Kewal Krishan v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors.
Background
Kewal Krishan and his elder brother Sudarshan Kumar jointly purchased certain properties in 1976. After giving Sudarshan a power of attorney in 1980, Kewal Krishan discovered that Sudarshan had used it to "sell" parts of the property to his own minor sons and wife for a nominal price, and Kewal Krishan sued to have the power of attorney and sale deeds declared void. Courts below gave conflicting findings on whether the brothers were joint owners, whether the sale deeds were genuine, and whether the challenge was filed too late.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found that Sudarshan Kumar had never proved he was the sole owner or that he had paid for Kewal Krishan's share, so the finding that the two brothers were joint owners had become final. On the key question, the Court held that neither Sudarshan's wife nor his minor sons had any proven source of income, and no evidence was ever produced that they actually paid the stated sale consideration, so, under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the "sales" were void for lack of real payment of price. Because the sale deeds were void from the start (not merely voidable), the appellant did not need to separately sue for a declaration within a limitation period; a void document can be challenged whenever and wherever the issue arises. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the lower appellate court's decree recognising the appellant's half share and right to joint possession.
Lesson Learnt
A sale deed executed without any real, proven payment of price is void in law (not just unfair), and a person affected by such a sham sale can challenge it at any later stage without being blocked by a limitation-period technicality, because a void document creates no rights that need to be formally "cancelled" in time.