sold the entire 3 acres 20 guntas to a different person — the plaintiff — also through a registered sale deed. The plaintiff was put in possession. But within days, the farmer started disturbing that possession.

The plaintiff sued. His case was simple: he had a registered sale deed, he had paid the money, he was in possession, and he wanted the court to declare his title and put him back in possession if needed. The farmer, as the second defendant, had to defend himself. He did so with two arguments that pulled in opposite directions.

First, he said the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was not a real sale at all. It was a sham document — a security for a loan of Rs. 1000 that the plaintiff had given him. The document was never meant to transfer ownership. Second, he said that even if it was a sale, it was void under the Maharashtra Fragmentation Act (a law that prevents the division of agricultural land into plots too small to farm viably).

The trial court accepted the farmer's defence and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court saw it differently

The first appellate court — the Additional District Judge at Buldana — reversed the trial court. It found that the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was genuine. The recitals in the deed clearly stated that consideration had been paid and possession delivered. The farmer's claim that it was a loan transaction was not supported by any credible evidence. The court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

The farmer then went to the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur in second appeal (a restricted appeal where the High Court can only interfere if the lower court made a serious error of law). The High Court did something unexpected. It did not just examine the farmer's defence against the plaintiff's claim. It went further and examined the validity of the sale deed between the farmer and the first defendant — the neighbour — under the Fragmentation Act. It held that both sale deeds were void under the Act. It set aside the first appellate court's decree and restored the trial court's dismissal.

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

When the High Court judged a dispute no one asked it to judge

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah, identified three fundamental errors in the High Court's approach.

The first error was the most significant. The High Court had adjudicated a dispute between two co-defendants — the farmer (second defendant) and the neighbour (first defendant) — about the validity of the sale deed between them. The plaintiff had never asked for this. The plaintiff's suit was for possession based on his own title. He had no quarrel with the neighbour's deed. The farmer, in his written statement, had vaguely mentioned the Fragmentation Act, but he had not filed any counter-claim (a formal legal claim by a defendant against another party in the same suit) against the neighbour.

The Supreme Court held that under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the provision that allows a defendant to make a counter-claim against the plaintiff or against another defendant), a defendant cannot raise a counter-claim against a co-defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff. The court said: "An inter-se dispute on the validity of a sale deed executed between co-defendants in respect of suit land cannot be considered in a suit for possession instituted by the plaintiff, as it would amount to adjudication of a right or claim by way of counter-claim by one defendant against his co-defendant, which is impermissible under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC."

The second error was that the High Court ignored the statutory bar under Section 36A of the Maharashtra Fragmentation Act. That section says that civil courts cannot decide questions that are supposed to be decided by a "competent authority" under the Act (a government officer designated to handle fragmentation issues). The High Court had itself decided that both sale deeds were void under the Act, without first checking whether the issue should have been referred to the competent authority under Section 36B(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court noted that a vague reference to the Fragmentation Act in a written statement does not turn into a proper counter-claim that a civil court can decide.

The third error was about evidence. The High Court had, according to the Supreme Court, perversely appreciated the evidence. It had allowed oral testimony to override a registered sale deed whose recitals were clear and unambiguous. The Supreme Court reiterated the settled position: where a sale deed is duly executed and registered, with delivery and payment of consideration endorsed on it, it amounts to a full transfer of ownership. The burden is on the person who claims the deed is sham or that consideration was not paid to prove that. Oral evidence cannot override a registered document unless the party challenging it brings strong, credible evidence to the contrary. The farmer had failed to do so.

A trap of the farmer's own making

The Supreme Court also flagged a problem that often trips up litigants: mutually destructive pleas. The farmer had simultaneously argued that the sale deed was a sham (meaning no real transfer happened) and that it was void under the Fragmentation Act (which assumes a real transfer happened, just one that the law prohibits). You cannot have it both ways. If the deed was a sham, there was no transfer to be void under the Fragmentation Act. If the deed was a real transfer, then the farmer could not claim it was a sham. The court held that such inconsistent defences work to the defendant's own detriment.

The court restored the first appellate court's decree in favour of the plaintiff, set aside the High Court's judgment, and ordered the farmer to pay costs.

What this means for every lawyer who steps into a civil court

This judgment is a reminder of three things. First, a civil suit has boundaries. A defendant cannot use the plaintiff's suit as a platform to litigate a separate dispute with a co-defendant. If you have a claim against your co-defendant, file a separate suit — do not try to squeeze it into the plaintiff's case. Second, a registered sale deed carries real weight. Courts will not allow oral evidence to casually displace it. Third, if you are going to raise a statutory defence like the Fragmentation Act, you must do it properly — with a clear pleading and by following the procedure the statute prescribes, including the bar on civil court jurisdiction.

THE PLAY: Never raise a counter-claim against a co-defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff — it is impermissible under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, and the court will strike it down.

The farmer sold the same land twice. But in the end, only one buyer walked away with the title.